§ 1. Statement of the case, and of principles of investigation.

The case is this: Christ has enjoined the performance of a duty in the command to baptize.

What is the duty enjoined ?-or, in other words, what does the word Baptize, in which the command is given, mean? One of two things must be true :

1. Either it is, as to mode, generic, denoting merely the production of an effect (as purity), so that the command may be fulfilled in many ways;-or, it is so specific, denoting a definite mode, that it can be fulfilled in but one. To illustrate by an analogous case, Christ said, "Go, teach all nations." Here the word go, is so generic as to include all modes of going which any one may choose to adopt. If a man walks, or runs, or rides, or sails, he equally fulfils the command. On the other hand, some king or ruler, for particular reasons, might command motion by a word entirely specific, as for example, that certain mourners should walk in a funeral procession. Now it is plain that such a command could not be fulfilled by riding or by running, for though these are modes of going, they are not modes of walking, and the command is not to go in general, but specifically to walk. when a general says March, it will not answer for the soldiers to run; for, though this is a mode of going, it is not a mode of marching.

So

So, likewise, when Christ said baptize, he either used a word which had a generic sense, denoting the production of an effect, in any mode, such as purify, cleanse; or a specific sense, denoting a particular mode, such as immerse, sprinkle, pour.

2. Whichever way we decide, as it regards the import of the word, we ought to be uniform in its use as applied to the rite of baptism. For though the same word may have diverse meanings when applied to different things, and in various circumstances, yet it certainly cannot, when applied to the same thing, and in the same circumstances.

Hence, if we adopt the generic meaning, purify or cleanse, we

must adhere to it at all times, when speaking of the rite. On the other hand, if we adopt a specific meaning, as immerse or sprinkle, we must adhere to it in the same way, and not pass from the generic to the specific, or from the specific to the generic, according to exigencies, on the ground that the word BaяTiw may, in the whole circuit of its use, mean sometimes one thing and sometimes another. Nor must we adopt both, for however numerous the possible meanings of a word may be in its various usages, it has in each particular case but one meaning, and in all similar cases its meaning is the same. Hence the word Barri(w, as applied to a given rite, has not two or many meanings, but one, and to that one we should in all cases adhere.

3. If we adopt a generic meaning, denoting the production of an effect, we are not limited by the command to any specific mode of fulfilling it, and are at liberty to vary the mode according to circumstances. But if we adopt a specific meaning, denoting merely a mode, we are limited by the very import of the command, to the range of that meaning.

Hence if the command is purify or cleanse, we are not limited by the command to any one mode, but may choose that which seems to us most appropriate, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

But if the command is specific and modal, as immerse, then we are limited by the range of that word, and cannot fulfil the command by sprinkling or pouring, for these are not modes of immersion, any more than riding is a mode of walking, or writing a mode of painting.

It is true that sprinkling and pouring may be modes of purify. ing, and so is riding a mode of going. But if the command is not purify, but immerse, then all debate as to the mode is at an end, for you can immerse, not by sprinkling, but only by immersion.

§ 2. Causes of the disregard of these principles, and the false positions to which this disregard has given rise.

Though the principles stated are simple and obvious, yet the natural operations of the mind on questions of philology, have been in this case embarrassed and perplexed by certain influences of a kind peculiar to this word.

At the time of the translation of the Bible, a controversy had arisen as it regards the import of the word, so that, although it was conceded to have an import in the original, yet it was impossible to assign to it in English any meaning, without seeming to take sides in the controversy then pending.

Accordingly, in order to take neither side, they did not attempt to give the sense of the term in a significant English word, but merely transferred the word Barrigw, with a slight alteration of termination, to our language. The consequence was that it did not exhibit its original significancy to the mind of the English reader, or indeed any significancy, except what was derived from its application to designate an external visible rite.-In short, it became merely the name of a rite, and had a usage strictly technical, and lost to the ear whatever significance it originally had.

The habit of using the word in a technical sense, has tended to unfit the mind for the discussion of the question as to the mode of baptism, in various ways, of which I shall mention three.

1. It has led to a departure from the principles already stated, that words, when applied to the same subject, and in the same circumstances, cannot have a double sense. This rule, as has been remarked, does not forbid that the same word in different circumstances should have various senses; accordingly it may be conceded that the word Barrio has various senses in the wide range of its usage, in scriptural and classical Greek: but out of this variety of usages, there is one strictly of a religious nature, and having direct reference to one of the great revealed facts of

Christianity. Now in a case like this, the laws of philology require that some one of the meanings of the word should be fixed on, and assigned to it in all cases. But the habit of using the word baptize in a strictly technical sense, as the name of a rite, has led to a disregard of this simple and obvious rule.

Many writers, fixing their minds merely upon the idea of a rite, and finding that the word Barril means sometimes to wash, sometimes to immerse, and sometimes, as they think, to pour or sprinkle, conclude that the rite of Baptism may be performed in either way; entirely forgetting that, although the word should happen, in the wide range of its usage, scriptural and classical, secular and religious, to have all these meanings, it by no means follows that when used as a religious term, it has more than one. Hence, if as a religious term, and in certain circumstances, it means immerse, it does not also in similar circumstances mean to wet or to wash, to sprinkle or to pour, to color or to dye, but simply to immerse. And just as plainly, if in some cases of its religious uses, it means to purify, it does not in others of the same kind mean to pour, to sprinkle, or to immerse.

2. The other mode in which the technical use of this word has unfitted the mind for a fair consideration of the question is, it has permitted the introduction of a discussion as to the mode of baptism, after concessions have been made, which ought for ever to exclude it. For example, the question arises what meaning did the word Barril convey to those, who in the age of the New Testament writers read the command, go baptize all nations? Was it to immerse ? So our brethren the Baptists maintain, and so many who do not immerse, concede. Now after such a concession, with what propriety they can debate any longer as to the mode, I acknowledge that I cannot perceive. Nor do I think that they would do it, were it not for an illusion practised by the technical word Baptize, upon their minds.

After admitting as a point of philology, that the word Barrigu in its religious use means immerse, the mind seems to revert to the old habit of using the Anglicised word baptism, without attach

ing to it any meaning, and we are at once told that it is of no use to dispute as to the mode of baptism. Suppose, now, instead of the word baptism, we substitute the meaning which it has been conceded to have, and the illusion is at once exposed. We concede that Barriw means immerse, but of what use is it to dispute concerning the mode of immersion? Of none, surely, so you do but immerse. But can you immerse by sprinkling? Is sprinkling a mode of immersion? The fact is, that if the word denotes a given definite act, no other dissimilar act is, or can be a mode of it. Pouring is not a mode of sprinkling or of immersion, nor is sprinkling a mode of pouring or of immersion, nor is immersion a mode of sprinkling or pouring.

3. Others, again, still using the word merely as a technic, say that Baptism is the application of water, in any way, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but base their conclusions rather on reason and the nature of the case, or on the design of the rite, than on a thorough philological investigation of the word. Now the defect of this last mode of reasoning is, that it does not interpret the command. It uses the word like a technic, having no meaning of its own, and gives rather a description of a rite, than a definition of Barril.

No one ever pretended to define Barriga as meaning "to apply water in any way"-of course Baptism cannot be defined to be "the application of water in any way." And whether this view of the rite is correct or not, must depend entirely on the meaning of the word.

§ 3. Statement of the position to be proved.

From what has been said it is plain that those who have written on the subject of the mode of Baptism may be arranged in four classes.

1. Those who maintain that the word in the whole extent of its usage has various meanings, and from this fact alone draw the inference that, therefore, the rite may be performed in various