adapted clearly to show my folly? Yet he exults as if this case were an end of all controversy, and refers to it in his reply again and again. Miserable is that cause that drives its advocates to

such shifts as these.

§ 50. Appeal to Facts.

But all principles are seen most clearly in the light of facts. To them then let us turn.

Clemens Alexandrinus (p. 387, Lugduni Batav. 1616) says, ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἴη ἂν καὶ ἡ ἐκ Μωϋσέως παραδεδομένη τοῖς ποιηταῖς ὧδέ πως :

‘Η δ' υδρηναμένη καθαρὰ χροῒ εἵματ ̓ ἐλοῦσα (Odyss. iv. 759). ἡ Πηνελόπη ἐπὶ τὴν εὐχὴν ἔρχεται—Τηλέμαχος δὲ Χεῖρας νιψάμενος πολιῆς ἁλὸς εὔχετ' Αθήνη (Odyss. ii. 261.) Εθος τοῦτο ̓Ιουδαιῶν ὡς καὶ τὸ πολλάκις ἐπὶ κοίτῃ βαπτίζεσθαι. On this I remark,

1. That Clement is in the context speaking of Christian baptism.

2. He states that "that may be an image of baptism which has been handed down from Moses to the poets, thus

Penelope having washed herself, and having on her body clean. apparel, goes to prayer, and Telemachus having washed his hands in the hoary sea, prayed to Minerva. This was the custom of the Jews that they also should be often baptized upon their couch."

Let us now look at the nature of things. Here is before us, as a nation, the Jews. They were accustomed to recline on couches at meals. These couches were large enough to hold from three to five persons. Clement states that it was their custom to be baptized often upon their couch. We know that as a matter of fact it was their custom to wash their hands often during their meals, whilst reclining upon their couches-and the frequent immersions of men on a couch during their meals, is an

unheard of thing. We look at the context. He had just spoken of Telemachus as washing his hands-using view-and of Penelope as washing herself, using dgaivw, a word perfectly generic, and no more limited to one mode than our word wash. We look further on, and we find that these are spoken of as an image of baptism, handed down from Moses to the poets. We reflect that these are rites of purification, and that Clement had been speaking of purity as essential in order to see God. And can we longer doubt? Washing the hands is a purification. Pilate used it to denote his innocence. The Psalmist says, I will wash my hands in innocence. All things point us to purity and purification. The sense is à priori probable-we adopt it. We believe that the Jews were in the habit of purifying themselves often upon their couch at meals, just as Telemachus did, that is, by washing their hands.

But was it not possible to have a fixed pulley over each couch in the dining-room, and ropes attached to the corners of the couch, and a baptistery in the floor below, covered by a trap door, and was it not possible to elevate the couches, open the trap doors, and immerse guests and couches together, and to do it often during the same meal? But it would be excessively inconvenient. No matter for that, what will not superstition do? But washing hands is spoken of as an image of baptism. No matter, it is an image of it as to its nature, whatever may be the meaning of the name. (We shall hereafter see how much use Dr. Carson makes of this distinction.) Now all this may be said. Dr. Carson on his principles is obliged to say it. But whom will it convince ? None but the man who has a cause to maintain, which is lost so soon as he admits that the word Barril means to purify, irrespective of mode.

Now in this case, the probability is so high as to produce on every disinterested mind the impression of certainty, yet because it does not reach Dr. Carson's arbitrary canon, it is to be rejected as a cipher. But who will dare to reject it? After the violence

of party spirit has put forth all its energies, common sense will certainly resume her sway, and cover all such evasions with merited disgrace.

Let us look at another case.

Justin Martyr (p. 164. London 1772) says, rí yàg öpeλ05 ἐκε νοῦ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ἢ τὴν σάρκα καὶ μόνον τὸ σῶμα φαιδρύνει ; βαπτίσθητε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ ὀργῆς, καὶ ἀπὸ πλεονεξίας, ἀπὸ φθόνου, ἀπὸ μισοῦς καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ σῶμα καθαρόν ἐστι. "What is the profit of that baptism which purifies the flesh and the body alone? Be baptized as to your souls, from anger and from covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo! your body is pure." We look at the nature of things. An actual immersion for the sake of purity does not belong to the mind. We look at the usages of language. The mind is never spoken of as figuratively immersed, for mental purity. It is spoken of as immersed in cares, troubles, pollution, &c. We look at the language used. Barril is followed by arò preceding that from which the mind is to be cleansed—this suits the sense to purify, but not the sense to immerse. We say naturally be purified from anger-not be im

mersed from anger. We look at the context. Justin had been

speaking of the atonement of Christ, and of its power to cleanse from sin. He had just spoken of the passage in Isaiah, wash you, make you clean, as referring to baptism. He has spoken of purifying, washing, cleansing, in various forms, but has used no undisputed equivalent of immersion, such as xaradów. Whether then we look at the nature of things, or the general usages of language, or the particular language of this passage, or of the context, all tends to one result. call out for the sense to purify. true translation of the passage is purification, which purifies the flesh and the body alone? purified as to your souls, from anger and from covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo! your body is pure." And long after all the efforts of party spirit to wrest it to any other sense

All things, with united voice, And it is the sense; and the this: "What is the profit of that Be

have found an ignominious grave, it will stand in its native simplicity and beauty, satisfying and delighting every candid mind by its inherent and self-evidencing power of truth. Another sense can indeed be forced on these words by the violence of arbitrary canons of logic and rhetoric. But the laws of language, and of the human mind, though for a time suppressed by force, cannot die. They will break through all rhetorical and logical chains, and assert and make good their indefeasible claims.

I do not advocate these principles so earnestly because there are no passages that can meet Dr. Carson's highest claims,—in my second book I have produced such, and I have many more to produce before I close, but because I wish to repel his unreasonable claims of evidence, and to restore the usages of language to their true and inherent liberties, against his violence and force.

The human mind is an instrument of wondrous delicacy, and language is its mirror. The slightest influence of taste, circumstances, and subjects of thought, affect its meaning. The manner in which it passes from sense to sense, in the use of words is to be ascertained by observation, and cannot be fixed à priori, by theory. And if it passes easily from sense to sense, in words of a given class, no man has a right to make the proof that it has so passed, difficult, yea, almost impossible, for party ends, and by arbitrary canons of evidence. Yet this, Dr. Carson has done.

He has provided rhetorical and logical cords and chains, for forcing back and confining to the primitive sense, all usages of the word Barrigw which seem to have left it, and happy is that word which has energy enough to retain its inalienable rights of freedom, after he has laid his hands upon it.

§ 51. Dr. Carson's Principles subvert themselves.

But happily, Dr. Carson furnishes the means of destroying his own principles. I have said that his practice is against his own principles. "Does he not admit that Bárta means to dye or

net.

color when it is applied to the beard and hair? And is it impossible to dip these? Improbable surely it is, but not half so much as the immersion of couches." Hear his reply. "Here I am caught at last. Surely my feet are entangled in my own But let the reader see with what ease I can extricate myself. The assertion of my antagonist arises from his want of discrimination" (of course, as I happen to differ from Dr. Carson). "I admit that Barra has a secondary signification, because such secondary signification is in proof, and instances may be alleged in which its primary meaning is utterly impossible," e. g. the immersion of a lake in the blood of a mouse. "Show me anything like this with respect to Sarri(w, and I will grant a secondary meaning. And as soon as a secondary meaning is ascertained on sufficient grounds, I do not demand in every instance a proof of impossibility of primary meaning before the secondary is alleged. The competition between rival meanings must then be determined on other grounds." So then all cases of probability are to be set aside as ciphers, till one case can be found to come up to Dr. Carson's canon; and, however numerous they are, to adduce them is only adding ciphers to ciphers, or multiplying ciphers by ciphers. But as soon as one case of the right kind is found, lo! all these ciphers at once assume a value. Dr. Carson is now willing to admit them on lower evidence. If he had not found the passage as to the lake and the mouse, or some one like it, he must have believed that the Indians dip their beards and hair, not that they dye them-but now it is easy to see that they do not dip them but dye them. Is this sound philosophy? If it is, Dr. Carson has dug a mine under all of his reply to me. All my cases of probability, according to him, are as yet ciphers. But I may find the lucky passage at last-and lo! they spring into life and put in their claims for a new trial. Can Dr. Carson

refuse it? If not, then all his labor is in vain.

He must do all

his work over again, and judge on new principles and with new results. Let us try and see if we cannot find a passage.