and sprinklings, will not the doctrine of exclusive immersion be ruined, while the Scriptures and the lexicons will be found in perfect agreement on the term? The lexicographer before us gives wash, and the translators of our English version gave wash, when setting forth the true sense of baptizo. Were they right in doing so? Is the lexicon before us right? The Scriptures must decide.

Divers baptismois-that is, divers baptisms, rendered in the English version, divers washings. We are compelled to be particular here, in order to show the English reader that the word wash is the same in meaning with baptizo; and that baptizo means to sprinkle, as it speaks through its noun form.

19:

These are the baptisms spoken of by the apostle, in Hebrews ix, 10; Exodus xxix, 4: "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring to the door of the tabernacle, and [louseis] wash them." Exodus xxx, "For Aaron and his sons shall [nipsetai] wash their hands and feet." Exodus xxx, 20: "When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall [nipsontai] wash with water." Leviticus xiv, 8: "And he that is to be cleansed, shall [lousetai] wash himself in water." Deuteronomy xxi, 6: "And all the elders of that city shall [nipsontai] wash their hands over the heifer." 2 Chronicles iv, 6: "He made also ten lavers, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to [plunein] wash in them: such things as they offered for the burnt offering they [apokluzein] washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to [niptesthai] wash in." Leviticus xvi, 14, 15: "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and [ranei] sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy-seat eastward, and before the mercy-seat shall he [ranei] sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he

did with the blood of the bullock, and [ranei] sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercyseat." To show that these sprinklings are included in the apostle's use of baptismois, we have only to quote from Hebrews ix, 13, 14: "For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, [rantizousa] sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God." In the 19th yerse of this chapter we read: "Moses took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and the people." The only question here is, are these the acts that the apostle calls baptisms? We emphatically say, they are. Moses sprinkled the people. This is called a baptism by Paul. Ah! this is the point. Here we have the use of the bap to designate it--but where is the dip? The priest sprinkled the blood before the mercy-seat. Here, too, we have the use of the bap to designate it, but where is the dip? Aaron and his sons washed with water. Here again, as well as in all the other cases, we have the bap employed to embrace the act-but where is the dip?

Now, do we not prove from these quotations that washings and sprinklings-yea, that acts called sprinklings with blood, and washings with water, by the Holy Spirit, are, in the language of Paul, baptisms-divers baptisms? The previous acts are the divers baptisms.

We selected one lexicographer who defines baptizo-often to wash. Does not this defination strikingly harmonize with the translation, divers washings? But when we come to see the meaning exemplified in the Old Testament, and to hear baptizo speaking through its noun, baptismois, we

find it in reality sprinkling. Let no man then ever say that there is not an act of sprinkling in the Scriptures called a baptism. We named above many that are called washings and sprinklings. Yes yes, and invite the immersionist to the task of contradiction.

Here we might stop-make a full pause; inasmuch as we have proved by Paul all we advocate, that an act of sprinkling is properly expressed by baptizo. But we shall not, until we show every honest mind that exclusive immersion has not the shadow of a foundation in either the Scriptures or the classics.

In the course of chapters yet to be written we shall trace the word through many windings—all of which will be found ruinous to the claims of a total immersion. In bringing this chapter to a close, however, we shall contrast the opinion of immersionists on the word with the definitions of the lexicographers, and the use Paul makes of it. A. Campbell says: "Baptizo is a specific word, and as such, can have but one proper, original, and literal meaning." A man of a tender conscience, of nice modesty, might well blush here. What! The term has but one literal meaning! Do the lexicons say so? Nay, but give many literal meanings. Does Paul's use of it accord with Campbell's position? Nay, but shows the bap, where sprinkling appears.

Carson says: "My position is that it [baptizo] always signifies to dip; never expressing any thing but mode. Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons." What! all the lexicographers and commentators against the idea, that baptize has only one meaning! No wonder that the water-chariot rolls on heavily-having to

contend against all the lexicons and commentators. This is a candid confession of Carson. We respect him for it. All the exclusive immersionists ought to do likewise. But after all, is not the position an extraordinary assumption, fearful in its aspect, and alarming in its consequences? If Carson had said that Paul was against him too, he would have only thereby admitted another feature of truth.

Is it not sufficient to make patience bristle, and sense revolt, when we hear immersionists, throughout these lands, assert that the lexicons, and all great men, and the Scriptures, justify their exclusive doctrine of dipping?

Our conclusion is, that all the lexicons and commentators, and Paul too, are against exclusive immersion--Campbell's declaration being a witness, and Carson deciding. And we may here add, tropical meanings also-the great Ernesti being judge; inasmuch as he informs us thus: "The primitive or proper signification, strictly understood, often becomes obsolete. In this case, the secondary sense, which would have been the tropical one, becomes the proper one?"

Amid all, however, let it be kept in mind that the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, called acts of sprinklings baptisms. This is the best lexicon, the unerring lexicon, after all, to which every inquirer in the ways of truth must bow, and before which every tongue must be silent.

So much then for baptizo from the lexicons and the Scriptures. The doctrine of springling is expressed by it in the latter, and a washing with water in the former, which is affusion.

CHAPTER VII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

In our last we turned the attention of the reader to the various significations of baptizo, as found in the first lexicons; and then to the pleasing fact, that its position in the Scriptures perfectly agrees with the office assigned it by the lexicographers--to wash, which we found, by reference to the Old Testament, to be neither more nor less than the application of water to persons, and the sprinkling of blood. In view of this, we would now stand ready to illustrate the doctrine of affusion in baptism from the classic use of the term, and its use by the Scriptures and the fathers, only for the consideration, that immersionists inform the unlearned and unread that the word ought to have been translated immerse, and would have been so, had King James not prohibited the translators. This, of course, demands our attention here, as we purpose, while sustaining affusion in baptism, to cut off every plea and subterfuge of the immersing family.

To show that this is an error of a most pitiable character, we have only to quote from their own authority. The New York Recorder for 1850, a leading Baptist journal, after making it evident that the word baptize was found in the earliest specimens of English literature, and used among the common people before our early translations, gives to the world this idea: "That any attempt to displace it would have been as futile as an attempt to divide the seas. Immerse during this time was a word unknown to the language; so far as we can discover, its first introduction being as immerge, which is found in Lord Bacon, who lived contemporaneously with King James' translators. Even