the same thing, or A would be discharged, and the complainant would pay the costs. For that would destroy its specific character-its first meaning; and besides, such a liberty would destroy the precision and utility of speech.

Before entering further into these matters, or bringing it to a close, there are some things of secondary importance bearing upon it, adverted to in the speech which you have just heard, to which I will briefly allude. The reason I prefer the older lexicons is this: they were made before this controversy had become rife. For example: Mr. Groves, a late lexicographer, or some other person, has foisted the word sprinkle into his Greek and English dictionary, as one of the meanings of baptizo, a most daring innovation! Whether Groves or some other person has interpolated it we know not; the person to whom it is attributable is unknown to us. And yet, I dare say, the editor, whoever he was, did it conscientiously. I even presume that my friend, [Mr. Rice] were he to make a dictionary of the Greek language, would also insert the word sprinkle as one of its meanings. Such is the force of prejudice and usage on the minds of men, that many good Pedo-baptists, in their preachings, always give the words pour and sprinkle as meanings of baptizo. I have been astonished at the liberty taken with the older lexicons by some of our modern editors. For example: The lexicon of Schrevellius has passed through seventeen editions; it gave but two meanings to baptizo, to wit-mergo, lavo; but now, in four recent editions, somebody has presumed to increase the meanings of this word to four. It is on this account that I prefer the earlier lexicons. These give the definition of words as they were used before this controversy began.

With regard to the meaning of the word baptizo, I request the particular attention of the audience; for it is on this point, as the gentleman has correctly observéd, the controversy must be decided. It shall be my purpose and object then, to establish the fact, that baptizo is a specific word, and as such, can have but one proper, original, and literal meaning.

Asserting that the action of baptism is not implied in the word, my friend has said, that no man could learn the action of circumcision from the word. Strange indeed! Is not "cutting round" its meaning, its specific meaning? Certainly that is as expressive of the action as any word can be. True, the history and precept of the ordinance shows us on what part of the body the action was performed. A positive ordinance, binding on the nation of Israel, under the penalty of death, it was expedient and necessary to indicate by a specific term, so plain and so definite that it would be impossible to misunderstand it; and because circumcision is exactly such a term, this is the best and the only reason that can be given for its selection.

Hence, it is reasonable to suppose, that when the Great Lawgiver of the christian religion came to the conclusion that he would institute the ordinance of baptism, he had some specific idea in his mind. Indeed, it is impossible to suppose that he had not. He must have intended some

particular thing to be done. He must have had some specific design in his mind; and he could not have been consistent with himself, had he not selected a word expressive of that specific design. How, then, could the author of this institution do otherwise than select a specific wordthe best word in human speech to express his design? Having it wholly in his power to select his own term, would it have been consistent, rea

soning a priori, for him to select the word pouring, when he intended immersion? or the word immersion, when he intended sprinkling? No, reasoning from analogy, evident it is, that the Author of our religion would give a term essentially specific.

But now there are three words submitted to us by our Pedo-baptist brethren, which are alledged to express this design: they are sprinkle, pour, dip. These are all specific words. Sprinkling is well defined and understood amongst all men; so is pouring; so is dipping. Is it not impossible to conceive that each of these terms has been chosen to express the same specific idea and design? Could the Messiah, to express and define one action, have selected a word signifying three distinct actions? I cannot admit it. No three actions can be more different than sprinkling, dipping, pouring. When we sprinkle an individual, we put something upon his person; and when we immerse an individual, we put the person into something. In the former case, we change the position of the matter with regard to the person; and in the latter case, we change the position of the person with regard to the matter.

In baptism, we have an inward spiritual intention and transition, or a passing from one state to another; and if the outward action is to exhibit the intention and transition, how, I ask, are we to regard these three terms, sprinkling, pouring and dipping, as expressive of the same intention? They are each specifically different from the others. No one term could express the meaning of these three. Every one of them has its representative in the original.

There is no opposing these lexicons. They universally agree with us in determining the primitive meaning of the word baptizo. That the original meaning of the term is to dip, to immerse, is, indeed, a matter hardly to be debated at this day; and I was glad to hear my friend admit, what is universally admitted and agreed to, that this word had but one meaning. Now this being conceded, how comes it to pass, that, in process of time, the word has come to signify a plurality of actions! But I can demonstrate that the term has uniformly meant the same thing, from the earliest ages of the world, in its religious as well as in its classical usage.

In the law of Moses we have an ordinance for cleansing a leper; and I presume that my friend will admit that the cleansing of a leper from his disease, was indicative of the cleansing of a sinner from his sins. Well: this ceremony is solemnly put to record in Lev. xiv.; and it is remarkable, that, in a single sentence of this chapter, the three words which are sometimes called baptism, are brought together in solemn contrast. They are all found in the law for purifying the unclean, and cleansing the leper. Blood was to be sprinkled, oil was to be poured, hysop was to be dipped, and then, after these ceremonies, the unclean was to bathe. In giving a detailed account of these ceremonies, the inspired writer has presented these words in contrast thus: "And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." In cleansing from the leprosy, the way is prepared by first sprinkling with blood seven times, then the priest was to dip his finger in the olive oil, and sprinkle the olive oil seven times before the Lord. First, blood was sprinkled upon the unclean, then oil was poured upon his head, and afterwards he was commanded to wash his clothes, shave his hair, and bathe himself in water, that he might be clean.

This is from the oldest record in the world. We have no writings more ancient than the five books of Moses. These have fixed an everlasting contrast between the words sprinkle, pour, and dip,—so that each must forever indicate a distinct action, fixed among the legal ceremonies of a typical people. Since the time when the leper was cleansed by having blood sprinkled upon him, oil poured upon him, and his flesh bathed in water-from that time till now, these words have been used as distinct in meaning, and as immutable as the law of Moses.

In the case of cleansing an unclean person, made so by the touch of a dead animal, a positive ordinance was got up. It is recorded in the xix. of Numbers.

The manner of preparing the water of separation to be used for such purification is very minutely set forth. The ashes of a red heifer, without spot, and upon which never came yoke, were to be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation; and the text says: "It is a purification for sin." "And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel; and a clean person shall take hysop and dip it in the water; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." I can conceive of no authority more sacred than this.

:

Here the individual is commanded to observe three things; and they are to be done in reference to the cleansing of his person from legal impurity, or from a disease that indicates sins. Can any one say that these are not separate and specific actions?

With regard to the translation of the word baptizo by the term sink, my friend remarked that he could bring many respectable authorities to prove that this was a legitimate and proper meaning of the term: that it means going to the bottom; and hence the person baptized must be sunk to the bottom. It is not true that immersion is such a very general term; and I would remind my fellow-citizens that the question in debate is not whether we shall dip to the bottom, nor whether we shall perform only a partial dipping; it is not whether we ought to dip so far, or so deep, but whether immersion simply, to the bottom or not, is the action commanded.

We have, however, an exemplification at hand, which ought forever to settle this matter. It is a case in which the word baptize is used in a contrast that forbids sinking to the bottom. It is a remarkable passage found in one of the sybilline oracles, a poetic prediction concerning the fortunes of the ancient city of Athens. The poet says: Askos baptizee dunai de toi ou themis esti-"Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder! but thou art not fated to sink:" showing that in ancient times, it was a part of the signification of baptizo to emerge again, as well as to immerge, making it equivalent to katadusis and anadusis combined. Certainly and clearly it is that the word baptizo never meant to sink to the bottom, except by chance. Bapto may leave the substance some considerable time under water or any liquid: indicating that a change might come upon the substance, and that it might acquire some new matter which it had not before, being put into the liquid. But baptizo permits the subject to stay under the water but a very little time, and then emerge again. In the etymology and philology of the Greek language, the word baptizo never

can be shown to mean going to the bottom and staying there. Duoo dunai, and their compounds indicate that.

It would be entirely impertinent, before such an audience as this, to enter into any discussion and criticism upon the meaning of the termination zo; a question upon which philologists and critics have written much.

Grammarians and critics have speculated on the termination zoo with great freedom. Some make it the symbol of frequent action, and call those verbs so ending, frequentatives: others, of diminished action, and call them, diminutives. They make a few specifications. But they seem not to remember that a change on the end of a word, when agreeable to the ear, soon loses its meaning by being extended to many words, for the sake of euphony. So of the termination zoo. I can give as many specifications of rapid action, if required, as can be given of frequent action in words of this ending.

I have a new theory of my own upon this subject, or rather it is a theory adopted from an old one, as it ought to be called. It goes to explain a material fact in the history of bapto.

My idea is that the word originally meant, not that the dipping should be performed frequently, but that it indicated the rapidity with which the action was to be performed; that the thing should be done quickly; and for this reason the termination zo is never used when the word is employed in connection with the business of dyers and tanners. But the word baptizo is always used to express the ordinance of baptism. This is the best reason I can give for the change of the termination into zoo.

With regard to the frequent occurrence of this word in the New Testament usage, I said that there might be some good reason given. And that reason is found in the fact that bapto means to dip, without regard to continuance long or short, but baptizo intimates that the subject of the action is not necessarily long kept under that into which it is immersed. -[Time expired.

Wednesday, Nov. 15-12 o'clock, P. M. MR. RICE'S SECOND REPLY.]

Mr. President:-I have no objection to the rule suggested by my friend, Mr. C., requiring the respondent to follow the affirmant, provided there be also a rule obliging the latter to proceed in the argument. But I must protest against being required to say but little on the subject in hand, because the affirmant has done so.

With regard to the ecclesiastical character of this discussion I remark, that there are but two ways in which things of this kind can be done, viz: either by the church as a body, or by individuals. The synod of Kentucky had no authority to select persons for such a purpose. My appointment to conduct this debate, therefore, could not have been made by that body. And if all the elders and ministers of the synod had, as individuals, agreed to select me, it would have been only the act of so many individuals, for which the Presbyterian church in Kentucky would have been no more responsible than if it had been done in England. The debate is, therefore, an individual affair. It has never been stated by us how many persons were consulted about it, or what number agreed to my appointment to conduct it. Nor does it appear by how many my friend was appointed, or whether he was appointed at all. There is no ecclesiastical body connected with his church, sustaining the same relation to it, which is sustained by the synod of Kentucky to our church.

His appointment, therefore, must have been simply by individuals. How many have been concerned in it, or what importance his church may attach to it, I know not. But I am not willing to involve ecclesiastical bodies in matters with which they have nothing to do.

My worthy friend made a statement concerning the early reformers which is calculated to make an impression favorable to his cause. He says that all the early reformers were immersionists, and that the great majority of christians have always practiced immersion; that I must have forgotten my reading. I presume I was understood by the audience. I said, not that nine hundred and ninety-nine in every thousand were opposed to immersion, but that they did not believe immersion essential to the validity of the ordinance that they never did make the discovery which my friend has made, that nothing short of immersion is baptism. And if he can name one of the reformers who made the discovery for which he is now contending, that immersion only is christian baptism, I hope he will not fail to do it. In the third and immediately following centuries trine immersion was practiced, the subjects being divested of their garments. Yet those who adopted this practice never learned that baptizo means only to immerse. Gradually again pouring and sprinkling became most common. Yet immersion continued to be very frequently practiced even to the times of Luther; but all conceded the validity of pouring and sprinkling. None disputed what had been so long admitted.

But my friend Mr. C. has said, that as biblical criticism progressed, we have gained more light on such subjects. So it appears, that as more light has been obtained, the great majority of christians have abandoned the defence and the practice of immersion. He cannot, however, point to one reformer, of any considerable standing, who maintained the doctrine for which he is contending. However favorable some of them may have been to the practice of immersion, not one of them ever admitted that our Savior commanded immersion only. They with one consent admitted sprinkling and pouring to be valid baptism; and they regarded themselves as obeying the command of Christ" Go teach all nations, baptizing them"-when they administered the ordinance by sprinkling or pouring. Having been baptized by sprinkling, they lived and died in the belief that their baptism was valid.

Both modes were anciently practiced. And if our immersionist friends had continued on the ground of the old immersionists-if they had simply maintained that immersion is the preferable mode, they might have enjoyed their opinion without controversy. But when they contend that all who have received the ordinance by pouring or sprink ling are unbaptized, and that sprinkling is a human invention, they assume a position occupied by very few; and we are constrained to demur.

Let me revert to the principle advanced by Mr. C., that specific words having a leading syllable, in all their inflections retain their original import. Language, he admits, is always changing; and usage only determines the meaning of words. But the principle he now inculcates is, that specific words retain their original meaning. If, for example, the original idea was dip, the word retaining the leading syllable, will retain also this idea, in all its combinations. Now I stand in opposition to this principle. There is no such principle recognized. There are facts (and I will produce them) in the very face of it. For example, the word bapto, as Mr.