man again rises."" "Cyrel, of Jerusalem, uses this language: Plunge them [kataduete] down thrice into the water, and raise them up again.""

Here we perceive kataduo employed in a number of instances to express immersion, which is indeed very remarkable, if baptizo was regarded as a specific term, definitely setting forth the mode. It was not so regarded then, or they would not have called in another term to define the act of baptism. Surely it is here evident that they understood terms entirely different from the immersionists of this age. Who can doubt this?

From this cursory examination into the fact that the Savior and the Apostles could have found other words more explicit than baptizo, we have but become the more established in what we plainly stated in the preceding chapter on the term; inasmuch as we learn from the examples there given, that when the thing was done, the word baptism was applied to name it, which is in perfect keeping with our decided conviction, that the province of baptizo is to point out a thing accomplished, without any definite regard to mode. Here we may well observe, let no man state, with these truths strung out before him, that there is not another word in the Greek language to express immersion, if baptizo be excluded. This we have clearly proved to be an error from the preceding quotations.

But in bringing this chapter to a close, and the point aimed at to a bearing, we shall give an example from the classics, which will evidently establish much of what is said above, when in contrast with examples from the Scriptures. Themistius, Orat. 4, p. 133, says, "The pilot cannot tell but he may save one in the voyage that had better be drowned [baptisai] sunk into the sea." The Savior, in speaking on a subject that involved the same idea, employed katapontisthe to express the act of

drowning. His words are: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned [katapontisthe] in the depths of the sea." 1 Timothy vi, 9, Paul speaks thus: "They that will be rich fall into hurtful lusts, which drown [buthizusi] men in destruction."

Comment here would be useless. The reader can see how the Savior and Paul avoided the use of baptizo in setting forth the idea of dipping or plunging. In short, this aspect of the case leaves the term baptize with us, as if protected by inspiration, to express affusion. If they intended otherwise, is it not an unaccountable matter, that they did not use baptizo to express these acts, which unequivocally express the thought of dipping? Who of the immersing family will meet this, and give a satisfactory reason?

CHAPTER XV.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

In this chapter we shall make our main issue on the term baptizo. Our position is, that pouring, sprinkling, immersing, drowning, washing, and overwhelming were denominated by it, in the past ages, by the lights of the world; and moreover, that it never did, of itself, necessarily express the exact character of any act to which it applied, apart from explanatory words with which it stood connected. This is in perfect harmony with Horsey's declaration: "Baptism is an equivocal, open, general term." Again he gives us this thought, that all that can be determined from it is, "that water should be applied to the subject in some form or other."

* F

We shall now proceed to bring our issue on baptizo fairly and plainly before the reader, so that he may judge understandingly between us and those who attach but one meaning to it-immerse; and in doing so, it will be necessary to give their positions, yea, their own words. Dr. Carson says, "My position is, that it [baptizo] always signifies to dip; never expressing any thing but mode." Mr. A. Campbell says, "Baptism is not a mode-it is an action. The word that represents it is improperly, by Mr. Carson, called a word of mode. I had the honor of first exposing the sophistry of this word mode. Since 1820, the word action is being substituted for mode." (See his debate with Dr. Rice, p. 96.) Dr. Gale says: "The word, [baptizo] perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it." (See Carson on Baptism, p. 21, from which this quotation is taken.)

The reader will please bear in mind our position, and the positions of these distinguished writers of the immersing family, while he follows us up to, and through, the proofs which this chapter will present-proofs that will, without inference or implication, most conclusively sustain our creed on the word, and most decidedly uproot their wild, narrow, and conflicting opinions.

We said that pouring was expressed by the term baptizo. Aurelius Prudentius, A. D. 390, spoke of John as baptizing by pouring water-"per fundit fluvio." Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the same date, represented John as baptizing by pouring water--"infusis lymphis." Bernard, when he spoke of the baptism of the Savior by John, said, "The creature poured water on the head of the Creator." We shall now hear Origen, the learned Greek

"How came you

father, on this point, who says, to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not, in Ahab's time, baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire? But he ordered the priests to do that; not once only, but says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time: and, do it the third time; and they did it the third time. He, therefore, that did not himself baptize then, but assigned that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, should come. (See Wall's Hist. of Inf. Bap., vol. 2, p. 332.) Elijah simply had the wood wet by an act of pouring. (See 1 Kings xviii, 33.)

Walker, an English writer, who studied the history of baptism with great care, gives us to understand that a man, some sixty or seventy years after the apostles, who became sick in a desert, where there was no water, had sand sprinkled thrice on him for a baptism; and, that when he recovered, and his case was brought before a bishop, the bishop decided he was baptized, "If only water were poured on him." (See Pond, p. 45.) Now, do we not clearly prove, by the highest authority known to the early age of Christianity, that acts of pourings were denominated baptisms? Then, is not the first feature of our position sustained? Who will deny this?

We said that sprinkling was expressed by the term baptizo. The previous example shows that the person who sprinkled the sand on the sick man, regarded the act as expressed by the word under investigation. Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of a backslider that was reclaimed by the apostle John, said: “He was baptized a second time with tears." Athanasius reckoned up eight baptisms, "of tears." Lactantius one of which he said was

used this language: "That he might save the Gentiles by baptism, that is, by the distilling of the purifying dew." We shall now hear Cyprian, bishop of Carthage: "And no man need, therefore, think otherwise, because these sick people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling; when as the Holy Scriptures, by the prophet Ezekiel, says: 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you." (See Wall's Hist. of Inf. Bap., pp. 357, 358.) It is worthy of remark here, that sixty-six bishops united with Cyprian in the opinion, that sprinkling was expressed by the term baptizo. Josephus, speaking of baptizo, as found in Luke xi, 38, said, it seems to be used concerning washing of hands, which was done by sprinkling." Cyprian, when speaking of those who had been baptized by affusion, observed that the parties should not be "baptized again." Now, do we not also prove by the highest authority known to the early age of the church, that acts of sprinklings were called baptisms? Then, is not the second feature of our position sustained? But, should any man dissent from this, let him ask the fathers, and not us, why they so used the word. They prove to us all we desire, and all that is of interest to the church on this question.

We said that immersion was expressed by the term baptizo. In getting at this sense of the term, we must not only get out of the apostolic age, but out of the Scriptures: for we have no proof of dipping in the days of the apostles, and Dr. Addington well said, "We have not met with one text in the whole Bible that requires the immersion of the whole body." By turning, however, to Pagan writers, we can find this idea attached to the word. Plutarch says, "Then plunging [baptison] himself into the lake Copais." This sustains the third feature of our position, without another word thereon.