where is the dip? Will my friend say, when the fluid drops upon the garments, they are immersed? Where was the immersion when the Indians dyed their beards?

Mr. Campbell thinks the termination zo, in the word baptizo, expresses the rapidity of the action; and he supposes that the Savior selected this word, in preference to bapto, for that particular reason; that bapto may signify sinking to the bottom, and hence baptizo, expressing the idea of raising out of the water, was preferred. But Carson admits, that baptizo does not express the raising of the thing immersed out of the water. "The word" says he, "has no reference to what follows the immersion; and whether the thing immersed lies at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot be learned from the word, but from the connection and circumstances," p. 91. That it is constantly used by the classics in the sense of sinking to the bottom, I am prepared to prove. I will give a few examples:

Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals in water, says: "When the water overflows, many of the land animals, (baptizomena) sunk in the river, perish."

Strabo, speaking of the lake near Agrigentum, says: "Things which otherwise will not swim, do not sink (baptizesthai) in the water of the lake, but float like wood." Again, speaking of the lake Sirbon, he says: "If a man goes into it, he cannot sink (baptizesthai,) but is forcibly kept above." I might quote many other examples, but really I deem it unnecessary. Josephus, who sought to imitate the classic Greek, uses the word repeatedly to signify the sinking of ships, the drowning of persons, &c.

It is, then, certain that baptizo is constantly used by the classics in the sense of sinking-that this, in the examples supposed to favor immersion, is its common meaning. It is not true, therefore, that the Savior selected this word, because it expressed putting in and taking out of the water quickly; for it does not at all express the action of raising out of the water. Yet this is as essential to baptism by immersion as the putting under-the latter being supposed to represent the burial of Christ, and the former, his resurrection.

The gentleman tells us, that according to an established rule of language, the definition, if substituted for the word defined, will make good sense. Let us apply this rule, substituting the word sink, the common classical meaning, for the word baptizo. "John did sink in the wilderness, and preach the sinking of repentance." "He that believeth and is sunk, shall be saved." Or, as our friends say, baptizo means to plunge, perhaps Mr. C. would prefer that word. "John did plunge in the wil derness, and preach the plunging of repentance." "He that believeth and is plunged, shall be saved." You see, my friends, the substitution of these words for baptizo makes the Scriptures speak nonsense. So, according to my friend's own rule, it is impossible that baptizo, as used to denote christian baptism, can mean to sink or plunge. Yet these are some of its classical meanings. His own rule, therefore, destroys his argument. Baptizo, as used in the Bible, is a generic term; and it will not answer to subtitute a specific term in its place.

There is no great difference, my friend would have us believe, between the baptism of the Roman general's hand in order to write on a trophy, and immersion. Well, if I, in baptizing an individual, come as near immersing him as the general did immersing his hand in his blood; will Mr. Campbell consider him baptized? He will not; and yet he has brought forward this very example to prove, that baptizo always means to immerse!

He did not, however, attempt to immerse the blister-plaster in breastmilk and Egyptian ointment. And it was well he did not; for all the Doctors would have risen up against him. [A laugh.]

The gentleman read Blackstone to prove, that the "usual and most known signification" of words should be preferred. To this rule I by no means object; but I contend, that the usual and most known meaning of baptizo, as used among the Jews in relation to their religious rites, is, to wash, to cleanse. But we are told, that all the lexicographers prefer immerse, as the primary and literal meaning. Now let me turn your attention to Robinson. He gives its general meaning to immerse, sink, spoken of ships, galleys, &c.; but the very first meaning he gives it in the New Testament, is to wash, to cleanse by washing. Bretschneider ⚫ gives the general meaning-"sepius intingo, sepius lavo"-often to dip, often to wash; and the first meaning he gives it as used in the New Testament, is "lavo, abluo simpliciter"—simply to wash, to cleanse. Greenfield defines it in the same way. Now my friend says, all the lexicographers prefer immerse as the primary meaning of this word. Will he please to produce one who gives immerse as its primary meaning, as it was used by the Jews, or as it is used in the Bible? I am for taking the primary and literal meaning of the word, as employed by the people amongst whom and for whom the ordinance was instituted, not the common meaning as used by another people, speaking a different idiom, in relation to entirely different subjects. And in this I am sustained by all the best critics.

There is no rule which requires us to take the original meaning of a word in preference to every other. Etymology, as Ernesti says, is an uncertain guide. Language is perpetually changing, and words are constantly acquiring new meanings. I might admit, that the original meaning of baptizo was to immerse, and then prove, that before the time when it was applied by our Savior to the ordinance of baptism, it had amongst the Jews acquired a different meaning. The word prevent, as I have before remarked, originally meant to come before; but now it means to hinder. It is the meaning in common use at the time when the ordinance was appointed-as Blackstone says, "the general and popular use"-that is to be taken in preference to any other. I perfectly agree, therefore, with Blackstone, Vitringa and Turretin, as quoted by my friend (Mr. C.)

We come now to the translators, ancient and modern. The gentleman has greatly magnified their authority. I hope he will not hereafter fall out with them. They, he tells us, knew the difference between the Jewish and classic usage. I am happy to see the translations brought forward; for I am prepared to prove, that they, (at least the great majority of them) did not translate the word baptizo, to immerse. Possibly some two or three may have done so; but certainly the most ancient and valuable, as well as the most respectable of modern date, did not. I have examined a goodly number of these translations; and I am prepared to prove what I affirm.

I will begin with the old Peshito Syriac, the oldest and one of the best translations in the world. The gentleman asserts, and has repeatedly published, that no translator, ancient or modern, ever translated baptizo, or any of that family of words, by the word sprinkle. This I deny, and am prepared to disprove.

By the way, the gentleman told you, that I would very probably give you Dr. Beecher's dissertation on purification. Unfortunately I have

never read it. I sent for the work, but failed to procure it; so I must forego the pleasure of giving you Beecher's dissertation.

But let us briefly examine into the truth of this bold assertion of my friend. He says, no translator, ancient or modern, ever rendered baptizo or any of that family, by the word sprinkle. Now, the old Peshito Syriac, of which he has spoken so favorably, has translated bapto to sprinkle. Here is the book itself: it looks old and venerable. I will give the translation by Schaaf and Leusden, whose edition I have, as the audience could not understand the Syriac. Rev. xix. 13. "Et amictus veste quæ aspersa (Greek, bebammenon) sanguine." And he was clothed with a garment SPRINKLED with blood. The Vulgate, translated by Jerom, who, I presume, immersed thrice in baptizing, translates the passage in the same manner: "Et vestitus erat veste aspersa sanguine. He was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood." The passage, doubtless, has reference to the 63d chapter of Isaiah's prophecy, in which Christ is represented going forth as a mighty Conqueror against his enemies. "For," says he, "I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment," v. 3. Here we have two of the oldest and most valuable translations in the world translating the word bapto just as my friend (Mr. C.) asserts that no one ever did translate it.

Origen, too, the most learned of the Greek fathers, was unwise enough to fall into the same error, if indeed it be an error. He, as Dr. Gale in his Reflections on Wall's History of Infant Baptism informs us, in quoting the passage in Rev. xix. 13, almost verbatim, puts rantizo for bapto. How ignorant of the Greek language Origen must have been, if the views of Mr. Campbell are correct! From the fact that these old and valuable versions translate bapto to sprinkle, in this passage, and from the fact that Origen, giving the substance of the passage, substitutes rantizo for bapto, Dr. Gale concludes, that there must have been a different reading, and that those men had a copy of the New Testament having rantizo instead of bapto. Mr. Carson, however, differs from him decidedly on this subject. After stating Dr. Gale's reasons for supposing there was a different reading, he remarks-"These reasons, however, do not in the least bring the common reading into suspicion in my mind; and I never will adopt a reading to serve a purpose. [This is a noble resolution.] Misapprehension of the meaning of the passage, it is much more likely, has substituted errantismenon for bebammenon," p. 37. So it would seem, according to Mr. Carson, Origen, the learned Greek father, did not understand his vernacular tongue! And those learned translators, (who did the very thing my friend said, no one ever did,) could not ascertain the meaning of the word bapto, though the Greek was then a living language, spoken all around them!!! Unless we can believe, that they were ignorant of the meaning of bapto, we are obliged to believe, that in their day it was used in the sense of sprinkling. It has not been my object to prove, that bapto and baptizo definitely express the idea of sprinkling or pouring. I maintain, that, as used in the Bible and in the religious writings of the Jews, it expresses the thing done the application of water to a subject; but the connection and circumstances must determine the precise mode of doing it, whether by pouring, sprinkling or dipping.

I am prepared to meet my friend on the translations, and to prove, that they are by no means favorable to the doctrine for which he is contending. I have said as much as I intended in reply to his argument. I will now

turn your attention to the meaning of bapto and baptizo, as they are used in the Bible, and in the religious writings of the Jews.

Bapto, as used in the Bible, sometimes expresses a partial dipping or wetting, as in Leviticus xiv. 6, 7, where the priest was directed to kill a bird, and then take a living bird, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hysop, and dip them in the blood of the bird that was killed over running water. Bapto is here used; and every one knows, that it was impossible to immerse these things into the blood of one bird. It evidently here signifies a partial dipping or wetting. Indeed, in all the instances in which bapto occurs in the Bible, there are not more than four or five where it expresses an immersion! It generally expresses a partial dipping, a wetting or smearing.

In Exod. xii. 22, it signifies wetting or smearing-" And ye shall take a bunch of hysop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts, with the blood that is in the basin." This may answer as a specimen. I will produce other passages, if necessary. In this passage the Septuagint has the expression bapscte apo-ye shall dip from, or, more properly, wet by means of the blood. A similar expression occurs in Lev. xiv. 17: "And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord." And in verse 16, "The priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand," &c. In both these passages the expression is bapsei apo-he shall dip from. Does my friend immerse from the water? The meaning of the word here evidently is, to wet or smear by means of the fluid. If a dipping or immersion had been intended, the writer would have used the preposition eis-into, instead of apo, from.

Bapto signifies simply to wet or bedew, as is evident from Dan. iv. 33: The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet (ebaphe) with the dew of heaven." Precisely the same expression occurs in the following chapter, verse 21. Now every body knows how this baptism was performed. His body was wet from (ebaphe apo) the dew. Or will my friend say, his body was immersed from dew?! Dr. Gale attempted to escape the difficulty by saying, Nebuchadnezzar was as wet as if he had been immersed. Dr. Cox, another learned immersionist, took the same ground. But Mr. Carson charges them both with having given up the question. And he insists, that it does express mode in this passage, and ought to have been translated immersed! He makes it a figurative immersion! Our immersionist friends have a great deal of ingenuity. If they cannot get Nebuchadnezzar immersed, they will have him as wet as if he had been immersed. Or if they cannot have him immersed literally, they will immerse him figuratively! They are resolved on having him immersed in some way. My friend, (Mr. C.) in his debate with Mr. McCalla, maintained that Nebuchadnezzar was overwhelmed in dew! This, one might be tempted to think, is something new under the sun. A man overwhelmed in dew!!!

I have already turned your attention to Rev. xix. 13, where bapto has been translated by the word sprinkle. But I omitted to state one important fact, viz that not only the Syriac and Latin Vulgate, but the Ethiopic, one of the most ancient and valuable versions, as Gale informs us, translates bapto, in this passage, to sprinkle. So carefully has my friend (Mr. C.) examined the old translations on this point!-(Time expired.

Thursday, Nov. 16-12 o'clock, P. M.

[MR. CAMPBELL'S SIXTH ADDRESS.]

MR. PRESIDENT-Were the positiveness of the gentleman's assertions any assurance, either of their strength or their verity, we might well fear for the issue of our cause. But we have learned to estimate their strength in the inverse ratio of the confidence with which they are uttered. Greater and more numerous aberrations from propriety, and more palpable perversion of fact and argument within one half hour, have seldom fallen under my observation than during the last. If, however, my fellow-citizens, you will patiently lend me your ears, I will endeavor to set these matters before you in their proper light.

I do not ascribe to my worthy friend, sinister motives, willful aberrations, or any fixedness of purpose to pervert the truth. I presume, however, I may say of him, as professor Stuart once said of the famous Beza, "that he was so mad against the Anabaptists, that it drove him out of his reason." Few of us, however, on this side of the ocean can see the force of the professor's remark if we have had nothing before us but Beza's criticisms on baptizo. I shall place this man Beza in contrast with my friend, by quoting one passage from his comment on Mark vii. 4 :

"Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word, IT IS CERTAIN immersion is signified. Baptizesthai, in this place, is more than niptein; because that seems to respect the whole body, this only the hands. Nor does baptizein signify to wash, except by consequence: for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dyeing. To be baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism. Baptizo differs from the verb dunai, which signifies to plunge in the deep, and to drown."

So thought, and so wrote, next to Calvin, the strongest Presbyterian of that age, the translator of the New Testament from Greek to Latin! But he was wrong, because I agree with him in every word of the above, and because he refutes every main position of his brother Rice on this occasion, and especially some of his recent remarks. Whether he or Mr. Rice is most worthy of your confidence judge, my fellow-citizens, for yourselves. But to return with the gentleman to bapto again. With Beza, I say it means to dye or to wash by consequence, not vi termini, not by the force of the word. It is then a metonymy-the name of the effect produced. This, then, explodes the whole speech, so far as the gentleman will have Hippocrates, whom he quotes from Carson, representing garments as dyed by dropping the coloring matter upon them. Now the question, the plain, common sense, and critical question, too, is, does the dying relate to the dropping of the color, or to the garment when colored. The original phrase is-epeidan epistaxee epi ta himatia baptetai. And when the coloring matter has dropped upon the garment it (the garment) is colored. In the passive voice, the effect of an action, and not the mode of an action, is generally expressed. Nothing is more evident, then, than that the coloring has respect, not to the process, but to the effect of it. Nearchus' narrative of the Indians dyeing their beards, is also an exemplification of the same mode of speech. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was wet with dew; not by the manner of its falling, but in the effect. Thus, as Mr. Carson says, a man gets soaked and dipped, in common parlance, under a heavy shower.

Nay, the poets go farther. Milton sings of Raphael's wings as exhibiting" colors dipped in heaven." Was there any sprinkling, pouring, or dipping in that figure? I have already sufficiently exposed the frailty