Hippocrates. He, as we have seen, uses the word bapto to denote dyeing a garment by dropping upon it the coloring fluid. "When it drops upon the garments, (baptetai) they are dyed," or as perhaps my friend would say, they are immersed! Then, when water is poured upon an individual, of course he is immersed; and this is all Mr. C. could ask!

Carson quotes the following sentence from Arrian's Expedition of Alexander the Great: "Nearchus relates, that the Indians (baptontai) dye their beards ;" and he remarks-"It will not be contended that they dyed their beards by immersion."-So Mr. Carson is with us again.

Ælian, speaking of an old coxcomb who endeavored to conceal his age by dyeing his hair, says, He endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair, by dyeing it"-(baphe.) "Baphe," says Carson, "here denotes dyeing in general; for hair on the head is not dyed by dipping."

Homer, in his Battle of Frogs and Mice, uses the following language: "He breathless fell, and the lake was tinged (ebapteto) with blood." Or would you say, the lake was immersed in his blood!

66

66

Aristophanes says, Magnes, an old comic actor of Athens, used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and smeared it over (baptomenos) with tawny washes." On this passage, Dr. Gale remarks, " He speaks of the homely entertainments of the ancient theatre, where the actors daubed themselves with lees of wine and many odd colors, before Eschylus reformed it, and introduced the use of masks and vizors. Aristophanes expresses this by baptomenos, batracheiois, not that he supposes they dipped their faces into the color, but rather smeared the color on their faces." Reflec. on Wall's Hist. of Inf. Bap., v. iii. Aristotle speaks of a substance, which, "if it is pressed, dyes (baptei) and colors the hand."

p. 109.

I could produce many other examples of the use of bapto, where it cannot mean to dip, or immerse; but it is unnecessary, since Mr. Carson, the learned Baptist critic, admits that it signifies to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. If, then, the words bapto and baptizo agree in meaning, so far as mode is concerned; what becomes of the argument of Mr. C. for immersion, derived from the meaning of baptizo?

Let me now turn your attention to the classic usage of the word baptizo. And here I repeat what I have before asserted, that, if necessary, I will prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in the classics which are supposed to favor immersion, this word signifies sinking to the bottom. And is that the ACTION for which my opponent is contending?

But here is a passage in which baptizo signifies moistening or wetting. Plutarch, relating the stratagem of a Roman general a little before he died of his wounds, says: "He set up a trophy, on which, having baptized (baptisas) his hand in blood, he wrote this inscription," &c. Did he immerse his hand in blood in order to write? Is not baptizo here used simply in the sense of wetting or moistening?

Hypocrates directs, concerning a blister plaster, if it be too painful, "to baptize or moisten it with breast milk or Egyptian ointment." Did he intend, that the plaster should be immersed in breast milk? Is this the direction which physicians are accustomed to give concerning blister plasters? Evidently, the word is here used in the sense of moistening. Dr. Gale, a learned immersionist, furnishes us with an example in which the word baptizo certainly does not express the action for which my friend, Mr. C., is contending. Aristotle says, "The Phenicians, who inhabit Cadiz, relate, that sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four

days, with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and is not overflowed (baptizesthai) at ebb'; but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered." On this passage, Dr. Gale thus remarks: " Besides, the word baptizo, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as, in general, a thing's being in that condition; no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes on it."-Reflec. on Wall's Hist. vol. iii., p. 122.

The land, we are told, was not baptized at ebb, but was overflowed by the tide. Is the land put into the water, or does the water flow over it? Gale certainly gives up the question; for he says baptizo does not so necessarily express the action (the very thing my friend is contending for) of putting into water, as in general a thing's being in that state, no matter how it comes so.

We have now gone somewhat into the classics; and I care not to what extent the investigation may be pursued: for, as before remarked, I will, if necessary, prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in which the use of the word is supposed to favor immersion, it occurs in relation to the sinking of ships, the drowning of men, &c. Surely these are not the actions for which the gentleman is contending. There are, moreover, as we have just seen, examples in which this word comes far short of immersion.

One of the most serious errors of the gentleman, and of those who agree with him on this subject, is their undue reliance upon classic usage to determine the meaning of words found in the Scriptures. The pagan Greeks are certainly unsafe guides in the exposition of the language of the New Testament; so the best critics declare. And it is on this account, that we have Lexicons of the New Testament. To give a single example, Dr. Geo. Campbell says, the word flesh has, in the New Testament, six meanings, not more than one of which is found in classic authors. The principle holds good in regard to hundreds of words.

I am, therefore, inclined to come to the Bible usage-and since our friends (the reformers,) boast of going by the Book, I would a little prefer appealing to it. I am prepared to prove by the ablest critics, that the usage of the Bible, and of the Jews in their religious writings, is the only tribunal by which to determine the meaning of words in the New Testament; and, in these writings, I can prove that the word baptizo rarely, if ever, signifies to immerse.

[Mr. Rice here asks the moderators whether his time has expired; and being informed that he might yet occupy two minutes, he proceeds :] Before sitting down I will state two facts, which go to prove that classic usage cannot determine the meaning of words used in the New Testament:

First-The inspired apostles did not speak or write classic Greek. They were Jews; and, as critics tell us, they not only could not speak classic Greek, but they could not have understood it.

Second-The character, manners, habits, customs and religion of the Jews were widely different from those of the pagan Greeks; hence the usage of the latter cannot determine the meaning of words employed by the former.

It is, moreover, a fact, that the pagan Greeks never employed the word baptizo with reference to religious washings, but always with reference to things in common life. And it is a fact, that the Jews

(except Josephus, who sought to imitate the classic Greek,) never used it in their religious writings, in relation to matters of common life, but always in relation to religious washings. Now, it is a principle of interpretation, that words often have one meaning in matters of common life, and quite a different meaning in matters of religion. Consequently, even if the word baptizo had, in classic usage, the meaning for which my friend (Mr. C.) contends; it would by no means follow, that it has the same meaning in the New Testament.—[Time expired.

Thursday, Nov. 16-10 o'clock, A. M.

[MR. CAMPBELL'S FOURTH ADDRESS.]

MR. PRESIDENT-I am much gratified, sir, to observe the improvement in the health and energy of my friend, Mr. Rice. He seems to have slept profoundly on the work of yesterday, and appears refreshed and invigorated, and eager for the work before him. His speech this morning is, however, but a reiteration of the developments of yesterday. It amounts to neither more nor less than this; The word baptizo sometimes signifies to wash. He talks of other meanings. They amount, however, to no more than this.

I concur with him, indeed, in the necessity of an occasional recapitulation, and in the propriety of keeping the main question before us. It is important to have frequent recurrence to the points at issue, and to the progress made. What then is the question-the main issue? Not whe ther we Baptists are right? That is not the question. Mr. Rice himself concedes that we are right in the practice of immersion. Greek and Roman, ancient and modern christians, all sects and parties, agree that immersion is good and valid baptism. That is not the question, nor the point to be discussed and decided here. We have a tremendous, an overwhelming majority of those who so believe. The question is, whether our Pedo-baptist friends are right? Whether there are two distinct baptisms; one immersing, the other sprinkling or wetting a person by Divine authority. Methinks it would suffice to prove to ordinary minds that immersion is baptism; and then, as there is but one baptism, sprinkling cannot be that one baptism. But let me ask, what are the essentials of baptism? They are usually said to be four: 1. A proper subject—2. A proper action-3. The Divine formula of words, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and 4. A proper administrator. These are the sole and necessary requisites. A failure in any one of these may affect the validity of baptism.

The question now before us concerns the action-the thing commanded to be done. This is, of course, the most important point-the significant and all-absorbing point. Paul gives it high rank and consequence when he says, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." There are not two modes of any one of these. When we have ascertained that one action called baptism, there can be no other. I said yesterday, and I repeat it this morning, that it is wholly sophistical to talk of two modes of baptism, unless, indeed, it be two ways of immersing a person. In this sense there may be a plurality of modes. A person may be immersed backwards or forwards, kneeling or standing. Other modes than these there cannot be. Sprinkling is not a mode of immersing; neither is immersion a mode of sprinkling. If sprinkling, pouring, and immersion be modes of baptism, then, I ask, what is the thing called baptism? Who can explain this? Of what are these three specifically different actions,

the mode? If sprinkling be a mode, and pouring a mode, and immersing a mode, then baptism is something incognito-something which no philologist, or lexicographer can explain. I pronounce these modes an unmeaning, sophistical jargon, which no one can comprehend.

Baptism is not a mode-it is an action. The word that represents it is improperly, by Mr. Carson, called a word of mode. It is a specific action; and the verb that represents it is a verb of specific import; else there is no such verb in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin.

I had the honor of first exposing the sophistry of this word mode, and of publicly repudiating it some twenty-three years ago, in a debate on this same question. I showed the superior prowess of the Pedo-baptist in introducing this term. He gained half the controversy by calling immersion a mode of baptism. When the honest and unsuspecting Baptist received the imposition, he was half defeated. He felt that he had but a mode, and the Pedo-baptist had another mode, and they both had baptism! The controversy was then reduced to a question of mere mode; whereas the true and real debate is about a thing, an action, and not at all about a mode. The Messiah commanded a solemn and most significant action, and not a mode. Since 1820 the word action is being substituted for mode.

The gentleman has given you several quotations from classic authors, a number of which I intended to have read, and some of them belong not to the word in debate. For good reasons our Lawgiver chose the word baptizo, not bapto. The former is therefore found 120 times, in some of its flexions and forms, in the New Testament, while we have the latter only six times. They are both said to be specific words by Mr. Carson; whilst he most singularly, it would seem, gives bapto both a specific and generic meaning. It is impossible that any word can be both specific and generic. Dyeing, coloring, staining, and dipping, are not of one class of words. Dyeing may be done many ways; so may coloring, staining; but dipping can be done but one way. Therefore no one word can be specific, which represents them both, in its true and proper meaning.

Our issue, says Mr. Rice, after all, depends upon the lexicographers. They are, no doubt, a proper court of appeal, but they are not the supreme court of appeal. They have themselves to appeal to the classics and approved writers for their authority. They are often wrong. Mr. Carson says they are all wrong in affirming that wash is a secondary meaning of baptizo. We all appeal from them to the classics. No learned man will ever rest his faith upon dictionaries. He will appeal from them, in very many cases, to their teachers, the classics. They often interpolate their own caprices, and insert their own whims and prejudices. Yet with all their prejudices and caprices, no lexicographer has been produced, nor can there be one now produced, who during 1800 years, (and before that time we have none,) translated baptizo by sprinkle or pour; while they all, without one single exception, have translated the word immerse, or dip, or plunge, or immerge, words of one and the same signification. Nor can any classic author be produced in which baptizo means to sprinkle or pour. This is full proof of my proposition, let men assert what they please. Many Pedo-baptists think it means to sprinkle, and therefore they so practice. But for this, I again say, they have no authority, classic, lexicographic, or sacred.

After all, this is a question of authority. My friend, Mr. Rice, has his

opinion, and other men have their opinions. Every man's opinion is equal to the amount of his intelligence and his honesty. The opinions of lexicographers are to be estimated as other opinions. My opponent says he has proved from the lexicons, ancient and modern, that baptizo has several distinct meanings, therefore I have failed in proving that it has but one proper meaning. All this is easily said, and quite as easily repeated. But it is only an opinion, and of course I, as well as many others, am of a different opinion. And we have our reasons for these opinions. I have, indeed, as yet, only offered a portion, a very small portion of my evidence; still from that I opine it is quite obvious that there is no authority for his opinion. I have been quoting all my proofs from Pedo-baptists, from dictionaries made by them, both classical, and also theological. They generally, indeed, give wash, or cleanse, or some purifying word, after giving the proper meaning. They always and universally, however, despite of their prejudices, give dip as the proper and native meaning of the word. The other definitions, as we shall still more fully show, are accidental or contingent acceptations, rather than meanings of the word. The difference between our witnesses then is this; Mr. Rice is maintaining his opinions by witnesses selected out of his own Pedo-baptist party, while I am quoting his own witnesses, and never once using any one of my party, ancient or modern. He might as well quote the clergymen in this house, of his own church, as the authors he has already quoted, to maintain his conclusions; and I might as well quote them too, to prove mine, as most of those whom I do quote. If from such testimony I have already adduced an unanswerable phalanx of proof, how strong must be the evidence in favor of our practice! But you shall yet have much more of it.

I yesterday proposed an English discussion for an English audience. Mr. Rice ingeniously refused it, on grounds so transparent that all could see through them. I had read a few lexicon authorities, which would and could have all been withdrawn in a moment. I was willing to rest the whole affair upon the common English version-the Pedo-baptist version of the Old and New Testaments. I presumed, however, that a majority preferred the present method of proceeding, else I might more amply have shown how easily a few lexicographers of his own school might have been disposed of. The excuse was, as all saw, more ingenious than solid; the responsibility, then, rests upon himself.

I shall, therefore, patiently proceed with the various arguments prepared for the occasion. But for the remainder of this address, I shall glance at some things not yet understood by all present. I desire all to see the precise point in this branch of the evidence: In the first place, then, all the lexicons give dip or immerse as the true, proper, primitive and literal meaning of baptizo. They give wash, wet, moisten, &c., as the secondary meanings, or the effects of dipping, immersing, &c. Mr. Carson, who in the judgment of Mr. Rice, is a profound critic of the Baptist school, utterly repudiates the idea of wash, wet or moisten, as meanings of a word that has not in it one drop of moisture, fluid, or liquid of any sort. He disdains such lexicography as makes a word of mere mode, as he calls it, mean two things; and, especially, seeing that any thing being immersed or even sprinkled may be polluted by the action. Now that a word can mean to cleanse and to pollute, to wash and to daub, is with him wholly inadmissible. But I am willing to say that metonymically or tropically, baptizo sometimes may mean to wash