influence, through the Holy Spirit, when it enters into the heart, then, then indeed it cleanses away the pollutions of our former transgressions, and makes us pure (xsxadaguévous). This divine and spiritual fire the inspired John clearly announced, saying, "I indeed purify (Sarria) you with water, but he shall purify you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Here the fiery influence is conceived of as coming from the Holy Spirit, and entering and purifying the heart. Moreover, Cyril here agrees with Origen, Basil, and others, in considering the language of John as referring to and taken from those passages in the Old Testament which predict of the Messiah, purification, and that alone. And Cyril oft repeats the same ideas in other parts of his works. But his comment on Is. iv. 4, is still more striking. He first refers the passage, as Basil does, to the baptism of Christ, and then explains the spirit of burning thus: "We call it grace which comes into us at the holy baptism, not without the agency of the Holy Spirit. For we are not baptized by mere water, nor by the ashes of a heifer (indeed we are sprinkled for the purity of the flesh alone, as says the blessed Paul), but by the Holy Spirit, and by divine and spiritual fire, which consumes all the pollutions of wickedness in us, and melts out the pollution of sin. Such a coming of our Saviour also, another of the holy prophets foretold, saying, "Behold he shall come as a refiner's fire, and as fuller's soap, and he shall sit and purify as gold and as silver." His reference to baptizing by the ashes of a heifer I have already noticed; and I now remark that through the whole passage he refers to a divine influence proceeding from God, which he calls spiritual fire, π~pvonróv, which enters the heart and consumes and melts out the pollution of sin. He also in this passage unites both Is. iv. 4 and Mal. iii. 1-3, as predictions of the baptism by the Holy Ghost and by fire, to be introduced by Christ. But how does Dr. Carson hold his ground against my position, that the sense immerse is never transferred in any language to denote effects like the agency of the Holy Spirit? By giving me a lesson in Rhetoric. Let us hear it. "Mr. Beecher has adopted 1 some of my philosophical doctrines. I will give him another lesson which will prevent him from again alleging such an objection. Metaphor is not bound to find examples to justify its particular figures, but may indulge itself wherever it finds resemblance. It gives words a new application, but does not invest them with a new meaning. It is not then subject to the law of literal language, which for the sense of every word needs the authority of use. This I have established in my treatise on the figures of speech, in opposition to the common doctrine of the rhetoricians. With respect to the point in hand, I would maintain my ground if a single other example of the figurative use of this word could not be adduced." I do not doubt it. Anything sooner than to admit that Barrigw means to purify. But with all due deference to my teacher in rhetoric, I would say, that this lesson does not exclude my objection. He says metaphor may indulge itself wherever it finds resemblance. This is well said: it is the truth. But my objection is that there is no resemblance between the operations of the Holy Spirit and immersion. The Holy Spirit illuminates and purifies. Immersion as such does neither. It signifies mode, and nothing else—and it may pollute as well as purify. For this reason, I deny the propriety of its application to the Holy Ghost, and claim the sense to purify, for this is his glorious, grand, peculiar work. Dr. Carson's lesson in rhetoric, therefore, is of no avail. 4. No less clear is the testimony of the Fathers as to the fourth point, namely, that Barrioμa denotes sacrificial purification, or the remission of sins. Indeed, I have adduced already so much of their testimony on this point, that to add anything more is needless. See §§ 25, 26, pp. 61–68, and §§ 53, 54, pp. 160–170. Dr. Carson is pleased to treat with great contempt my remarks in § 12, pp. 28-31, designed to illustrate the difference between sacrificial and moral purification. "Mr. Beecher," he says, "gives us a dissertation on purification which is no more to the purpose than a treatise on logarithms." That Dr. Carson did not comprehend the nature or importance of the distinction made by me, or its extensive bearings in the discussion of the whole question, I freely admit. But ignorance and contempt of what we do not understand, are not arguments. So far is it from being true that my distinction is nothing to the purpose, that on the other hand, without it, it is impossible that much of the language of the Fathers on baptism should be understood at all. Sprinkling with blood is not an immersion, nor is it a washing, nor is it in the common sense of the term a purification, for blood of itself defiles. But the shedding of blood secures the remission of sins, and the sprinkling of blood is an expiation, that is, a sacrificial purification. And if it were not for this view, the language of the Fathers, when they speak of sprinklings of blood as baptisms, could not be understood. But take this view and all is plain. Indeed, it furnishes an argument against the sense immerse, of irresistible power. And although this is not much to Dr. Carson's purpose, it is very much to mine. Let any one trace this usage out, in all its applications to the baptism of blood, and the Mosaic and heathen expiations, and he will then be able to judge, both of the indispensable necessity and extensive application of the principles laid down in the dissertation, in § 12, of which Dr. Carson speaks so contemptuously. 5. On the fifth point, the divers baptisms spoken of in Heb. ix. 10, the evidence from the Fathers is absolutely overwhelming. As we have seen, they include without hesitation all the sprinklings of the Mosaic ritual, whether with blood or with the ashes of a heifer. Indeed, one passage from Ambrose, of itself, were there no other, would be enough to settle this question for ever. Apol. David, § 59: "Per hyssopi fasciculum adspergebatur agni sanguine, qui mundari volebat typico baptismate." He who desired to be purified with a typical baptism, was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop. Compare now with this, other similar cases in § 53, pp. 160–167, and all occasion for doubt must cease. These are the leading and most important points in the biblical argument, and on them all, the testimony of the Fathers is as full and explicit as could be desired. I was peculiarly struck with the commentary of Theophylact on John iii. 25. I had not read it when I gave my view in § 8, pp. 22-25. And yet the coincidence is nearly as perfect as if I had taken his exposition as the basis of my own. It was peculiarly gratifying to me to find the argument from this passage so clearly and fully sustained by the Fathers, as it was by means of this passage, that the Holy Spirit, as I humbly trust, first gave me an insight into the true meaning of this word. Dr. Carson's only argument against this view is a series of unproved assertions; that the question about purifying was not a question about baptism, and that it had no reference to the claims of Jesus or John; and that the disputants said nothing to John as to the question about purification, but stated one entirely different. In all this, not only are the Fathers against Dr. Carson, but the most mature results of modern criticism are against him. Schleusner, Wahl, Vater, Rosenmüller, De Wette, Bretschneider, Kuinoel, and even Professor Ripley himself, are against him on these points. They all agree that baptism was the subject of the question; and Rosenmüller, Vater, Kuinoel, and Schleusner, give baptism as the translation of xalapioμou. Doederlin takes the same view. The following translation of the passage will present the true sense and the argument at once to the eye. "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and purified. And John was purifying in Ænon, near Salim, because there was much water there, and they came to him and were purified. THEREFORE, there arose a question concerning purification between some of the disciples of John and the Jews, and they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same purifieth, and all men come to him!" As if Christ was improperly drawing men away from John's purification. In reply to all this, John clearly avowed the superiority of Christ to himself, and justified his course. Having considered the chief points, let us now review the remainder. 6. As to the baptism of couches, in Mark vii. 4, we have seen that the Fathers not only speak of this, but of baptizing men on couches; so that all possibility of evading the sense to purify is taken away. Moreover, in the Apostolic Const. vi. 6, a certain Jewish sect is spoken of, concerning whom it is said, "unless they baptize themselves daily they eat not, still further, unless they purify-xadagon-with water their couches, and plates, and cups, and goblets, and seats, they will not use them at all." That the author of these words did not believe in the immersion of couches, is plain from the fact that he obviously takes pains to use καθαίρω in place of βαπτίζω. That in this passage there is a direct reference to Mark vii. 4, is too plain to need proof. It is no less plain that in Luke xi. 38, the Fathers regarded the baptism required of Jesus as a purification, and not an immersion, for Theophylact says of Christ, that he was deriding their foolish custom of purifying themselves before they ate, and takes particular pains to substitute καθαρίζω in place of βαπτίζω. " Deriding their foolish custom, I mean their purifying-xadagirdar-themselves before eating, he teaches that they ought to purify their souls by good works." He then adds, for washing the handsVÍTTETα-by water, purifies the body only, not the soul. This use of virrscéal clearly denotes that Theophylact regarded the baptism expected of Jesus as a washing of the hands. More proof could be added, but surely this is enough. 66 No one can any longer doubt what is meant by baptizing from a dead body, in Sirach xxxi. 25, after reading in Cyril of Alexandria of a baptism by the ashes of a heifer. Cyril also uses xáðagris in the same relations. Ashes with water is a purification-xάagois -to the defiled. Here, too, I remark, in passing, is an idiom of the same kind as that noticed in § 52, in which purifying agents are called baptisms. Here ashes with water is said to be a puri |