negan says its signification is-to dip, to plunge into water, to submerge, to wash, to dye, to color. Jones attaches this import to it: I dip, I stain. Hedericus defines it as follows: to immerse, to plunge, to dye; also to wash. Pasor fixes to it this meaning to dip, to immerse, to dye. Groves says it signifies to dip, plunge, immerse, to wash, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, to steep, imbue, to dye. Here we perceive that nine lexicographers give several literal meanings to bapto, yea, make sprinkle a literal signification of the word.

Immersionists, however, inform us that it "has only one proper or specific meaning, all other meanings being figurative or tropical." The reader has the facts before him, to which we invite his careful attention, without comment on our part here, being persuaded that he will come to the conclusion, that either the lexicographers or immersionists are wrong in their expositions on bapto; and that it is much more reasonable to believe the former are right, and the latter wrong, than to believe the latter right, and the former wrong. Το wash, to sprinkle, constitute the great cause of offense to the faith of the immersionist. Had the lexicographers kept clear of giving wash and sprinkle as literal significations of the term, there would not have been such a propensity on the part of immersionists to place all meanings of the term to the account they have opened for figure, except the word dip.

But it may be said that immersionists deny the charge above brought against them, that bapto has only one literal signification. Those who get behind Dr. Carson may--as he contends and proves, though a rigid immersionist, that sprinkle is as literal a meaning of bapto as dip. But is there any other one of them of notoriety that so writes? Yes, we know of another, the author of " Letters" address

ed to Bishop Hoadly, who says that it "signifies to sprinkle," and that it is not used in the Septuagint in one place, where the frequent ceremony of washing the whole body occurs." In proof of our charge we give the following facts. Campbell, their oracle on the subject of baptism, though, for reasons of policy, they do not acknowledge it, says: "Wherever there is bap, there is dip, in fact or in figure." This is not all. Hear him again in unmistakable language: "It is difficult to conceive how any man of letters and proper reflection can for a moment suppose that bapto can ever mean to sprinkle." Dr. Gale occupies the same ground. Hear him: "That BAPTO when it signifies to dye retains the idea of dipping." Again he says: "That when its primary meaning is not retained, which seems to be to dip, it has a metaphorical sense."

Well! well! Has it come to this, that immersionists, in trying to support only dipping in baptism, will express astonishment at the man who can for a moment suppose that bapto ever means to sprinkle? Surely it has. This position, be it remembered, is at war with the lexicons, since they show that dye, wash, and sprinkle, are as literal meanings of bapto, as the word dip. If they (immersionists) were to speak honestly here, they would acknowledge that all lexicographers disagree with them; and in doing so, they would only be following up the example of Carson, who candidly recorded the admission. To attempt to hold on to the lexicographers, on their part, and say that bapto has only one literal meaning, dip, is an outrage on common justice, and a palpable insult to candor and honesty.

We need not another word to show the pitiable and condemned attitude of immersionists on the term bapto: still, for the sake of exposing their errors, and advocating truth, we shall invite the

attention of the reader to the decision of the waterloving Carson on its literal sense and application. In speaking of the term, when applied to dyeing, he says: "Hippocrates used bapto to denote dyeing by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed. When it drops upon the garments [baptetai] they are dyed.” In looking at this act, he was compelled to admit, and to speak thus: "This surely is not dyeing by dipping!" Again he says: "Nearchus relates that the Indians [baptontai] dye their beards;" and then adds: "A word may come to enlarge its meaning, so as to lose sight of its origin. Had it been attended to, Baptists would have found no necessity to prove that bapto, when it signifies to dye, always properly signifies to dye by dipping; and their opponents would have seen no advantage from proving that it signifies dyeing in any manner." Hear him again on this word: "Bapto signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping, though originally it was confined to the latter. Nor are such applications of the word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension of literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words come to depart so far from their original signification?"

Dr. Carson, it will be perceived, freely admits that bapto does as literally express dyeing by sprinkling, as it does dyeing by dipping: hence we have two modes of dyeing the first by dipping, and the second by sprinkling.

Now, from all the preceding considerations, we are forced to this conclusion, that Campbell and his hidden and unhidden followers, may continue to express surprise at a man of letters supposing for a moment that bapto can ever mean to sprinkle, and the followers of Gale give it a metaphorical sense, apart from dipping; still the unprejudiced

mind will unhesitatingly receive the meaning given to it by the lexicons, and supported by Carson as true—that it does as properly and as literally mean to sprinkle as to dip. This decision meets with the approval of the far-famed Dr. Clarke, who says that both bapto and baptizo mean to sprinkle.

A few more examples of the classic use of bapto, before closing this chapter, will be found interesting to the reader. Ælian, when speaking of an old coxcomb, who wanted to appear younger than he was, said, "He endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair by dyeing it." Baphe was the word employed to express the act. Did he dip his hair in the dyeing liquid? Let him believe it that can! He simply applied the liquid to the hair; and by this mode the hair was baptized.

Homer, when speaking of the battle of the frogs and mice, said: "He breathless fell, and the lake was [ebapteto] tinged [or baptized] with blood." Surely the lake was not dipped in blood! It was simply tinged, or baptized, with blood, not in blood.

Aristophanes, when speaking of Magnes, an old comic actor of Athens, said: "He used Lydian music, shaved his face, and [baptomenos] smeared it over with tawny washes." Did he baptize his face by dipping it in tawny washes? No, but simply smeared it, or baptized it with, not in, tawny washes.

Aristotle speaks of a substance, saying, "If it is pressed it [baptei] dyes and colors the hand;" or, in other words, that it baptizes the hand with its coloring juice. And is this the way that the parent of baptizo wholly dips everything and person?

The reader will see that we are not contending against the idea of dipping, in some cases where bapto is used, but against the idea of nearly all immersionists, that it does not mean to sprinkle. The proof is satisfactory, that it does; hence we

exclaim, Alas! alas! poor bap! The dip is not general. Sprinkle is found, in fact, as one of the meanings of bapto, and not in figure. So much then for the mode, through this word, from the lexicons, Carson, the classics, Clarke, and the author of letters to Hoadly.

CHAPTER V.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

THE Scriptural use of bapto now claims our attention. În Lev. xiv, 6: "As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall [bapsei] dip them," that is, in the blood of the slain bird. Let us now turn to the 16th verse of this chapter: "And the priest shall [bapsei] dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand."

In Daniel iv, 33, we learn: "And his body was [ebaphe] wet with the dew of Heaven."

It is useless to collect other examples. These will be found sufficient for our present purpose. In what sense did the priest baptize his finger in the oil? To moisten or smear it, inasmuch as he could not have dipped his finger in the small quantity of oil contained in the hollow of his left hand. If the same quantity of oil had come on his finger out of a vessel, it would have been called a baptism. If we doubt this, look again over the examples given in the 4th chapter, and doubt will at once be removed. Did not a little blood baptize the lake? And did not the substance pressed baptize the hand? Of a truth, our position here will not admit the possibility of denial or dispute.