Mr.

denote simply washing or purification, and not bathing. To prove this I referred, in § 16, to the fact that the vessels for washing the hands in the vestibules of ancient churches were called λουτήρες as well as νιπτήρες. Dr. Carson sees fit in view of this, to devote nearly nine pages to a dissertation on Xoúw. He opens his dissertation as follows, p. 66: "The philosophical linguist Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen, in distinguishing the words Xoúw and viπrw, makes the first signify to wash or bathe the whole body, the last to wash or bathe a part. This distinction has been generally received since the time of Dr. Campbell. Beecher calls it in question, yet he does not touch the subject with the hand of a master. He merely alleges an objection which he thinks calculated to bring confusion into what is thought to be clear; but he gives no additional light by any learned observations of his own. I shall endeavor to settle this question by evidence founded on the practice of language as well as the practice of the New Testament." Parturiunt montes! Dr. Carson is about to touch the subject with the hand of a masterand to settle the question!

Let us look at his results. He proves abundantly that λouw can be applied to bathing by immersion, which I never denied. Does he prove that it cannot be applied to sprinkling? Not at all. He asserts it, but nowhere proves it. I assert the contrary, and this is my proof: Porphyry asserts, in libel. de antro Nympharum, that it was customary for married women to purify maidens by sprinkling or affusion, before marriages, with water taken from fountains and living springs. Photius tells us that the water used for this purpose at Athens, was brought in a pitcher from certain fountains which he specifies, by the oldest male boy of the family. Here bathing by immersion, is excluded, and yet the water thus used is called λουτρόν, or λουτρά νυμφικά, and Zonaras defines λουτρά thus, τά εἰς λύσιν ἀγόντα τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας. Those things which produce the removal of impurity, that is, means of purification. The boy who brought the water was called λουτροφόρος.

Again, Basil applies the term λourpóv to a clinic baptism by

sprinkling or affusion. The prætor Ariantheus, converted by his wife, was also baptized by her on his dying bed. Of this Basil says, letter 386,-He washed away all the stains of his soul at the close of his life by the washing of regeneration, λουτρῷ παλιγγενεσίας. There was no bathing by immersion; but sprinkling or affusion.

Again, in Corpus Hist. Byzant., Nicephoras Gregoras, Lib. 24, p. 573, Venice, 1729, uses λour póv to denote the complex rite of purification, including unction and the influence of the Holy Spirit. "Since it is customary with men to wash themselves with water and to anoint themselves with oil, God has joined to the oil and the water the grace of his Spirit, and made them (i. e. oil, water, and spirit) the cleansing of regeneration," λourpóv Taλıyyεverías—anointing with oil is a part of the process of purification—it is no part of bathing, and here λourpóv must be taken in the most generic sense given to it by Photius, that is, a system of means of purification or a process of purification.

Dr. Carson hints that the λoupss in the temples might be for bathing the hands, and the vilñpes for washing them! p. 73. Here is the force of theory with a witness. Let us then listen to Julius Pollux, Seg. 46, Lib. 10, Cap. 10. The caption is, conface, wagi ruv ev r

cerning vessels used in washing hands and νίπτεσθαι σκευῶν.

It is necessary, he proceeds, for one arising from sleep to wash his face, τὸ πρόσωπον ἀπονίπτεσθαι—here is no bathing as yet. Let a boy, he proceeds, bring an ewer or pitcher, and pour out fresh water κατὰ λέβητος ἡ λουτηρίου τινός, in a vessel or washbasin. He justifies himself in using our gov in this sense by quoting a line from Anaxilas, in which he says, in baths rois BaXavsions there are no wash-basins (outńgia), i. ẹ. vessels for washing hands and face. Can Xoúw mean to bathe by its own force, when our gov is thus used to denote a vessel in which to wash (VÍTTEN) hands and face, and not only so, but is placed in pointed antithesis to bathing vessels? for in baths surely there are vessels for bathing, though there are none for face and hand-washing. Pollux also gives λourg (the word quoted by me from the Fathers), as a synonyme of our giov to denote a wash-basin, for washing

hands and face. All idea of face and hand bathing is therefore excluded.

Dr. Carson says, p. 67, that “Xoúw, like our word bathe, applies to animal bodies only-we do not speak of bathing cloth."

Nevertheless, Origen applies ourpóv to wood, and Gregory Nazianzen applies how to clothes, and to a couch—and Eupolis, see Pollux, applies dλouría (i. e. want of washing) to a cloak. Surely these are not animal bodies.

Again, Dr. Carson says, p. 67, in order to justify the application of virrw to the whole body it must be all successively washed—as vírrw involves friction or hand-washing. And yet Euripides applies it to bathing a whole herd of oxen in the sea, where friction, hand-washing, etc., are all out of the question. Strabo, too, applies it to the bathing of Diana in a river, where there was no probability of hand-washing.

Perhaps I have said enough to illustrate the nature of “the learned remarks of his own," which Dr. Carson has added, and his mode of "touching the subject with the hand of a master." I could add much more, did my room permit, and the patience of my readers allow. I will not complete the quotation with which I began, by adding, "Nascitur ridiculus mus," but only state that I see no reason either to add to or take from my statement, after all of Dr. Carson's effort to settle the subject.

Dr. Carson says, I added no learned observations of my own. I answer, the case seemed to me too plain to need any. Nothing is easier than to make a useless parade of learning. But it is of no use to waste time by needless citations to prove points which no one denies, and at the same time to deny points without proof, on which the whole question hangs.

I conclude then by saying, that λouw of its own force denotes to wash, or to purify; that in fact it is more generally used to denote a washing or purifying of the whole body, whether by sprinkling, affusion, or immersion—but that it is also applied to washing hands, face, and feet-also to wood, clothes, couches, cloaks, etc., though but rarely in this last sense.

Niw applies generally to washing of hands, face, and feet,

also sometimes, but more rarely, to bathing the whole body, in the case of both men and animals. It is also often used by the Fathers, with its compounds, to denote the cleansing of the mind from sin, excluding the idea of hand-washing. Sometimes also it is applied to the washing of cups, vessels (σ×ɛuñ), and tables.

IIXúva is generally applied to clothes-but also to the body and all its parts, also to cups, metals, and various animal substances. Proof of all these statements is at hand, and could be produced, if needed. But I think that the case is clear enough

as it is.

Dr. Carson's principles and general assertions, as to the Fathers, have passed under review; let us next briefly notice his application of them to the details of my argument. I shall now consider the manner in which he has assailed the Biblical argu

ment.

§ 67. Dr. Carson's Attack on the Biblical Argument.

The Biblical argument is contained in §§ 8—18. The course of the argument is this: (1.) In John iii. 25, the expression, a dispute concerning purifying (καθαρισμού), proves that καθαρισμός and Barticuós are synonymous, when applied to the rite of baptism. (2.) This view explains the expectation that the Messiah would baptize, for it was foretold that he should purify, but not that he should immerse. (3.) In the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the subject, the agent, the means, and the effect, demand the idea to purify, and exclude the idea to immerse, for the subject is the spirit of man, the agent the divine spirit, the means spiritual, and the effect purity; and in such relations the idea to immerse is absurd; purify is the only reasonable sense. (4.) The end of baptism is to indicate sacrificial purification, i. e. the remission of sins. We should naturally expect to find this idea in its name, and we do find it so used as clearly to indicate that it has the sense xadagiouós, i. e. sacrificial purification or remission of sins. (5.)

In the expression, divers baptisms, in Heb. ix. 10, the word BarTiμoí is obviously taken in a generic sense to denote Mosaic purifications of any kind. (6.) The baptism of couches, in Mark vii. 4, 8, and the baptism expected of Christ, in Luke xi. 38, were obviously purifications merely, and not immersions. (7.) In speaking of the nightly baptism of Judith (Jud. vii. 7) in the camp of Holofernes, no doubt a mere purification is spoken of without respect to mode, and not an immersion. (8.) In referring to a baptism from a dead body (Sirach xxxi. 25), no doub: the word is used in the generic sense to denote purification. (9.) The account of purification from sin in the baptism of Paul (Acts xxvi. 16), and Peter's effort to guard the mind against the idea of mere external purification, and to direct the mind to the purging of the conscience by the atonement, show that purification was the usual religious sense of the word. (10.) In that part of the Greek language, in which alone we ought to look for decisive evidence on this subject, there is no opposing evidence to be found; hence the case is decided in favor of the sense to purify, and against the sense to immerse.

In weighing the force of this argument it is necessary to remember, that, whatever the practice was in fact, even if it was immersion, it does not in any sense disprove this argument as to the meaning of the word; but only shows that under a command to purify, they did in fact purify by immersion. But I do not at all concede that in the Apostolic days it was customary to baptize by immersion. The fact, I am persuaded, was directly the reverse. But I mention this consideration, that no illogical imaginations or associations of ideas may entangle the mind or break the force of the argument.

Let it also be borne in mind that the argument is strictly cumulative, and that its force is to be tested by the coherence and accumulated force of its parts.

How, then, does Dr. Carson attempt to answer it? First, by attempting to break it up into disconnected fragments; then, in each fragment trying to prove that the highest possible evidence