In what sense did the priest [bapsei] dip the living bird, the cedar, the scarlet, and the hyssop, in the blood of the slain bird? Simply to slightly wet them, or moisten them, which answered all the design he had in view, which was to do a work of sprinkling. The conclusion on the previous example would apply here.

And in what sense was Nebuchadnezzar [ebaphe] wet with the dew of heaven? The understanding of the matter would seem thus: he was wet nightly by reason of small particles of water falling on him, moistening him, or sprinkling him-the mode a descent. This baptism clearly sets forth the act of affusion. He was wet with the dew of heaven, that is, baptized with the dew of heaven.

An immersionist may take occasion to enter an objection to our stress on with in the baptism of Nebuchadnezzar, by saying that the original reads ebaphe apo, which signify to wet from. Very well. Now let us see if an appeal to the original will help immersion. Ebaphe apo. That is to say, baptized from the dews of heaven. Will this make the case any better for the immersionist? It will not. Whether we say baptized with the dews of heaven, or baptized from the dews of heaven-the idea of immersion is out of the question. If a cloud covered the king as a garment, still immersion was out of the question, as the cloud descended on him -a thing incompatible with immersion, which sets forth the idea of dipping into, and not a coming on. The king was baptized with the dews of heaven; that is, sprinkled with descending dews, either directly from the clouds, or from the leaves of trees, under which he took shelter.

An immersionist may enter an exception to our views on the baptism of the bird, the cedar, the scarlet, and the hyssop, by saying there was water used with the blood of the slain bird. Now let us

see how much the water will help his cause. Dr. Clarke informs us, according to the statement of the Rabbins, that there was only an egg-shell and a half full of water used with the blood of the slain bird; and of course the living bird, the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop, could not have been immersed in so small a quantity of water and blood.

Would it not sound strange now to hear a man say that he immersed a living bird, the cedar, the scarlet, and the hyssop, in such a small quantity of blood and water? Remarkably so. These things, as above said, were moistened with the blood and water, that the priest might sprinkle therewith.

And an immersionist may say, objecting to our representation of the priest baptizing his finger in oil, that bapsei apo are employed to express the act. Well, we are apprised of this. Bapsei apo. That is to say, he shall baptize from the oil-moisten, or wet his finger from or with the oil. This is the true sense of the passage. If it were bapsei eis, the immersionist would have some ground to go on; but as the matter stands here, there is not a resting place for the thought of a total immersion.

In view of these baptisms, what is our conviction? It is this: we have the bap, but alas for poor dip! We shall now proceed to hear what some of the old versions have to say on bupto. The old Syriac version, Rev. xix, 13, reads thus: "And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood." The Vulgate, translated by Jerome, reads: "He was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood." The Ethiopic reads: "Sprinkled."

In addition to this Origen, the learned Greek father, in giving the sense of the above passage in the form of a quotation, presented bebammenon, a participle of bapto, in the garb of errantismenon, a participle from rantizo, which signifies to sprinkle.

This aspect of the case makes so much against the theory of the immersing family, that Dr. Gale supposes there had been a copy of the New Testament which had rantizo, where bapto ought to have been; and that this led Origen and others into error, and caused the word sprinkle to have a place in their works.

Dr. Carson, though as great a lover of water as Gale, dissents from this view, and remarks: "Misapprehension of the meaning of the passage, it is much more likely, has substituted errantismenon for bebammenon.”

Dr. Gale, in order to support immersion, ventures the thought, that there was a copy of the Scriptures which did not exactly correspond with the one we now have. Dr. Carson is not disposed to follow Gale here, but asserts that misapprehension caused the introduction of the word sprinkle, as a fit representative of bapto.

We come now to close our remarks on bapto; and in doing so we ask, what are we to think of a cause that has to be propped up by impeaching the knowledge of Origen with misapprehension of a Greek word--by doubting the correctness of the copy of the Scriptures to which he had access-byturning the plain, literal significations of bapto, into tropical ones, in defiance of the high authority of the lexicons, and by rejecting the common import of the term, both in the classics and the Scriptures, and receiving and advocating far-fetched and fanciful interpretations? That the cause of immersion is sorely pressed-cannot be sustained; and moreover, that it is as badly founded as Campbell's idea," wherever there is bap, there is dip, in fact or in figure."

We stand persuaded that we have presented a sufficient array of facts and reasoning to convince every honest mind that bapto, the parent of baptizo,

and the entire family of words that express baptisms, signifies, literally, to SPRINKLE, to moisten or wet, by bringing things in contact with the fluid, and by bringing the fluid in contact with the person or things. This is sufficient. We want no more. Bapto signifies to sprinkle.

CHAPTER VI.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

HAVING concluded our last chapter with what we had to say on bapto, we are now ready to proceed to the consideration of the darling word of every immersionist—we mean baptizo. We shall first, however, hear what the lexicographers have to say on this term. Hedericus.-Baptizo-to dip, immerse, to cover with water, to cleanse, to wash; to baptize in a sacred sense. Stephanus.-Baptizo-to dip, immerse, to merge, submerge, to cover with water, to cleanse, to wash. Scapula.--Baptizo-to dip or immerse, to dye, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing them; also to plunge, submerge, to cover with water; also to cleanse, to wash. Schleusner.-Baptizo-to plunge, immerse, to cleanse, wash, to purify with water. Parkhurst.Baptizo--to immerse in or wash with water, in token of purification. Robinson.-Baptizo-to immerse, to sink. In the New Testament to wash, to cleanse by washing; to wash oneself, to bathe, perform ablutions. Schrivellius.--Baptizo-to baptize, to immerse, to cleanse, to wash. Groves.--Baptizoto dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify; Baptizomai--to wash oneself, bathe. Suidas.-Baptizo-to sink, plunge, immerse,wet, wash, cleanse, purify. Bretschneider.--Baptizo-often to

dip, often to wash, to cleanse. Wahl.-Baptizo-to wash, perform ablutions, cleanse; secondly, to immerse. Greenfield.--Baptizo--to immerse, submerge, sink; and in the New Testament, to wash, perform ablutions, cleanse, to immerse.

Here we have the definations of twelve lexicographers. The reader can at once see the number of meanings attached to the term-that it signifies to wash; in any sense, to perform abolutions, in any manner; and to wet, and the like, in any manner.

Let the reader distinctly remember, that lexicons, on the meaning of baptizo in the Scriptures, begin with the word wash. See Robinson, as above given. If this very necessary distinction were always made, and the public mind so informed; and that the classic lexicons generally begin with dip, sink, plunge, or immerse--giving wash as a literal meaning the controversy on the mode of baptism might easily be terminated; inasmuch as the Scriptures show that washings were called baptisms by no less than Paul. We said that the controversy on the mode of baptism could easily be brought to an end, if the public mind but knew that the lexicographers, on the Scriptures, give wash as the first meaning of baptizo; and that the Scriptures call acts of washings, and of sprinklings, baptisms.

We shall take the significations given to the word by Bretschneider-often to dip, often to wash; that is, that baptizo often means to wash, as well as to dip, and prove that the Scriptures exactly agree with the often to wash.

Let us turn to Hebrews ix, 10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers [baptismois) washings." Let it here be understood, before we turn to the divers baptisms spoken of, that baptismois is a noun dative, from baptizo. Now, if the acts called baptisms by the apostle, can be made appear to be neither more nor less than washings