p. 251.* He says Moses does this philosophically, for most others are sprinkled with unmixed water, some with sea or river water, others with water drawn from the fountains. But Moses employed ashes for this purpose. Then, as to the manner, they put them into a vessel, pour on water,then moisten branches of hyssop with the mixture, (ex rov κράματος βαπτοντας ύσσοπου κλαδους,) then sprinkle it upon those who are to be purified, τοις καθαιρομένοις. And this account was written after the passage in question. Here we note, in passing, a use of Banto with ex, at war with the idea to dip, and consistent only with the idea to moisten or wet. Now for what reason are we to set aside probabilities like these? Merely to avoid so simple, natural and probable a conclusion, as that Bazzico sometimes means simply to purify, as in this case it most clearly does. § 17. The case of Judith also sustains the same view. In Judith 12: 7, we are told that she remained in the camp of Holofernes three days, and, by night, that is, on each night, she went out to the valley of Bethulia and purified or washed herself, in the camp at the fountain of water. IIαgeμeiver ev τη παρεμβολη ήμερας τρεις, και εξεπορεύετο κατα νυκτα εις την φαραγγα Βετυλούα και εβαπτίζετο εν τη παρεμβολη επι της πηγής του ύδατος. Here we notice that the purification in question was performed in the camp, and at or near the fountain—and for three nights in succession. In the case of Tobit, a man at a river, and away from all observation, we know that immersion was more probable. But here a female, in a camp, and at or near a fountain, it is insisted, did immerse herself, three nights in succession. We are told of her courage and faith, and of possible bathing places near the spring, and all for what? To avoid so obvious a conclusion as that the writer merely means to say that she purified, or washed herself, without reference to the mode. In the case of Susannah, we * The edition in the Andover Library. date I did not note. Its edition and are told that she desired to wash herself, 2ovoaσ0α, in the garden, because it was warm. Here she could shut the doors and be alone, v. 17. Yet the writer says merely wash. But in the case of Judith, even in a camp, he must needs insist, it seems, on the mode, and that mode must be immersion. And what reason is there for all this? Is not the sense xaα, a priori, probable? Yes. Does it not fulfil all the exigencies of the case? Yes. Was it of any importance to specify the mode? No. Do the circumstances of the case call for immersion? No; they seem, at first sight entirely to forbid it; and nothing but skill in suggesting possibilities can at all remove the impression. In fact the circumstances of the case have led the vast majority of minds in all ages to feel that immersion is not the meaning here,—and that to purify or to wash is. Hence it is that Mr. Carson, in his arduous attempt to prove that ẞazzi∞ never means to wash, irrespective of mode, is obliged to admit that he has "all the lexicographers and commentators" against him. p. 79. $18. No contrary probability, or usage, can be established from the writers of the New Testament age, or of the preceding age, who used the Alexandrine Greek. It will be noticed that the argument thus far is specific, and relates to a relig. ious usage, produced at a particular time, and by particular circumstances definitely and clearly marked. Now to refute this argument, it is of no use to go to writers who lived and wrote entirely out of this range of circumstances and ideas. It could only prove that, in other circumstances, another usage of the word did exist, and this no one need deny. But it is very noticeable that, in the very writers where alone proof of an opposite religious usage, or even of a probability of it, can, reasonably be looked for, there is none to be found. It is in these very writings that the whole current of probability, and of usage, sets strongly the other way. I do not deny that these writers do also use the word ßanTigo, in other circumstances, and in a secular sense, to denote immersion, sinking, overwhelming or oppression. But this only proves that the two usages did coexist; just as Mr. Carson proves that the two usages of Barro did coexist in Hippocrates, and that the existence of the one did not disprove the existence of the other. So, at least four meanings of the word spring coexist, and yet no one infers from one that the others do not exist. That the religious usage of these writers all sets one way, one obvious and admitted fact may show. Mr. Carson admits that all the lexicographers and commentators do assign to the word ẞantico the unlimited sense to wash, or cleanse. Now on what writers do they rely? Beyond all dispute on the writers of Alexandrine Greek, the very writers who have furnished all the facts on which this argument is based. And these writers, be it noticed, furnish no presumption or usage the other way. Even in those minuter shades of meaning, which are furnished by allusion, comparison or association of ideas, all things tend the same way. So, in the account of the baptism of Paul, the sacrificial reference of Baptism is plainly indicated, Acts 22: 16: Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, Αναστας βαπτισαι και απολου σαι τας ἁμαρτίας σου, calling upon the name of the Lord. Here we have faith in Christ, the washing away or pardon of sins, and a purification intended to symbolize it. Bantioai, purify thyself, or be purified bodily,-arohovoαi ras áμaqrias, wash away thy sins, as to the mind, by calling on the name of the Lord. Here the antithesis and correspondence are beautiful and complete, and one seems naturally to suggest the other. So the case in Peter 3: 21, where he speaks of baptism as saving us, is far more natural and beautiful, if we adopt this sense, for he seems to think that, if he left the word fantopa unguarded, he might be taken to mean the external purification of the body. But as this does not save us, and as nothing but the purification of the mind does, he guards himself and says, I do not mean the putting away of the filth of the flesh, by the purification of which I speak, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Hence, too, the legal or sacrificial sense lies upon the very face of the passage,-for it is the purification of the conscience by atoning blood, to which he refers, and not to an external washing at all; and I need not say to any one who can feel the nice correspondencies of words, how much more beautiful and clear the whole passage becomes by assigning to Banrioua the sense of a spiritual purification, by the blood of Christ, which Peter affirms that it has. On the subject, however, of the external washing in this case, I shall speak more at large under another head. So too the account given by Josephus of the baptism of John, Antiq. B. xviii. c. 5, § 2, presents the same train of thought to the mind. Instead of the awkward translation of Whiston I prefer to give a free statement of the obvious sense, and to quote the original where critical exactness is needed. John, he says, informed the Jews that before they could be baptized they must commence and profess the practice of piety towards God, and justice towards each other—and that their baptism would be acceptable to God, if they did not rely upon it as a means of putting away a part only of their sins, but used it merely as a means of purifying the body, to indicate that the soul had been previously, thoroughly purified by righteousness. To denote baptism he uses the word ßantηois, and to denote its import he states that they are to use it, εφ' άγνεια του σώματος, άτε δε και της ψυχης δικαιοσυνη προεκκεκαθαρμένης. Now here, I remark that there was nothing to cause Josephus or any other Jew to think of the mode, or to attach any importance to it. No idea of a fancied reference, in the rite, to the death of Christ, could bias his mind towards the sense immerse. To him, it is plain, that it meant nothing but purifying the body, to indicate that the mind had been previously thoroughly purified by righteousness; and he speaks just as he would, if these ideas had been suggested by the name of the rite; in other words, just as he would if καθαρσις had stood in the place of βαπτησις. Now although I would not rely on such places for proof, against a strong contrary probability, yet when I find them so perfectly coincident with all other facts, when all shades of probability so perfectly harmonize and blend in a common result, I cannot hesitate, for I see no good reason for doubt. It is not a solitary fact on which the argument rests. To overthrow it, the whole current of probability must be reversed, and so striking a coincidence and harmony of meaning, in so many independent passages, be supposed to exist without a cause. Particular errors may no doubt be detected in the argument, and individual passages, viewed out of their relations, may be made to admit another possible SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. II. 10 sense. But that a fair and comprehensive view of all the facts of the case can be made to lead to a result opposite to the one here maintained, I shall not think possible, until I see it done; and there are no new and undiscovered means for doing it. The facts all lie within a given and definite compass, and they can easily be placed before the minds of all. If any that bear on the case have been omitted, it can easily be shown. If not, then it must be shown that the principles, on which this argument rests, are unsound, or that they have not been accurately applied, and 1 am not aware that either of these things can be done. The argument, from the usage of the writers of Alexandrine Greek is now at an end. Other considerations, as it regards this part of the subject, still remain; but the statement of them will be deferred till the leading objections to this view shall claim our attention. I shall now proceed to show that evidence of the truth of this view is also to be found in the writings of the Fa thers. I appeal to them, not because I think that their opinions, on questions of interpretation, or sacred philology, are of much weight, for it is well known to all, either that their attainments in biblical literature were sinall, or that their principles of philology were to a great extent fluctuating or unsound. Nor do I appeal to them, because I deem their theological opinions of peculiar weight. They deserve, indeed, a respectful attention, and are of great use in investigating the history of opinions. Moreover they often furnish rich and valuable materials for thought. But nothing can be more desperate than the attempt to make a regular and harmonious system of truth from their works. The sentence of Milton on them is well known; and though, if left unbalanced by other considerations, it would produce undue neglect, yet it is essentially based on truth. But I refer to them, simply as furnishing facts in the history of language, and it will be my object to show that these facts are such as would naturally flow from the truth of the view which 1 have given. My position then is this: if we admit that in the days of Christ, xaoag was the import of Bazzilo, taking all the texts in the New Testament in which the word occurs, and the ideas connected with the rite, and looking at the laws of |