And in one case Dr. Carson himself finds occasion to resort to the same principle. I had urged the use of aró as at war with the idea immerse in the expression βαπτιζόμενος από νεκροῦ, baptized from a dead body. He immediately resorts to ellipsis and a pregnant construction. He asserts the sense to be, immersed in water, and thus purified from the pollution contracted by touching a dead body. Thus he connects from with purified instead of immerse. Why then did he not see that an ellipsis could connect up with a verb denoting ascent, and dip with a preposition denoting descent? The same solution must be given to the case alluded to by him in 2 Macc. ch. i. v. 21, where aroάw is translated in our English version, draw up. In this case Balw implies that a vessel was to be dipped into the water, and aró that its contents were then to be removed from it and lifted up. But who does not see the absurdity of the idea that the preposition up can denote downward motion? Did a sane man ever speak of a stone as sinking up to the bottom of a lake, or of immersing a person upwards to the bottom? So long, then, as dip means to immerse, up cannot indicate the motion denoted by it.

A similar pregnant construction is found in the phrase to bury from a house, denoting to carry the body from the house, and bury it. From refers to the verb of motion implied. So in Greek, is épávn is ódóv, literally a lion appeared into the paththat is, came into the path and appeared. All who have read the recent results of German grammarians, know how decidedly they refuse to connect prepositions with verbs whose idea of motion or of rest, does not correspond with the sense of the preposition, resorting to the constructio pregnans to escape the anomaly.

In the words of Dr. Carson, "I cannot pursue this subject here, I shall merely suggest it to literary men.' I will, however, add, that "any person who has ever passed the threshold of the temple of philology must know" that such pregnant constructions are exceedingly common, and those who have not studied them enough to know it, I would refer to Winer's and Stuart's Grammars of the New Testament, and Kühner's Greek Grammar.

Dr. Carson, in view of such criticisms, had no excuse for taunting me or any one else with "schoolboy criticism."

§ 82. Dr. Carson's first alleged mode of solving all my quotations from the Fathers.

I have remarked that Dr. Carson has adopted two unlike theories, and boldly declared that each will solve all the facts produced by me from the Fathers. I will now state the first.

term.

This is advanced in endeavoring to explain why the Fathers called clinic sprinkling or perfusion, in case of the sick, baptism. His theory is this,-"Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the The persons perfused in their beds on account of sickness were not supposed to be properly baptized; but they received the ecclesiastical baptism, that is what the church, in such cases, admitted as a valid substitute for baptism. This fact is conclusive, and will afford an answer to all the passages referred to by President Beecher, to prove a secondary meaning in the use of the word among the Fathers. It was not a secondary meaning because it never went into general use; but it is called a baptism because it served the same purpose.

The amount of this is, those things which the church received as valid substitutes for immersion, were called immersion because they served the same purpose. Now admitting this to be true in fact, which it is not, how far would it apply? How many valid substitutes for immersion did the church in her administration of baptism admit? I answer one, and one only, and that is perfusion or sprinkling in case of sickness. This solution, therefore, cannot extend beyond the case of clinic baptism, even if true. How then can it solve all my examples? How can it meet my argument from the use of prepositions? How can it explain the definitions of Basil, Athanasius, and Zonaras? How can it explain the fact that the sprinkling of blood, and the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, are called baptisms? Did the primi

tive church sprinkle with blood or with ashes, and deem them valid substitutes for immersion? Did they regard repentance and tears as a valid substitute for immersion? Did they regard purification by future fire as a valid substitute for immersion in this world? Did they regard purification by the truth, or by afflictions, as a valid substitute for immersion? But I need not proceed. It might seem as if Dr. Carson made the assertion that this theory will solve all facts, merely for effect, for he does not try to solve by it a single example except the cases of clinic baptism, and to none others can it even in pretence be applied. It begins with them, and from the very nature of the case it ends with them. But in its place I shall show that the theory itself -is false. I proceed to the second theory.

§ 83.

Dr. Carson's second mode of Solution.

This theory is taken from the fact that Justin Martyr calls circumcision a baptism. Thus speaks Dr. Carson. "He sometimes also speaks of circumcision as a baptism, or as agreeing in the emblem, though altogether different in the things and in the words that designate them." He then proceeds, with a pompous implication of his own superior knowledge and of my ignorance, thus to admonish me. "Let President Beecher study this, and it will show how the Fathers can call various things by the name of baptism, without importing that they are included in the meaning of the word. All his examples may be solved by this single fact."

Let it now be noticed that this theory abandons the ground of the former theory. That the church admits a thing as a valid substitute for immersion is not now the reason why it is called baptism, but the fact that it agrees with baptism in the emblem. Hence rites never used by the church and not admitted as a substitute for baptism, as, for example, circumcision, can be called baptism. Let us examine this second theory.

What then does Dr. Carson mean by agreeing in the emblem ?

According to authorized usage, an emblem is a visible object or act, which represents another thing to the mind. A balance is an emblem of justice, a crown, of royalty, white robes, of moral purity, sprinkling or washing with pure water, of purification. Taking the term in this sense circumcision does not agree in the emblem with immersion, for the emblematical acts in the two rites are entirely unlike. So is the act of immersion in water entirely unlike the act of pouring, or of sprinkling with blood, or water, or ashes. Taking the word emblem then in its true and proper sense, immersion agrees in the emblem with nothing but immersion. It is perfectly unique.

But there is reason to believe that Dr. Carson here uses the word in a new and peculiar sense, i. e. to denote that which the emblem represents. He does not indeed so define the word, but although it is possible that Dr. Carson has written what is so obviously false as the preceding statements would imply, taking the word emblem in its proper sense, yet it is not probable, and on the ground of so strong an improbability I depart from the primary sense of the word, and introduce a secondary sense. On p. 465, he clearly uses the word in the same sense, speaking of purification as "the emblem of the ordinance," that is, "the thing emblematically meant by the ordinance." On p. 386, he seems also to use the word in this sense, stating that "the application of water under the law and under the gospel has the same emblem of purification," that is, it has purification in each case as the thing emblematically represented. It is curious enough to remark that from this new and peculiar use, he passes in the next sentence to the true and common use, speaking of a burial in water as an emblem of Christ's burial as well as of purification. Here emblem denotes the emblematic act, and not the thing emblematized. Let this change of sense in so definite and well established a word as emblem, teach the friends of Dr. Carson the great ease with which new senses of words are introduced, and the strong tendency of the human mind to introduce them, and that the same word can be used in different and even anti

thetic senses in the same page, or even sentence-for no senses can be more essentially different than the emblematical act, and the thing of which it is an emblem.

Taking the word emblem in this new sense, it is true that since both circumcision and immersion represent purification, they so far "agree in the emblem," i. e. in the thing emblematized. In this sense also, immersion " agrees in the emblem" with sprinkling, whether with water, or with blood, or with the ashes of a heifer; it also agrees with perfusion. And from this agreement in the thing emblematized, Dr. Carson infers that the Fathers can call these rites baptisms (i. e. immersions), without importing that they are included in the meaning of the word, just as circumcision is called a baptism, though the act in circumcision differs from the act in baptism, and the meaning of the word circumcision from that of the word baptism. He calls on me to study this fact, and asserts that it alone will solve all my examples.

I have before studied the fact, and have since studied Dr. Carson's doctrine as to the thing emblematized by immersion, and the result is that, Dr. Carson himself being judge, this fact will solve none of my examples, but is an unanswerable argument against him. For according to Dr. Carson's own views, no rite of purification which omits immersion, can so far agree with the rite of immersion in the thing emblematized, as to justify the application to it of the name immersion; for,

1. Death, burial, and resurrection, are an essential and inseparable part of the thing emblematized in the rite of immersion. 2. The act of immersion emblematizes nothing else but death, burial, and resurrection.

3. The name immersion was chosen instead of purification, in order to direct the mind to these ideas.

4. Hence, on Dr. Carson's own grounds, it is absurd to transfer such a name to any rite which excludes immersion, and, of course, all which immersion, as such, symbolizes.

That these are Dr. Carson's views, his own words shall prove, Though the rite of baptism is an emblematical purifi.

p. 475.