have retained more than I usually quote. Its main force lies in the expression, how shall I, who am under sentence of condemnation, purify, i. e., acquit my judge? nos fanrioo ròv κριτὴν ὁ ὑπεύθυνος. How absurd, in such a passage, to inquire, how shall I, a culprit, immerse my judge? But take Banrico in the sense purify, or acquit, and it at once harmonizes the whole passage. Nor is this all; the laws of antithesis demand this sense. Let us thus translate it. "How shall I dare to purify thee? When is the fire purified by the stubble? When does the clay wash the fountain? How shall I, a culprit, purify or acquit my judge? How shall I purify thee, O Lord? I see no fault in thee. Thou has not fallen under the curse of Adam: thou hast committed no sin. How will the earth endure to see him, who makes pure the angels, purified by a sinful man? How shall I purify thee, O Lord, who hast never participated in the pollutions of birth? How, then, shall I, a polluted man, purify God? The sinless God? Thou hast sent me as a purifier, hast thou not disregarded thine own command ?" On this last sentence, the editor says: the sense is, as I infer, thou hast made me a purifier, that I should baptize, that is, purify, from pollution, and expiate those defiled by sin. But since thou art polluted by no sins, why dost thou command that I should expiate and wash thee, if there is nothing in thee to be washed away? That is beyond the province of a baptist, i. e., a purifier. I have need to be purified of thee. The interchange of aro and Bazziow in carrying out the antithesis is no less striking. He uses nos ẞantío∞ till near the close, and then exchanges it in the question for ἁγνίσω-πῶς ἁγνίσω Θεόν: how shall I purify God-the sinless God. Yet, who does not see that the import of the question must be the same throughout the whole passage? So the antithesis τὸν ἁγιάζοντα ἀγγέλους βαπτίζομενον ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοῦ, requires βαπτίζω and ἁγιάζω to be taken in the same sense. This passage admirably illustrates the statements in § 28, 2. Jan. 1841. Giving to Barrio the sense to purify, the passage is inimitably beautiful and brilliant. It loses all its beauty the moment we assign to it any other sense.

Have I not adduced evidence enough? In any common case it would be enough, and more than enough. But strange as it may seem, the life of a whole denomination depends upon denying this sense of this word. Mr. Carson says, if it were optional, he would never immerse. So says Mr. Hague. And if this meaning is established, all pretext for a separate Bible

Society is taken away. Nor will any valid reason for separate organic action remain. So fundamental an error will not easily die. It has, indeed, no logical life; but it has an organic life of tremendous power. In numerous periodicals this denomination utters its voice. Hundreds of thousands hang on them for the truth; and if they see it not in them, will not see it at all. They are the leaders. It is expected of them to defend the cause. And temptations, almost infinite, urge them not to see the truth. Before such temptations they will fall, unless God, in his mercy, aid them by a full illumination of his Spirit. So may it be. But as things are, the work of adducing evidence must still go on.

55. Definitions of βαπτίζω and βάπτισμα.

I remark, then, that the sense to purify is established by direct definitions of the Fathers and of Greek Lexicographers, given in a manner most explicit and unambiguous.

66

On this point I shall first quote Basil. He is commenting on Is. 4: 4. Οτι ἐκπλύνει κυρίος τὸν ῥύπον τῶν υἱῶν καὶ τῶν θύγατερῶν Σιών, καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ιερουσαλήμ ἐκκαθαριεῖ ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐν πνεύματι κρίσεως καὶ ἐν πνεύματι καύσεως. “ The Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons and the daughters of Zion, and shall purge the blood of Jerusalem from the midst of them, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning." On this he remarks, Τρανῶς τὰ αὐτὰ τῷ ̓Ιωάννῃ ὁ λόγος προαγορεύει περὶ τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντι ὅτι αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πῦρί· περὶ δὲ ἑαυτοῦ ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν. " Plainly the word foretells the same things concerning the Lord, by John, who says, that he shall baptize you by the Holy Spirit and fire: but, concerning himself, he says, I, indeed, baptize you with water unto repentance." In one series of expressions, the words are, húvo and ἐκκαθαρίζω-in the other βαπτίζω. Basil says that the import of both modes of expression is plainly the same. Nor is this all. He proceeds, ἐπεὶ γοῦν ἀμφοτέρα συνήψεν ὁ κύριος τὸ τὲ ἐξ ὕδατος εἰς μετάνοιαν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ πνεύματος εἰς ἀναγέννησιν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἀινίσσεται ἀμφοτέρα τὰ βάπτισματα μήποτε τρεῖς εἰσιν αἱ ἐπίνοιαι zov Báпriouαros. "Since, then, the Lord has connected both τοῦ βάπτισματος. (baptisms), namely, that from water to repentance, i. e., John's, and that from the Spirit to regeneration, i. e., Christ's, and the word (Is. 4: 4) alludes to both baptisms (i. e., Christian baptism, and that of fire), are there not three significations ?" Here

he first speaks of baptisms in the plural (i. e., the baptisms of John, of Christ, and of fire), and as, in some respects, alike, in others unlike; and this seems to call for a definition of the senses of the word. He says they are three, and proceeds to give them. (1.) ὁ τὲ τοῦ ῥύπου καθαρίσμος (2.) καὶ ἡ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀναγέννησις (3.) καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ πυρί κρίσεως βάσανος. 1. The purification of filth. 2. Regeneration by the Spirit. 3. Trial or proof in the fire of the judgment. These are three kinds of purification. One external by water-the next internal by the Spirit, i. e., regeneration-the other a purgation in the fires of the judgment day. To this purgation by fire, the fathers referred the words of Paul: "Every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire: and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is; if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." The man saved by fire, is saved by Basil's third kind of purification. Concerning this, Hilarius says, "per ignem purgatus fiat salvus," being purified by fire, he may be saved. Hence, Basil refers a part of the purification to this world, and a part to the next, but considers it all as baptism in one way or another, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἐκπλύνειν πρὸς τὴν ὧδε ἀπόθεσιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας λαμβάνεσθαι τὸ δὲ πνεύματι κρίσεως καὶ πνεύματι καύσεως πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς δοκιμασίαν. " So that the expression to wash away (in Is. 4: 4) refers to the laying aside sins in this world (by Christian baptism) but the expression, spirit of judgment and spirit of burning, refers to trial by fire in the world to come." How unlike all this is to immersion, I need not say. Can any thing be more to the point? Is it not enough to say, that to wash away filth, and to purge, in Is., and to baptize in the New Testament, are equivalent modes of expression? Is it not enough, that he uses ex after ẞánzioua, a preposition at war with the idea immerse? For we are not immersed iş idaros, but ἐν ὕδατι—but we are purified ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ ἐκ πνεύματος, ἐκ denoting that from which the purification proceeds, and by which it is produced. Is it not enough, that he speaks of baptisms in the plural, and refers two to this world, and one to the next, and then goes on to define three corresponding senses of the word, and that each sense is a purification, and neither an immersion? What more could be asked, or received, if asked? Surely he who will not believe this, would not believe, even though old Basil himself were to arise from the dead and pro

66

claim on the house tops: the meaning of ßantico is to purify!

Nor is this all. Athanasius testifies explicitly to the same effect. Speaking of the expression: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, he expressly states that it has the sacrificial sense to purify, i. e., to remit sins.-Montfaucon, Collectio nova Patrum Græcorum. Vol. 2, p. 27. Paris, 1706—and to express this sense, he uses καθαρίζω. His words are: Τὸ αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, τοῦτο θελοῖ ὅτι καθαρίζει ὑμᾶς. "The expression, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, means this, that he shall purify, i. e., absolve you, or remit your sins." That this is the sense is plain, for he adds, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὸ τοῦ ̓Ιωαννοῦ βάπτισμα τοῦτο ποιήσαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁς καὶ ἀφίεναι ἁμαρτίας ἐξουσίαν ἔχει. Because the purification of John could not do this, but that of Christ, who has power to forgive sins." This last expression fixes the sense of adaqıɛĩ, and thus the sense of pantion to remission of sins, or sacramental purification. Athanasius, therefore, directly testifies, that this is the sense. Let us hear no more, then, of immersion in the Holy Spirit. Athanasius declares, that purification by the Holy Spirit is the sense.

Once more the lexicographers. Zonaras and Phavorinus define βάπτισμα thus, ἄφεσις ἁμαρτίων δὶ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος—ἡ ἀνεκλόγιστος ἄφεσις ἁμαρτίων ἡ λύσις δεσμοῦ ἐκ φιλανθρωπίας δε Soonuern. The remission of sins by water and the Spirit—the unspeakable forgiveness of sins-the loosing of the bond (i. e., of sin), granted by the love of God towards man. These are obviously all equivalents of sacrificial purification, i. e., remission of sins. They would be perfect definitions of xavaquμès. Are not two words synonymous to which the same definitions can be truly given? These definitions are not the mere opinions of Zonaras and Phavorinus. They are taken from the ideas of the Fathers, and nearly in their words. They also give definitions of the moral sense of fánrioμa, i. e., moral purification—thus, ἡ ἑκούσιος συνταγὴ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν δευτέρου βιοῦ ἡ ἀναλύσις (ἀναλήψις in Phavorinus) ψυχῆς ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον. The voluntary arrangement of a new life towards God, or according to the will of God. The releasing, or recovery of the soul (i. e., from sin), for that which is better, i. e., holiness.

All this certainly denotes moral purification, or the restoration of the soul to a new and holy life. It is equivalent to Basil's second sense, avayévvnois. These last definitions would be perfect definitions of xalaqioμòs, as denoting moral purification.

etc.

Again, I ask: Are not two words synonymous to which the same definitions can be truly given? Nor are these last definitions the mere opinions of Zonaras and Phavorinus. As before they are taken from the Fathers, and are given in their phraseology and style. Is there no evidence in all this? Is it nothing that two lexicographers, writing in Greek, define fázzioua thus, and say nothing of immersion? Does this look as if immersion is the very essence of baptism, as some assert? Why is all this? The reason is obvious: they were giving the ecclesiastical, the religious sense of the word, and in so doing they could give nothing else. But who was Zonaras, and what the value of his lexicon? He was one of the four leading Byzantine historians. He wrote annals from the beginning of the world down to 1118. Also a commentary on the apostolic canons, decrees of councils, He was first a courtier in the court of Alexius Comnenus, then a monk on Mount Athos. Of his history, Tittman says it is not surpassed by that of any Byzantine writer. Of his lexicon: "I consider it, after that of Hesychius, the most learned of all others that survive, the most copious and most accurate; so that by it we can correct and confirm Suidas, the author of the Etymologium, and others, and even Hesychius himself. Finally, it is invaluable for illustrating passages of authorssome before published, others preserved in him alone." The question is not as to the taste and rhetorical excellence of Zonaras. It is this: Did not a historian who wrote in Greek, and was perfectly familiar with the writings of the Greek Fathers, and who wrote commentaries in Greek on the apostolic canons, did not he know what fazzioua means? And yet of immersion he says nothing; every definition is an equivalent of xalapioμòs. Does Mr. Carson say he is defining the nature of the rite, and not its name? I reply: its name and its nature coincide. The Fathers define its name as purification, and its nature is the same. The definition of Basil is not a definition of the nature of one rite, i. e., the rite of Christian baptism. He is speaking of three baptisms, that of John, that of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that of fire, at the judgment day. He cannot, therefore, be giving merely the import of one rite. Besides, the rite of Christian baptism does not import trial in the fires of the judgment day. Baptism by water does not import baptism by fire. It is the word, therefore, and the word alone that Basil defines. Nor is the definition accidental, but deliberate and formal. He fixes his eye fully and intently upon the point.