some exact and well defined action; the nature, form and necessity of which arise not from our own a priori reasonings about utility or expediency, but from the clearly expressed will of the lawgiver. It is farther universally agreed that circumcision was a positive and not a moral institution-made right and obligatory by the mere force of a positive law. It enjoined a specific act upon a specific subject, called for exact obedience, and was therefore definitely set forth by a specific and not by a generic term. This fact will not, I presume, be disputed. Baptism, then, like circumcision, must have the specific action to be performed implied and expressed in it. That baptism is such a term, if it be disputed, the sequel will, we presume, abundantly prove. Meantime, before hearing the witnesses or submitting the induction, it may not be uninteresting to pursue the analogy a little farther, and to show, a priori, that such a specific precept is to be expected.

Will it not be conceded by all, that whatever good reason can be given why, not a general but a specific word was chosen by God in commanding circumcision to Abraham and his posterity, the same demands a term as specific and intelligible from the Christian Lawgiver in reference to the institution of baptism? Now, as Jesus Christ must have intended some particular action to be performed by his ministers and submitted to by the people, in the command to baptize them, it follows that he did select such a word, or that he would not or could not do it. This is a dilemma from which escape is not easy. If any one say that he could not, then either the language which he spake or his knowledge of it was defective. If the former, then the language was unfit to be the vehicle of a divine communication to man; if the latter, his divine character and commission are directly assailed and dishonored. Or, if any one say he could have done it but would not, he impeaches either his sincerity or benevolence, or both his sincerity, in demanding obedience in a particular case, for which he cares nothing; his benevolence, in exacting a particular service in an ambiguous and unintelligible term, which should perplex and confound his consciencious followers in all the ages of the world. Follows it not, then, that he could, that he would find such a word; and that he has done it; and that baptizo is that specific word?

Before summoning our most authoritative witnesses to the meaning of this important word, [baptizo,] I shall assert a few facts, which, I presume, will not be denied by any one properly acquainted with the original language of the New Testament: 1. Baptizo is not a radical, but a derivative word; 2. Its root [bapto] is never applied to this ordinance ; 3. In the Common Version bapto is translated both in its simple and compound form, always by the word "dip:" 4. Baptizo is never translated by" dye," "stain," or "color;" 5. Baptizo, with its derivations, is the only word used in the New Testament to indicate this ordinance; and 6. The word baptize has no necessary connection with water, or any liquid whatever.

Now, from these indisputable facts, hereafter to be developed, some corollaries are deduced; such as-baptizo indicates a specific action, and consequently, can have but one meaning. For, if a person or thing can be immersed in water, oil, milk, honey, sand, earth, debt, grief, affliction, spirit, light, darkness, &c., it is a word indicating specific action, and specific action only.

Baptizo, confessedly a derivative from bapto, derives its specifie meaning, as well as its radical and immutable form, from that word. Ac

cording to the usage of all languages, ancient and modern, derivative words legally inherit the specific, though not necessarily the figurative meaning of their natural progenitors; and never can so far alienate from themselves that peculiar significance as to indicate an action specifically different from that intimated in the parent stock. Indeed, all the inflections of words, with their sometimes numerous and various families of descendants, are but modifications of one and the same generic or specific idea.

We sometimes say, that words generally have both a proper and a fig. urative sense. I presume we may go farther and affirm, that every word in current use has a strictly proper and a figurative acceptation. Now, in the derivation direct, (for there is a direct and an indirect derivation,) the proper and natural or original meaning of the term is uniformly transmitted. Let us, for example, take the Saxon word dip through all its flexions and derivations. Its flexions are, dip, dips, dippeth, dipped, dipping. From these are derived but a few words, such as the nouns, dip ping, dipper, dip-chick, dipping-needle. Now in all the flexions and derivations of this word, is not the root [dip] always found in sense as well as in form? Wherever the radical syllable is found, the radical idea is in it. So of the word sprinkle: its flexions are, sprinkle, sprinkleth, sprinkling, sprinkled; and its derivatives are the nouns sprinkling and sprinkler. Does not the idea represented in the radical word [sprinkle] descend through the whole family? We shall visit a larger family. From the verb read, whose flexions are, reads, readeth, reading; come the descendants, reading, (the noun,) readable, readableness, readably, reader, readership. The radical syllable is not more obvious than the uniformity of its sense throughout the whole lineage. Let us now advance to the two Greek representatives of the words dip and sprinkle. These are ancient families, and much larger than any of the modern. Bapto, the root, has some seven hundred flexions, besides numerous derivatives. We shall only take the indicative mood, through one tense and through one person: Bapto, ebapton, bapso, ebapsa, ebaphon, bapho, bebapha, ebebaphein. Its derivatives are baptizo, and its regular flexions-more than seven hundred, including all its forms of mood, tense, participle, person, number, gender, case: from which spring baptismos, baptisma, baptisis, baptistes, baptomai, baptizomai, baptos, baptisterion, bapha, baphikos, bapheis. These, through their some two thousand flexions and modifications, retain the bap, and, as uniformly, the dip represented by it. The same holds good of its distant neighbor, raino, "I sprinkle." It has as many flexions and nearly as many derivatives as bapto. It has raino, rainomai, rantizo, rantismos, rantisma, ranter, rantis, rantos, with their some two thousand flexions. These all exhibit the radical syllable rain or ran, and with it the radical sprinkle. Now, as it is philologically impossible to find bap in rain, or rain in bap; so impossible is it to find dip in sprinkle, or sprinkle in dip. Hence the utter impossibility of either of these words representing both actions. It is difficult to conceive how any man of letters and proper reflection can for a moment suppose, that bapto can ever mean "sprinkle," or raino "dip."

This my first argument is, I own, a work of supererogation: inasmuch as all admit that baptizo, and not bapto, is the word that the Messiah chose to represent the action he intended, called baptism; and all the learned admit, that its primary, proper, and unfigurative meaning is,

"to dip." Hence if all that I have said on flexion and derivation were grammatically and philologically heterodox, as well as illogical, my cause loses nothing. I feel so rich in resources, that I can give this and many such arguments for nothing, and still have much more than a competency for life. But, be it all strictly and philologically true and solid, (as I unhesitatingly affirm it,) this single argument establishes my first proposition without farther effort. For, as all allow that dip is the primary and proper meaning of bapto, and color, stain, dye, wet, its figurative or secondary meanings; and, as all admit that baptizo is the word that the Christian Lawgiver consecrated to indicate this ordinance; and, as it is incontrovertibly derived from bapto, and therefore inherits the proper meaning of the bap, which is "dip;" then, is it not irresisti bly evident that baptizo can never authorize or sanction any other action than dipping, or immersion, as found in Christ's commission? Such is my first argument; which, if false, I lose nothing; which, if true, my proposition is already established.

But we must have arguments and illustrations for the unlearned as well as for the learned. Before we advance to our second argument, founded on baptizo itself, I shall, in three English words, selected at random, show that neither number nor variety of derivations from a common stock, can ever nullify the original idea or action suggested. I take a verb, a noun, and a preposition, with their whole families. I open at the verb, adduce: duce, (from duco, "I lead,") is the root. The family lineage is, abduce, adduce, conduce, deduce, educe, induce, introduce, obduce, produce, reduce, seduce, traduce, circumduction, deduction, induction. Next comes the noun, guard, from which the verb, guard, guarding, guarded, guarder, guardly, guardedness, guardship, guardable, guardful, guardage, guardance, guardiant, guardian, guardianess, guardianship, guardianage, guardless. And finally, we open at the preposition, up, whence springs upon, upper, uppermost, upperest, upward. Now, can any one for a moment doubt, that, in all these three examples, the radical syllables, duce, guard, or up, retain the same sense, whatever it may be, generic or specific, through every branch of their respective families?

'Ancient Greek grammarians sometimes arranged their verbs in the form of trees, making the origin of the family the root; the next in importance the trunk; the next the larger branches, and so on to the topmost twig. In this way both flexions and derivations were occasionally exhibited. This fact I state, because it suggests to me a new form of presenting this my first argument, to the apprehension of all my hearers. A great majority of our citizens are better read in forests, fields and gardens, than in the schools of philology or ancient languages. Agriculturists, horticulturists, botanists, will fully comprehend me when I say, in all the dominions of vegetable nature, untouched by human art, as the root, so is the stem, and so are all the branches. If the root be oak, the stem cannot be ash, nor the branches cedar. What would you think, Mr. President, of the sanity or veracity of the backwoodsman, who would affirm that he found in a state of nature, a tree whose root was oak, whose stem was cherry, whose boughs were pear, and whose leaves were chestnut? If these grammarians and philologists have been happy in their analogies drawn from the root and branches of trees, to illustrate the derivation of words, how singularly fantastic the genius that creates a philological tree, whose root is bapto, whose stem is cheo, whose

branches are rantizo, and whose fruit is katharizo! Or, if not too ludicrous and preposterous for English ears, whose root is dip, whose trunk is pour, whose branches are sprinkle, and whose fruit is purification!

My first argument, then, is founded on the root, bapto, whose proper signification, all learned men say, is dip, and whose main derivative is baptizo-which, by all the laws of philology, and all the laws of nature, never can, never did, and never will signify "to pour" or "to sprinkle." I now proceed to baptizo itself-the word pre-ordained by the Messiah, to indicate his will in this sacred ordinance. Meanwhile, I have not forgotten in this long preamble, that the meaning of baptizo as well as bapto, is a question of fact, to be decided by impartial and disinterested witnesses, whose testimony is to be fairly stated, candidly heard, and impartially weighed, before the case is finally adjudicated.

My witnesses are so numerous that I must call them forth in classes, and hear them in detail. I shall first summon the Greek lexicographers, the most learned and most competent witnesses in this case, in the world. These gentlemen are, and of right ought to be, inductive philosophers. Philology is the most inductive of all sciences. The meaning of a word is ascertained by the usage of those writers and speakers, whose knowledge and acquirements have made them masters of their own language. From this class of vouchers we derive most of our knowledge of holy writ, and of all that remains of Grecian literature and science. We, indeed, try the dictionaries themselves by the classics, the extant authors of the language. We prove or disprove them by the same inductive operation, by which we ascertain the facts of any science, mental or physical. I rely exclusively upon the most ancient, the most impartial, and the most famous lexicographers. I therefore prefer those on my respondent's side of the question, to those on my own; and I prefer those who lived and published before the controversy became so rife, as it has been during the present century.

1. We shall first hear the venerable Scapula, a foreign lexicographer, of 1579. On bapto, the root, what does this most learned lexicographer depose? Hear him: "bapto-mergo, immergo item tingo (quod sit immergendo,") To translate his Latin-To dip, to immerse; also, to dye, because that may be done by immersing. Of the passive, baptomai, he says, "Mergor item lavor"-To be immersed, to be washed. Of baptizo Mergo seu immergo, item submergo, item abluo, lavo”—To dip, to immerse; also, to submerge or overwhelm, to wash, to cleanse.

166

2. Next comes the more ancient Henricus Stephanus, of 1572. Bapto and baptizo-"Mergo seu immergo, ut quæ tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus"-To dip or immerge, as we dip things for the purpose of dyeing them, or immerge them in water. He gives the proper and figurative meanings, as Scapula gives them.

3. We shall next hear the Thesaurus of Robertson. My edition was printed at Cambridge, 1676. It is the most comprehensive dictionary I have ever seen. It contains eighty thousand words more than the old Schrevelius. It is indeed, sometimes titled, Cornelii Schrevelii Lexicon Manuale Græco Latinum Copirossissimi Audactum. His definitions are generally regarded as the most precise and accurate. He defines baptizo by only two words-mergo and lavo-one proper and one figurative meaning-to immerse, to wash.

4. Schleusner, a name revered by orthodox theologians, and of enviable fame, says, (Glasgow Ed. 1824,)" 1st. Proprie, immergo ac intingo,

in aquam immergo. Properly it signifies, I immerse, I dip, I immerse in water. 2d. It signifies, I wash or cleanse by water-(quia haud raro aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur)-because for the most part, a thing must be dipped or plunged into water, that it may be washed." Thus he gives the reason why baptizo figuratively means "to wash," because it is frequently the effect of immersion.

5. After Schleusner, we shall hear the distinguished Pasor. My copy is the London edition of 1650. "Bapto et bapto-mergo, immergo tingo quod sit immergendo, differt a dunai quod et profundum petere est penitus submergi." Again he adds Comparantur afflictiones gurgitibus aquaram quibus veluti merguntur qui miseriis et calamitatibus hujus vitæ conflictantur ita, tamen merguntur ut rursus emergant." All of which we translate as follow: "To dip, to immerse, to dye, because it is done by immersing. It differs from dunai, which means to sink to the bottom, and to be thoroughly submerged." Metaphorically, in Matthew, afflictions are compared to a flood of waters, in which they seem to be immersed, who are overwhelmed with the misfortunes and miseries of life; yet only so overwhelmed as to emerge again.

6. After these venerable continental authorities, we shall now introduce a few English lexicographers, both general and special. Parkhurst's lexicon for the New Testament deposes, that baptizo first and primarily means to dip, immerse, or plunge in water; but in the New Testa ment it occurs not strictly in this sense, unless so far as this is included in "to wash one's self, be washed, wash the hands by immersion, or dipping them in water." Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38. To immerse in water, or with water, in token of purification from sin, and from spiritual pollution; figuratively-" to be immersed or plunged into a flood or sea, as it were, of grievous affliction and sufferings." So the Septuagint and Josephus use it. He anomai me baptizei-Iniquity plunges me into

terror.

7. Next comes Mr. Donnegan, distinguished and popular in England and America. 66 Baptizo-to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate; metaphorically, to drench with wine, to dip in a vessel and draw. Baptismos-immersion, submersion, the act of washing or bathing. Baptiztes, (a baptist)-one who immerses, submerges. Baptisma-an object immersed, submerged, washed or soaked."

8. Rev. Dr. John Jones, of England, deserves the next place at least in rank. Bapto, he defines, "I dip, I stain ;" and baptizo, "I plunge, I plunge in water, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm."

9. Greenfield, editor of the Comprehensive Bible, the Polymicrian New Testament, &c. &c., whose reputation as a New Testament lexicographer is well known, says, "Baptizo means to immerse, immerge, submerge, sink,"-"I. N. T.-To wash, to perform ablution, cleanse, to immerse, baptize, and perform the rite of baptism."

10. Two Germans of distinction may be next heard. Professor Rost, whose reputation is equal to that of any other German linguist, in his Standard German Lexicon, defines bapto by words indicating to plunge, to immerse, to submerge.

11. Bretschneider, said to be the most critical lexicographer of the New Testament, affirms that "an entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism." He defines it, "Proprie, sæpius intingo, sæpius lavo," and adds, "This is the meaning of the word: for in baptizo is contained