ory does not deceive us, has it, immersed into Moses. Pray, if Moses were to rise from the dead, and to hear that all Israel were immersed into him, would he not feel surprised at the advocate of ancient Christianity restored?

We shall conclude this chapter with one quotation more, hoping that the reader is now better pleased with the plain and beautiful statements of the Old English Bible than he ever was before.

John x, 40: "And went away again beyond the Jordan, into the place where John at first immersed, and remained there."

Well, if John first immersed in Jordan, how did it come to pass that Jesus went into the place where he first immersed, and remained there? Could he go into Jordan, and remain there? Ah! this is the point.

Those intended for destruction by the gods, are first made mad. How appropriate the idea here!

Now, let us take one of these examples, say the first, the case of Naaman, and we shall find it ripe with affusion. The prophet told him to wash, not to baptize, in Jordan. Baptizo was afterward substituted for louo by the writer of Kings, and occupies the attitude of the word wash, as a substituted word always drops its native meaning, and assumes the meaning of the term it represents. This is the situation of baptizo here, and the man that does not know this, ought not to be reasoned with. The Baptist Bible has it bathe. This word affords no ground for controversy here. It will suit our purpose as well as wash. Naaman was told to bathe or wash in Jordan. Now, if a man have a disease on his arm, and is told to wash or bathe, by a physician, in a basin, or in a pond, does he understand the instruction to imply a total immersion of the body, not excepting the hairs of his head? He

E

does not; nor did any reasonable man so understand such instruction since the world began.

He washed in Jordan, or bathed in Jordan. A. washed, or bathed in a basin, in a pond, in a river. Did A. dip his whole body in the basin? No. He simply washed in the basin. To wash in any place, is generally understood to wash with the water contained in the place pointed out by the word in. "I washed this morning in a bowl," says B. The meaning is, he washed with the water contained in the bowl. A child ought to comprehend this.

See then how the washing or bathing of Naaman sets forth the idea of affusion!

Let us now see if the Scriptures will not justify this view. Lev. xiv, 7: "And he [the priest] shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from his leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean." In the 8th verse: "And he that is to be cleansed shall wash himself in water." Surely the prophet had this in view when he told Naaman to wash seven times in Jordan. If not, why such an agreement between him and the act of the priest in sprinkling seven times?

Naaman applied the water of Jordan to his leprosy, and in this sense washed in Jordan. This is the way baptizo works in the Scriptures!

CHAPTER XIII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

THE reader will please bear in mind that the last two chapters disclose to us this truth, that baptizo is made to signify to bathe, also to pour, according to the translations of Campbell and the Baptists. Now, if there is not a shade of difference between baptize and bathe, why did not the Baptist translation always give immerse? The work shows that this thought was felt, seriously felt, when the word immerse had to be given up for the word bathe, a term that often signifies affusion in all its forms. Campbell labored under the same feeling when he allowed the_word pour a place in his publication of the New Testament; a term, in the connection in which it stands, which represents the full meaning of baptizo in Luke xi,

38.

Of a truth, in view of these considerations, we may well say, out of their own mouths we find their whole system condemned.

We shall now, notwithstanding this, give the immersionist a fair hearing before the bar of the classics. But in proceeding to bring the mind of the reader up to this point we remark, that he cannot have his eyes and mind too often refreshed with these facts, that the Greek of the New Testament and classic Greek are not to be understood in all particulars exactly alike, and on some things widely different-that classic lexicons and lexicons on the New Testament, ought never to be confounded.This needful and absolutely necessary distinction, if always made, would save the public mind from the fearful absurdities of immersionists, and qualify it to hear and judge understandingly. Let us here take the classic signification of baptizo, for an

illustration, in contrast with its Scriptural signification. The lexicographer, Robinson, speaking of baptizo in a classic sense, says, it signifies, "To immerse, to sink ;" but says, when speaking of its Scriptural sense, that it means, "To wash, to cleanse by washing, to wash oneself, to bathe, perform ablutions." Does not this aspect of the term materially alter the case, and show that there is a wide difference between the classic meaning of the word and the signification attached to it in the Scriptures? Does not the former begin with immerse, and the latter with wash? We cannot conceive how men can reconcile their conduct with moral honesty, when they palm off on the public mind the classic sense of the term-knowing that the Apostles neither spoke nor wrote classic Greek, but merely employed Greek words to convey their thoughts to others. The Apostles were Hebrews, and as such they wrote and spoke, conveying Hebrew ideas through the medium of Greek terms.— The Hebrew-Greek, or Hellenistic dialect, is the name given to the original language of the New Testament by the learned world.

We shall, however, show in this chapter, that baptizo is used precisely, in the classics, to express a thing that had been done, or should be done; and not definitely to express mode. If we sustain this -and sustain it we shall-we then drive the advocates of exclusive immersion from their pagan grounds, and leave their cause hopeless from this quarter.

Aratus says, "If the crow has baptized [ebapsato] his head in the river." Now, if as much water had come on the crow's head, would not Aratus have called it a baptism? We are satisfied he would, and shall prove this to be so by the next example. The manner of the act of the crow was not intended by the writer, but the act itself; for he must have

known that it generally wets only one side at a time, being instinctively so taught, for self-protection.

If this be the classic use of baptizo, there is but poor encouragement from this quarter for the advocates of total dipping. If as small a portion of a person were dipped in water as there was of the crow, we are certain that the act would not be called an immersion. But it may be said that Aratus only spoke of a baptism of the head. We know this, and here ask, how much of the candidate is immersed under water, by some ministers who cause the person to get down on his knees, so that nothing but the head and shoulders are plunged by them! Do not all such candidates, immerse three-fourths of themselves? are totally plunged by the ministers. There ought to be some improvement made here, or all such baptisms might justly be classified with the example before us, a baptism of the head. This point is seriously stated, and as seriously felt; for we cannot see how men can speak of total immersion, while the candidate wets the greater portion of himself.

Yet we are told they

Here is the promised example. Hippocrates, when giving directions concerning a blister plaster, said: "Baptize [baptizo] or moisten it with breast milk or Egyptian ointment." Now, no matter what plan was adopted to apply the breast milk to it, the process favored affusion, or was actually affusion. If the breast milk was applied directly from the breast, then the act was affusion; and if the milk was secured in a vessel, it had to be poured on the plaster, and the act was affusion. In either case, the use of the word here ruins the claim of immersion. But was there any other way of having the plaster baptized with milk! We know of one more, and only one-namely, that of having

E

*