baptizo signifies only to immerse, and I will yield the point. That it is sometimes used in the sense of dipping I admit, and that it is sometimes used in the sense of pouring, or sprinkling, I can prove. That it sometimes signifies simply to wash, I can demonstrate by the very highest authority. Each of these statements I will establish in due time.

But I fear my friend, Mr. C., will consider me as anticipating his argument. If he will not again prefer this charge against me, I will state, as I am prepared to prove, that three of the oldest and best versions have rendered the word bapto to sprinkle; and one of the most learned of the Greek fathers gave it the same signification.

Schrivellius, Mr. C. says, originally gave to the word baptizo but two meanings mergo and lavo-to immerse and to wash. Well, this is all I contend for. For if it sometimes signifies to dip, and sometimes to wash, how shall we determine in any case which is the true meaning? Mergo and lavo are the Latin words by which it is defined, and we know that lavo signifies to wash in general, without reference to mode. The most ancient lexicographers, moreover, define baptizo to cleanse, no matter in what mode it is done. If, then, this word has sometimes one meaning, and sometimes another, how can it be a specific term expressing a definite action? If Mr. C. cannot prove that it is always used in the definite sense of immersing, he must give up the argument.

It is true, as he says, that the word circumcision signifies cutting round; but who, I ask, could have understood by this word alone, how the ordinance was to be administered? By the accompanying directions it might be known, but I affirm that no man could determine by the word alone, what precisely was the action to be performed.

Again take the word deipnon, sometimes used to denote the Lord's supper. From this word we could not determine what element should be used, in what quantity it should be received, or in what manner the ordinance should be observed. Yet my friend, Mr. C., labors to prove, that when our Savior employed a particular word to denote an ordinance, it must necessarily express the mode in which it is always to be administered and received!

He says, he is glad to hear me express my conviction, that the original meaning of baptizo was to immerse. I did not say so. I said, I could safely admit it, though he could not prove it. Critics are not agreed, whether to dip or to dye was the original meaning. Professor Stuart expresses the opinion, as far as he can judge, that to dip was the original sense, and to dye a secondary meaning. Others, however, contend that to dye was the primary or original meaning. The word bapto, as far back as we can trace it, was used in both senses. It may be true, therefore, that to dye or color was the original meaning, and to dip a secondary meaning. Critics have not determined this question; nor can they prove, that to immerse was the original meaning of the word. But, as I before remarked, I can concede this point, and yet fully sustain my position. Still Mr. C. cannot prove it, and therefore I shall not admit it.

Mr. C. asks, how could baptizo, if it signify specifically to dip or immerse, come to express an entirely different action? I answer, it does not definitely express dipping or immersing. The lexicons, as we have seen, define it to wash as well as to immerse. Suppose, then, you direct your son to wash his hands, and he has water poured on them; does he not obey your command? Or suppose he dips them in water, does he not obey you? He does. You direct him to do a certain thing, but do

not prescribe any particular mode in which he must do it. He may, therefore, select any mode he prefers. So the word baptizo expresses the application of water to the person or subject; but the precise mode of its application must be determined by the circumstances and the design of the ordinance.

My friend gave us a dissertation on the words dip, bathe, pour, and sprinkle, as they occur in Leviticus. If he would not consider me as anticipating him, I could prove, that the word bapto is used in the Bible in several senses-dipping, partial dipping, wetting or smearing. Thus it is said, the priest shall "dip his finger from (apo) the oil," &c. Is it true that he did literally dip his finger from it? Does such an expression signify to dip in? Or does it not rather mean, as professor Stuart says, to wet or smear by means of the oil? There is, properly, no dipping in the case. The priest was simply to moisten or wet his finger with the fluid, so as to sprinkle it. If my friend will not charge me with anticipating him, I will say, that the word bapto occurs in the Scriptures again and again in connection with the preposition apo, from; and evidently in such cases it does not express mode.

There are in the Greek language words that definitely signify to immerse, and words which signify to pour, and to sprinkle; but I deny, that bapto or baptizo definitely expresses the one or the other of these modes. I can find a Greek word that does uniformly signify to immerse; but baptizo is not the word. The word baptisma is the name of an ordinance instituted by our Savior for the benefit of his church. It denotes the application of water to a proper subject, in the name of the Trinity; but it does not express the precise mode of applying the water.

But Mr. C. has insisted so much on the necessity of employing a specific term, expressing a definite action, to denote a religious ordinance, that I must read a passage in Numbers xix. 19, in which we find mentioned one of the washings to which I have before referred: “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." Here we find sprinkling, washing, and bathing. I invite your attention to the phrase "he shall bathe himself." The Hebrew word translated bathe, is rahats, which is a generic term signifying simply to wash; and it is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word louv, to wash. Here the unclean person is commanded to do a certain thingto wash himself; but does the word employed prescribe the mode in which he is to do it? It does not. But my friend insists, that the word employed must express a definite action-that it must precisely express the manner in which the ordinance is to be performed. I can find many examples similar to the one just adduced. Now, if his rule requiring a specific term is good in one instance, why not in another? But I can point to other rites, the mode of administering which is not expressed by the word employed.

My friend, Mr. C., admits that baptizo may mean sinking to the bottom; but he seems disposed to contend, that it more properly implies that the thing immersed is again raised out of the water. And he refers to the language of a Greek writer concerning Athens, which he explains to mean that Athens might be overwhelmed, but not destroyed. But if I understand the word overwhelm, I should think a city over whelmed is well nigh destroyed. But by an appeal to classic writers, I

can prove, that in four-fifths of the instances in which it is supposed to favor immersion, it signifies sinking to the bottom. Suppose, then, an individual should understand the command to be baptized in the sense of sinking; what could be the result? To sink is the common meaning of the word in the classics. But if you substitute the word sink for baptize in every place where baptizo occurs in the Scriptures, it makes nonsense. As to the idea advanced by my friend, that the syllable zo in baptizo implies that the action is to be performed quickly, I know of no evidence whatever that it is true. Dr. Carson (I believe that he is a doctor,) says, that baptizo denotes the putting of a thing into water; but whether it is raised out again or sinks to the bottom, cannot be ascertained by the word, but must be learned from the circumstances.

But I should be pleased to see some few examples adduced from the classics, in which the word baptizo expresses the action contended for by Mr. C. as essential to baptism. For I believe there is scarcely an instance in which it expresses the actions he performs in baptizing.[-Time expired.

Wednesday, Nov. 15—1 oclock, P. M. [MR. CAMPBELL'S THIRD ADDRESS.]

MR. PRESIDENT-An objection to the use we make of the testimony and criticism advanced from Pedo-baptist authority, now offered by my friend, Mr. Rice, reminds me of an objection advanced by some modern sceptics against the arguments generally relied on, in proving the resurrection of the Messiah. They say, your testimony is all one-sided. Produce any one of the ancient sceptics who admitted the fact. Unfortunately your testimony is all on the wrong side. Produce only one witness who was not himself a believer. That is indeed impossible; inasmuch as such an admission would have made the witness a christian. So in the present case. If those Pedo-baptist lexicographers and critics adduced, had entertained no excuse for their position, (either in the metaphorical meaning of the word, or in the unimportance of the mode,) they would have been Baptists; and then their testimony would have been more plausibly repudiated, because indeed one-sided."

So much with reference to the remarks made on professor Stuart's testimony, adduced some time ago. Mr. Stuart is a Pedo-baptist, and practices sprinkling; although he has said as much for immersion as any man could say, and yet continue where he is. It is indeed most true, as the gentleman presumes, that he [Prof. Stuart] is wholly indifferent as to the mode. He, in common with many others, says that immersion was the ancient mode; nay, he is compelled to admit that it was almost the universal practice in the ancient church; yet still he thinks with Calvin that mode is of no importance, and that we may alter and amend, according to circumstances, so that we do not make it a new rite. The same is true with regard to all the authorities brought forward by my worthy friend. Their testimony is, indeed, in one sense, ex parte. They are all of his own party, not of mine. Every dictionary he has quoted is a Pedobaptist dictionary; and yet most of them have said all that is possible to be said by persons not wholly with us; while indeed they all give the true original and proper meaning of the word, they are sure to give a tropical meaning, that squints to their own position. They must do this or abandon their position. They all believed in this practice of sprinkling; while as scholars, in their definitions, they have told the truth, with one or two exceptions. With one consent they all give to dip, or to immerse, as the

proper original meaning of the word baptizo. Not a single exception. Many of them give the reason for other meanings; such as-to wash, to cleanse, to color. They all concur in this, that such meanings are the effect, or the names of the effects of immersing. Not one of them says that it means to wash or cleanse in any mode, but only as the effect of dipping or immersing. Do they say it means to wash, &c., they immediately add, because it is done by immersing. This fact cannot be made too prominent. But what have we to do with the effects of an action, of an ordinance of God, in ascertaining the form or mode of the ordinance itself!! Hence all the learned abjure the rhetorical use of words in expounding laws, statutes, and ordinances, as we shall show in its proper place.

I wish, at this particular crisis of the discussion, to make a single impression, clearly and indelibly, upon the minds of the audience. It is this: there is not a word in universal speech that is absolutely incapable of a figurative use. Hence, if we may take the figurative meaning for the true and proper, there is an end to all discussion in ascertaining posi tive statutes and precepts; for, I repeat it, there is not in universal speech a noun, verb, or adjective, that may not be used figuratively. In verbs, very often, these figurative meanings are the results of specific actions. Hence where dyeing, washing, cleansing, are given as meanings of bapto or baptizo, lexicographers usually give the reason why a specific word could have such vague and general meanings.

I have said, in my introductory address, that the word baptizo has no more reference to water, than it has to oil, or sand, or any thing else; that it has reference to action only, and consequently can have but one meaning, which is most obvious, if the lexicons can be taken as authority. I again say there is neither water nor washing in the word baptizo. Any thing dipped into any thing, and covered over with it, fluid or not, is, in all propriety, said to be baptized, whether in oil, sand, wax, tar, milk or water. Why persons or things are said to be washed or cleansed by being immersed, is because generally they are immersed into clean water. Otherwise it could not be said that baptizo means to wash or cleanse. It would be as proper to say it means to pollute, to mire, to daub, if persons and things were generally immersed in mud, and mire, and unclean fluids. Hence some things dipped are said to be dyed, others colored, others cleansed, others washed, according to the material into which they are immersed. No figure of speech more common than a metonomy of the effect for the cause. Now what relation has the specific action to the effect produced by it? Can one word mean to wash, to mire, to cleanse, to pollute? Such is the logic of that whole school against which we contend.

But the question recurs whether in laws or ordinances we are to take the figurative or the literal meaning of words. This is the great question. I am happy to say that I have the concurrence of all the learned men of the world known to me, who have written on the subject, in the opinion that we are not to take the figurative meaning. All writers on law say, with Blackstone and Montesquieu, that in the interpretation of laws and statutes, terms are not to be taken rhetorically, but literally. Both in the enactment and in the interpretation of laws, the common meaning of words is to be regarded, and not the remote or figurative. A number of distinguished names will, at a more convenient season, be presented in proof of this conclusion.

With regard to the passage quoted from Mr. Carson, if the gentleman had just read a page or two further he would have shown his author was a little more consistent. It is of little consequence to us to argue and reply to conclusions drawn from the figurative use of the word.

It has been already distinctly stated that baptizo is the only word used to express the christian ordinance; and that for some reason (most probably the one I have given) it never signifies to dye. Bapto, however, tropically signifies to dye. Now although Dr. Carson argues that bapto means to dye, without regard to mode, he expressly traces the origin of this sense to a figure-the effect for the cause. His words are, page 60, "From signifying to dip it came to signify to dye by dipping, because this was the way in which things were usually dyed." This is my argument concerning both these words. The effect of dipping, for a length of time, is, in some substances, coloring or dyeing; the effect of dipping in clear water, for a short time, is washing, cleansing. Mr. Carson goes farther, it is alledged, and says that bapto and its family means dye or color, without any regard to the manner in which it was effected. This is then making the figurative the proper meaning of the word,—from this I dissent. But if Mr. Rice rely on Carson in this case, why not rely upon him in the case of the word used in the ordinance, which, according to him, signifies to dip, and nothing else?

I most readily admit, that, in the language of poetry and of imagination, objects are said to be painted, colored, dyed, not only in this mode, and that mode, but without any mode at all. Thus we have ornis baptos, the colored bird, of Aristophanes; the pictæ volucres, the painted birds, of Virgil; and Milton, in describing the wings of Raphael, sings of "colors dyed in heaven." In the same license Homer, in his reputed battle of the frogs and mice, represents a whole lake as tinged with the blood of a mouse. But what does all this prove? That because birds, flowers, clouds, and angels' wings, are said to be colored, dyed, or painted, without reference to any mode, that in the language of narrative, of precept, and of positive law, a person is baptized without any mode at all!! I have only one remark to make on all these cases and usages of bapto, that in the passive form things are said to be dyed, not with respect to the mode in which the process was completed, but with respect to the effect or result of the process; and again, nothing is said to be dyed, painted or colored by bapto, in its various forms, that is not, at the time of which it is spoken, covered over with the dye color. This is enough on this subject so far as the root bap, or the words bapto and baptizo are concerned. In all this there is a perfect conformity to the established laws of language in all similar cases.

I wish Mr. Rice had read a little more from Mr. Carson-such as, from the same pages he has quoted, "With regard to the other side, (Pedo baptist) to say nothing of the straining to squeeze out of the word the several meanings of sprinkling, pouring, washing, wetting, &c., for which there is not any even plausible ground, the obvious fact that it signifies dyeing by any process has been uncritically pressed to prove that when it relates to the application of pure water it denotes all modes equally." We may, however, hear Mr. Carson a little further on this subject, (page 59,) "If it be possible," says he, after giving many examples from Hippocrates, "to settle the meaning of a common word, surely this is suf ficient to fix the meaning of bapto beyond all reasonable controversy. In the words of the Father of Medicine, in which he has occasion to

H