of my position is not given; that the sense immerse is possible; and then bringing in what he calls the testimony of the word Barril. The illogical nature of this whole process I have fully shown. I have also, by evidence most unanswerable, shown that the word Barril does not in these cases testify as he alleges, but that it testifies directly against him, and most fully and decidedly in my favor. Hence, 1. On the ground on which I first put the argument, i. e. the principles of moral and cumulative evidence, it remains unanswered and with unbroken force. 2. On Dr. Carson's own ground it remains unanswered and with unbroken force. I add, 3. That the truth of every main point in the argument can be sustained by direct philological evidence from the Fathers, and that to any required degree of strength. To illustrate this last assertion, let us consider the leading points of the argument. 1. Dr. Carson assails my argument from John iii. 25. He denies that the " question" spoken of had any reference to baptism at all. For example, on p. 432, he asserts that the question spoken of "was not caused by the concurrence of two claims to baptize; for these claims are never mentioned with regard to the dispute. If we had not the document in our hands, we should be led to think from Mr. Beecher's representation, that the dispute was between the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus with respect to conflicting claims between their masters;" on p. 430, he says, "the dispute had no relation to the baptism of John and Jesus; the dispute does not imply the existence of the baptism of Jesus, or even of himself." In various other forms and with great positiveness he repeats it. He also sharply asserts that the question concerning purification was not a question. concerning baptism. On the other hand Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, expressly testify that the question concerning purification was simply and only a question concerning baptism. Chrysostom thus speaks, "That the baptisms, i. e. of John and Jesus, did not differ in claims the context shows. What is this? There was a dispute between the disciples of John and a Jew concerning purification. For the disciples of John, being jealous of the disciples of Christ, and of Christ himself, when they saw them baptizing, began to dispute with those who were baptized, as if their own baptism was superior in its claims to that of Christ, and taking one of the baptized they tried to convince him, but did not succeed." In like manner, Theophylact says, on Jn. iii. 25, “ ἐγένετο ζήτησις περὶ τοῦ βαπτίσματος. There was a dispute concerning baptism, between the disciples of John, moved with rivalry, and a certain Jew. For the Jew placed the claims of the baptism of Christ before those of John, but the disciples of John gave the precedence to the claims of their master's baptism." Thus it appears, beyond all doubt, that the question concerning purification was simply and only a question concerning baptism. Nor is this all; as if to make assurance doubly sure, Theophylact, after having thus called the question a question concerning baptism, and then stated its point, proceeds next to call it a question concerning purification, and then to add as its synonyme baptism. He thus expressly gives Barrioμa as an equivalent of xatagiouós. For, after stating the subject of the question just as I do, he proceeds to say of the disciples of John, and the Jews, ζητήσαντες δὲ περὶ καθαρισμοῦ ἤτοι βαπτίσματος προσίασι τῷ αὐτῶν διδασκάλῳ, “ disputing concerning purification, that is, baptism, they came to their master." Nor are these words equivalent merely as names of the same rite, as Dr. Carson suggests, but they are equivalent in idea, as I have elsewhere often and fully shown. Hence purification is not a mere name of the rite, like "illumination," "anointing," "the gift," "grace," "the seal," &c. It is the meaning of the word baptism; and baptism is purification, and not immersion. 66 2. Again, Dr. Carson treats with very great contempt the second point, that this view explains, by a reference to Old Testament prophecies, the expectation that the Messiah would baptize. This I illustrated by a reference to Malachi. He thinks the argument so contemptible that it "deserves no attention." "It requires more than the patience of Job to be able to mention such an argument without expressing strong feeling." "This argument manifests such a want of discrimination, and confusion of things which differ, that the mind on which it has force must be essentially deficient in those powers that qualify for the discussion of critical questions." What, then, are the facts? They are these. The Fathers, in commenting on those passages in the Old Testament, in which it is predicted that the Messiah should purify, do regard them as predictions that he should baptize, and state explicitly that the words Carriga and xalagi?w mean the same thing. Of this, Basil's comment on Is. iv. 4, § 55, is an unanswerable proof. In the Old Testament it is said concerning the Messiah έxπλuvε and ἐκκαθαριεῖ. In the New, John says βαπτίσει, and Basil says they mean the same thing; and then defines Barrioμa as meaning - καθαρισμός. Nor is this all. Eusebius, of Cesarea, sustains the same view. Commenting on this passage, he says that the preposition έv is used in the causative sense, when applied to the Holy Spirit, not only in this passage, but in the New Testament too; for he says that the expressions ἐν πνεύματι κρίσεως καὶ ἐν πνεύματι καύσεως, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning, in Is. iv. 4, are equivalent to the expressions ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, by the Holy Spirit and fire in the New Testament. Hence he pointedly excludes the idea of immersion in the Holy Spirit, and gives in its place purification by the Holy Spirit. The whole comment of Eusebius is this: "Observe whether this passage is not, to a remarkable degree, coincident in sense with the evangelic testimony concerning our Saviour. 'He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire;' for the expression by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning,' does not at all differ in sense from the expression by 'the Holy Spirit and fire.' In the one case (Is. iv. 4) fiery words reproving them, produced a purification (záðagów) of sins, and in like manner, of our Saviour in the gospel it is said, he shall purify (Sassice), not with water but by the Holy Spirit and fire.” In regarding Is. iv. 4, as a prophecy of baptism, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret, all coincide. And just as clearly do Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria regard Mal. iii. 3, to which I referred, as a prophecy of baptism; and the same is true of other passages in the Old Testament, in which it is foretold that the Messiah shall purify. Inasmuch, then, as it was foretold that the Messiah should purify, and inasmuch as purify and baptize are, by the testimony of the Fathers, synonymous, it was of course foretold that the Messiah should baptize. And predictions that he should baptize, would of course awaken an expectation that he would baptize. Hence this expectation is accounted for as I stated. In what manner he should baptize is not foretold, and no doubt all these predictions had primary reference to spiritual purification, and could have been fulfilled had no external rite of purification been ordained. But so soon as a rite of purification was established by the forerunner of the Messiah, it would at once call up to the minds of all, the great purifier, so long foretold, so long expected, and raise the inquiry, Is John he? If not, why does he purify? And when the attention was thus aroused, it would of course lead John to unfold to the people the nature of that spiritual purification, of which his purification by water was but a type. What struck my mind, was this. The language of the New Testament, as to baptism by the Messiah, is exactly such as is used in the Old Testament with reference to purification by the Messiah. In the Old Testament, a purification by the Spirit and by fire was spoken of; in the New, a baptism by the Holy Spirit and by fire. An immersion in the Holy Spirit and fire was manifestly absurd; hence I could not resist the conviction that the Old Testament and New Testament modes of expression were equivalent. And it appears that this mode of reasoning led me to the truth, notwithstanding Dr. Carson is pleased to treat it with such utter contempt. Indeed, I would not fear to risk the whole question on the comments on Is. iv. 4, of the six Fathers named above. In some minor particulars they disagree, some referring the purification by fire to this world, others to the world to come, some to literal fire, others to spiritual, but all agreeing in one point, that to baptize and to purify mean precisely the same thing. Even, therefore, though Dr. Carson should continue to despise this argu. ment, still the truth will nevertheless continue to be justified of her children. 3. The testimony of the Fathers on the third point, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is no less abundant. All the evidence produced on the last point applies with equal force to this, for it is to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that they refer these predictions of purification in the days of the Messiah. Moreover, they saw types of this baptism in the fire that came down from heaven and consumed the sacrifice of Elijah, and in the fire kindled by Nehemiah, according to the 2d book of Maccabees, by sprinkling water. Thus, said they, in the baptism of fire, a divine and heavenly fire descends from above, and enters into the heart, and purges out the dross of sin, and makes us pure. Nor is this view sustained by the Fathers alone. It originates from the very nature of things. The Holy Spirit is neither figuratively nor literally a river, lake, or pool, but a living, intelligent being, from whom an illuminating and purifying influence goes forth, as light and heat from the sun. Hence we are not spoken of as immersed in him, but purified by him; hence, too, it is proper to speak of his influences as poured out or descending as the rain, or going forth as the light or fire. A few illustrations of these views from Cyril of Alexandria must suffice. He refers, Mal. iii. 1-3, to the baptism of Christ, and thus proceeds: "This divine fire from heaven, that is, gracious |