or to cleanse; still as that can be no other than an accidental circumstance, it cannot in strict propriety be called a meaning, and by no means a proper meaning of the word. But even were it shown to be a fixed meaning of the word, it being so by a figurative, and not by any proper intrinsic force, another question of paramount importance must be established before that would relieve my friend in the least, viz: Has ever a positive ordinance been enacted by the figurative meaning of a word?

Mr. Carson is, indeed, a profound linguist and an able critic; and was himself once a burning and a shining light in the Presbyterian church. He is also well esteemed by the Edinburgh reviewers. He, however, is not the only eminent critic who argues for but one meaning for baptizo. It is becoming fashionable among learned men, true philologists, to give to specific verbs but one meaning, and I shall, at a proper time, produce one of America's most distinguished classic scholars, in concurrence with Mr. Carson and myself, on this subject.

But in reason's name, had the Messiah commanded his apostles to wash the nations, while converting them; why did he not take the word louo, which all the then living world, Jew and Gentile, would have instantly understood? If he had meant wash the face, why not have taken nipto? If he had meant to wet, why not brecho-if to sprinkle, why not raino? These words exactly indicated those meanings-and our friend, Mr. Rice, says that baptizo is a word of diverse senses !!

I have examined, one by one, all the passages in the Old and New Testaments in which the words nipto, pluno, louo, raino, cheo occur, and have made some valuable discoveries, as to the singular definiteness and precision of the Greek writers, of which I shall hereafter speak. At present I will only say, that when applied to persons louo, washes or bathes the whole body; nipto, only the face, hands or feet, and pluno, invariably cleanses the garments. They are never, in any case, substituted the one for the other. I ask my friend for a single exception in the Bible. They frequently occur in the same line, on the samne occasion, in the same verse, and touching the same person, but are never confounded. If, then, three kinds of washing are defined by these words, in laws canonical, how can it be reconciled to the Divine character, and to that of His moral government, to have chosen for the one baptism a generic word, that may mean any thing which any one may please to affix to it? Mr. Rice has repeatedly said that wash is a meaning of baptizo, and that wash is certainly not a word of mode. But there is no philology in the observation. The effects of a specific action may be very numerous and diverse-dip, for example, may heat or cool, cleanse or pollute, wash or daub a subject:-follows it, then, that these are all specific words of the same significance, because the meanings or effects of one specific action! But to return to his favorite louo, wash. I think I can satisfy even himself, that as a meaning of baptizo, wash is so only as an effect of the action. Allow me to prepare the way by the statement of a philological law. In a logical definition, the term and its definition must be convertible. To speak to every person's apprehension-the definition, when substituted for the term expressed, must always make good sense. Philanthropy is the love of man- -the love of man is philanthropy-are convertible propositions. So are-man is a rational animal, and a rational animal is a man. Louo and baptizo must be convertible terms, if the one fully defines the other. But is that the fact? He may find baptizo represented by wash in some of our dictionaries, but in not one of them

can he show wash represented by bapto or baptizo. I say not one; a clear proof that the one is not the definition of the other. Take, however, dip, immerse, and he will find baptizo representing them in every Greek and English dictionary, but never wash and baptizo! To those who comprehend it, this is an unanswerable refutation of the assumption that baptizo means to wash, or that wash and baptizo are convertible terms. I wish my friend, Mr. Rice, would demonstrate a little more and assert a little less, and make an effort to show how immersing a person in mud could cleanse him; or how immersing a person in pure water could color him; or how immersing one in sand could wet him. And yet immersion means washing, and washing means immersion. Credat Judæus Appella, non Ego. Yet in baptizing, Mr. R. neither washes nor immerses.

I am told, however, I am not fully understood on the oft repeated and all-important distinction of generic and specific terms. I shall, therefore, once for all, more fully deliver myself on this essential difference-a point in this discussion of no ordinary importance. Tree, for example, is a generic term, because it comprehends under it many species of trees. We have the species oak, hickory, ash, maple, &c., all included under the term tree. Animal is a genus, under which we have the species man, horse, sheep, dog, &c. Now a specific term includes but one class -and not two under it; whereas a generic term may have two or three hundred species under it. To travel is a generic term; because there are various ways of traveling; such as walking, riding, sailing, &c. Now, the reason why specific terms can have but one meaning is apparent from the fact, that a second meaning would destroy the first. For example-if to walk means both to ride and walk, when told that a person was walking, how could we distinguish the action performed?

It is a common observation, that the genus includes the species, but the species does not include the genus. Thus, the word animal includes all manner of quadrupeds, but the word quadruped does not include all manner of animals. Washing is a generic term, under which sprinkling, pouring, dipping, may be specific terms. Not necessarily, but accidentally they may be specific terms; for it depends upon what is sprinkled or poured upon, or what a thing is dipped into, whether or not it be washed. But suppose they are all three modes of washing, then they are all specific words. And if the Lord chose any one of them in preference to the others, then that, and that only, will be agreeable to his will.

Now that baptism is a specific action, and can be performed acceptably only in one way, methinks will appear very obvious to all candid persons on a little reflection. Jesus, our Savior, must have had all these three actions of sprinkling, pouring, and immersing in his mind before he ordained any one of them. It is impossible to suppose, that of three, or even two, he would have no preference. No rational being can think of any two ways of effecting any object, without preferring the one to the other. Now, the Lord must have preferred one of these actions to the other, and having a specific object and intention, he had not only the will but the authority to demand and enforce it. Well, now it will, it must be conceded, that he chose one, and but one, out of two or three possible ways of accomplishing that end. Suppose, then, the object to have been washing, of which you may suppose there were three practicable ways. Of these, we are constrained to conclude that he preferred one; and that he would and could specify that one, no one can deny. Fol

lows it not, then, that he has chosen and commanded one specific act to be performed in the most solemn manner? Whosoever, then, has not been a subject of that act, is, of course, unbaptized. I see no way of evading this. Will my friend, Mr. Rice, show some way of

these conclusions ?

escape from

He says that washing is a generic term; then these three, sprinkling, pouring, and dipping are specific, himself being judge. If, then, dip is specific in English, it is so in Greek; and if baptizo means dip, as all the world agrees, then follows it not that baptizo is a specific word, and has but one meaning? Had the Messiah, in giving the commission, said, "Travel into all nations and preach the gospel," then, this word being generic, his apostles could have obeyed the precept by walking, riding, sailing, or any other mode of traveling. But had he said, "Walk through all the world," &c., he could not have been obeyed by riding.

He, however, gave them specific directions what they should do in executing his will. He made three words pregnant with their whole duties as his functionaries. They were to disciple, baptize, and teach all nations. He gave then the two generic words matheteuo and didasko, and the one most specific, because it required an outward, formal, and well defined action, by which they were to be publicly recognized and known as his followers. True faith and true obedience will always exact a lite ral compliance with this divine institution.-[Time expired.

Thursday, Nov. 16-11 o'clock, A. M. [MR. RICE'S FOURTH REPLY.]

MR. PRESIDENT-I am happy to return the compliment of my worthy friend. I conclude that he has slept as soundly as myself. For I must acknowledge, I was somewhat disappointed in the display he made on yesterday. But I am happy to see him coming to the work this morning with so much energy. I desire to get into the heat of the battle-the warmer the better, provided we have the suaviter in modo, fortiter in re-soft words and hard arguments.

He is certainly mistaken when he represents us as admitting that immersionists are in the right. We do admit the validity of baptism by immersion; but we admit it, only because we do not believe the mode of administering it essential to the ordinance. If he will convince me, that the mode is essential, I will promptly deny the validity of immersion. But when we, for such a reason, admit that baptism by immersion is valid, we certainly do not thereby acknowledge that it is performed in the right mode. On the contrary, we contend that the scriptural mode of administering baptism is by pouring or sprinkling.

The gentleman tells us, the question is, whether there are two baptisms; and he thinks it enough for him to prove that immersion is valid baptism. But if, as he maintains, the precise mode is essential to the ordinance, he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that immersion is baptism. Precisely on this point he will fail. He assumes the position, that the mode, or as he expresses it, the action is essential to the validity of the ordinance. This is one of the points he came here to prove. He tells us, the phrase mode of baptism is a perfect sophismperfect gibberish; that it is as absurd as to talk of the mode of sprinkling. He takes for granted the precise point in debate, viz: that the word baptizo signifies simply and only to immerse. But that is to be proved; and it is precisely what he cannot prove. We are as much disposed as he,

and those who agree with him, to obey the command of our Savior to be baptized; but we differ from them as to the mode of applying the water. Now if, as the lexicographers declare, baptizo means to wash, to cleanse, and if the Savior used it in this sense, there is no absurdity in speaking of the mode of baptism. Are there not different modes of washing? May I not wash my hands by pouring water on them, or by dipping them into water? Let the gentleman first prove that the mode is essential to the ordinance, and that baptizo means only to immerse, and then he may pronounce the mode of baptism a sophism, unmeaning "gibberish."

The gentleman passes over my quotations from the classics, by saying they are irrelevant; that bupto is not the word in debate. He has, from the commencement of this discussion, admitted that bapto and baptizo have the same meaning, so far as mode is concerned; that these words express the same specific action. Now, when I prove by reference to the classics, that bapto is not a specific term-that it does not definitely signify to immerse; he replies, that bapto is not the word in debate! This assuming a position, and then retreating from it, strikes me as rather singular, particularly in so old a warrior! Really I was not prepared to expect this. I supposed that when he put his foot down, he would stand firmly. But when I prove that the dyeing of a garment, by dropping upon it a coloring fluid, is expressed by the word bapto; and that the dyeing of the hair or beard, or the smearing of the face, is denoted by the same word; what is his reply? O, says he, bapto is not the word in dispute the references to the classics are all irrelevant !!!

But he cannot so easily escape the difficulty; for both Dr. Gale and Carson, learned and zealous immersionists, maintain that, so far as mode is concerned, bapto and baptizo have precisely the same meaning. Mr. Carson says "The learned Dr. Gale, in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, after giving a copious list of quotations, in which bapto and baptizo are used, says: "I think it is plain, from the instances already mentioned, that they are (isodunamai) exactly the same as to signification." "As far," says Carson, "as respects an increase or diminution of the action of the verb, I perfectly agree with the writer. That the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or frequency, is a perfectly groundless conceit;" p. 12. Now, if these learned immersionists are correct, when I prove that bapto is employed by the Greeks to express the dropping of a fluid upon a garment, I have also proved that baptizo, which has the same meaning, does not definitely signify to immerse.

Dr. Gale contended, that in all cases in which bapto signifies to dye, it retains the idea of dyeing by dipping; but Mr. Carson contradicts this position, and maintains, that it means to dye by sprinkling as literally as by dipping. Thus these learned immersionists, while they come to the same conclusion, cross each other's path in reaching it. Indeed, Carson charges Gale with giving up the question! So far, however, as relates to an increase or diminution in the action of these words, they are perfectly agreed. They agree in affirming that these words express the same specific action. What, I ask, was the specific action in the dropping of a coloring fluid upon a garment? or in coloring the beard, or the hair? or in smearing the face with tawny washes? Carson asserts, that bapto means literally to dye by sprinkling. Then why may it not mean to wet by sprinkling? Where is the rule of language which teaches that a word

may express the sprinkling of a colored fluid, and yet be incapable of expressing the sprinkling of a colorless fluid?

But my friend (Mr. C.) was mistaken, when he told you, that in all my examples from the classics, bapto and not baptizo was the word used. I adduced several examples of the use of baptizo where evidently it does not mean to immerse. I referred you to the case of the Roman general mentioned by Plutarch, who, when dying of his wounds, baptized (baptisas) his hand in blood and wrote on a trophy. I read to you the direction of Hippocrates, that the blister-plaster should be baptized (baptizein) with breast-milk and Egyptian ointment; and I asked my friend (Mr. C.) whether he supposed, that the plaster was to be plunged into breast-milk and the ointment? Does not the word baptizo, in these cases, express a partial wetting or moistening? I produced an example from Aristotle, in which it is impossible that this word could express a specific action. And I proved, that Dr. Gale, one of the most learned and zealous immersionists, admitted that it does not, perhaps, so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing's being in that state, no matter how it comes so. But the action of putting under is the very thing my friend (Mr. Campbell) is laboring to prove by this word. Now, which of these Doctors shall we believe? [a laugh] No! my friends, the classics do not sustain him.

But what about the lexicons? They, it seems, are all wrong to-day; though yesterday my friend told you, they were the very highest authority! And he mustered so many of them, that they appeared quite formidable enough to terrify a small man like myself. But I took up the very weapons with which he expected to overwhelm me, and turned them against him! I proved that the old lexicons, of whose authority he boasted, define the word baptizo by the generic terms lavo, abluo-to wash, to cleanse. Mr. Campbell replied, that they gave to wash, to cleanse, as figurative meanings of the word. This allegation was immediately disproved. I proved to you, that the learned Bretschneider defines baptizo, "propr. sepius intingo, sepius lavo"-properly, often to dip, often to wash; and in the New Testament, first, "lavo, abluo simpliciter" simply to wash, to cleanse. What reply does he make to these facts? Why, he abandons the lexicons, and says, they are wrong; and he abandons the word bapto. So far, so good! We are making encouraging progress. Two of the strongest positions are abandoned!

My friend (Mr. C.) has told you, that no lexicographer has defined the word baptizo, to sprinkle. But some of them have defined bapto to sprinkle, as we have seen; and I am prepared to prove, that some eminently learned men, who lived hundreds of years before the oldest lexicons extant were made, did the same thing. They lived and wrote when the Greek was a living language, spoken all around them. Surely they had the means of ascertaining, whether bapto was ever used by Greek writers and speakers in the sense of sprinkling.

I am not much alarmed at the host of Pedo-baptists with whose concessions my friend (Mr. Campbell) threatens me. I know something of them. It ought to be known, that many Pedo-baptists have been, in their views, decided immersionists. A Pedo-baptist is one who believes in the baptism of infants. Yet in the minds of many persons the name of Pedo-baptist is inseparably associated with the idea of sprinkling; and the declarations of those Pedo-baptists who are decidedly favorable to immersion, are often paraded before the public as the concessions of the advo