for granted on both sides of the question. For example, Professor Stuart, after an able and clear exhibition of the proof that the early churches did baptize by immersion, says: "In what manner, then, did the churches of Christ, from a very early period, to say the least, understand the word Barriw in the New Testament? Plainly they construed it as meaning immersion." "That the Greek Fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek, understood the usual import of the word Barrigw, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial." Bib. Rep.Vol. iii. 362. Now, all this is manifestly based on the assumption, that the practice of the Fathers, in this case, is an infallible index of their philology; i. e. if they did in fact immerse, they must of course have believed that Barriw means to immerse. Indeed, this seems generally to have been regarded as a first principle, an indisputable truth. As long as it is so regarded, the facts already stated, as to early practice, will exert a strong, disturbing influence on the mind. The scholar, in the region of philology and logic, finds all plain; but he enters the dizzy and bewildering region of early practice, and his brain reels, his energy is dissolved, and some unseen power seems to be wresting his previous philological conclusions from his grasp. Indeed, if it is a sound principle that we must infer the opinions of the Fathers, as to the import of Barriga, from their practice, I see not how he can avoid letting them go; for of the facts there can be no doubt. But it is high time to ask: Is the principle sound? is it logical? has it any force at all? It may seem adventurous to call in question a principle so generally received and so firmly believed. Nevertheless, I am compelled to say that I cannot perceive that the position is based on any sound principle of philology or logic; nay it seems to me that there is abundant evidence that it is entirely illogical and unsound. 1. Because, where a given result may have been produced by many causes, it is never logical to assume, without proof, that it is the result of any one of them alone. The proper course is, to inquire which of the possible causes was, in fact, the real and efficient cause of the result in question. 2. Because, on

making the inquiry, it appears manifest to me, that the practice in question did not originate in a belief that the word Sarrigu means immerse, but in entirely different and independent causes. Suppose now the word to mean to purify, it is neither impossible nor improbable, that certain local and peculiar causes may have led to some one mode of purifying rather than another, and that this mode may have been immersion; and if all these things may have been so, who has a right to assume, without proof, that they were not so? I believe that they were. If it is inquired: What causes they were? I answer: 1. Oriental usages and the habits of warmer regions. 2. A false interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. 3 A very early habit of ascribing peculiar virtue to external forms. The first cause is sufficient to begin the practice; the other two to extend, perpetuate, and confirm it. Now, if it can be shown that these causes did exist, and did operate, and had great power, then a sufficient account of the origin and progress of the usage may be given by these alone; and thus, all presumption against the meaning I have assigned to Barril, or in favor of the sense to immerse, will be taken away; and thus, the way will be prepared to resume the direct philological proof, that in the earlier ages the word Sarriw did mean purify. But of their existence or their power, can there be a doubt? Did not Christianity begin in the warm regions of the East, and in the midst of a people whose climate, habits, costume, and mode of life were all adapted to bathing? and was not the practice nearly universal? Hence nothing could be more natural than its use on convenient occasions, as a mode of religious purifying; and if, as some maintain, the form had been previously used as a religious rite, nothing could be more natural than its adoption as a mode of purifying in the church. As to the interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, as referring to the external form, all may not be ready to concede that it was false; yet that it was early prevalent and powerful, no one, I think, at all acquainted with the facts of the case, will deny. But of this, more in another place. As to a superstitious attachment to forms-who can

deny it? nay, who that is a Protestant does? Evidence of it throngs on every page that records the early history of the Church. To omit all else, the history of this rite alone would furnish volumes of proof. Let the holy water-the baptismal chrism, to symbolize and bestow the Holy Spirit-the putting on of white robes after baptism, to symbolize the putting on of Christ—the baptism of men and women perfectly naked, to denote their entire moral nakedness before putting on Christ-let the anointing of the eyes and ears, to denote the sanctification of the senses-let the eating of honey and milk-the sign of the cross; and, finally, let baptismal regeneration-the sum and completion of all these formal tendencies-bear witness to the mournful truth. Now, when the tendencies to formalism and superstition were so all-pervading and almost omnipotent, what could avert a blind and superstitious devotion to an early form-one especially in which so much was supposed to be involved, both of emblematical import and of sanctifying power.

§ 24. Decisive Cases.

Having now pointed out causes, amply sufficient in extent and power, to account for the early prevalence of immersion, and thus removed all presumption against the sense I claim, I will resume, and exhibit more fully the philological evidence, that the early understanding of the church was, that Barrigw, as a religious term, did signify to purify. I shall, 1, notice more at large those cases in which it is not only in the highest degree probable that Barrig has the sense to purify, but in which it is positively absurd to assign it any other meaning. 2. Show that a very large number of coincident facts sustains and gives verisimilitude to this view. The argument already presented is, to my own mind, perfectly conclusive. For it has been shown that the sense to purify is, à priori, probable, according to the laws of language and of the mind, and from the nature of the subject. See §§ 4-7. It has also been shown that the fair and obvious import of a large class of passages demands the sense; that the coincidence of so many

separate probabilities brings together an array of proof that cannot be resisted; and, also, that no opposite probabilities exist. See §§ 8-21. Still, it may be felt, if not said, how much better, in a case so important, to have proof so clear, unequivocal, and decided, that the opposite sense shall not only be highly improbable, but absolutely impossible. Though I by no means admit the justice of this demand-because hundreds and thousands of senses are daily admitted on evidence far less ample than that already given, and to admit the necessity of such proof to establish a meaning would subvert all principles of sound philology— yet, as the materials for such proof exist, it seems appropriate here to present them.

§ 25. Baptism of Blood. Case of Christ.

To perceive fully the force of these, it is necessary to notice, 1. The source whence they are derived, which is ancient usage, as it regards the baptism of blood: 2. The cases to which they relate, which are two; (1) the bloody baptism of Christ; (2) the bloody baptism of the martyrs: 3. Their views in relation to this subject. They apply the word baptism merely to the act of making an atonement by shedding blood, even where no one is spoken of, either as sprinkled by it or immersed in it, and when the only external act spoken of is totally at war with the idea of immersion. In cases of this kind, no sense is possible but xadagiouós, which is the established sacrificial term for an atonement, as I have already shown, § 12. Let us then begin with the case of our Saviour, of whose bloody baptism they so often speak. He shed his blood for sins, and this is called xatagiouós, in the word of God. Heb. i. 5, Now, if they call the mere act of shedding his blood a Barrioμa, it is totally impossible that it should be taken in any except the sacrificial sense, zadagiouós. But in Origen, Hom. 7, on Judges vi., occurs a long passage on the baptism of blood, in which this very usage of language occurs. Speaking of Luke xii. 50, he says: "Pertendit enim nostra probatio non

usque ad verbera solum, sed usque ad profusionem sanguinis pervenit. Quia et Christus, quem sequimur, pro redemptione nostra effudit sanguinem suum, ut inde exeamus loti sanguine nostro. Baptisma enim sanguinis solum est, quod nos puriores reddat, quam aquæ baptismus reddit. Et hoc ego non præsumo, sed Scriptura refert, dicente domino ad discipulos: Baptismum habeo baptizari, quod vos nescitis; et quomodo urgeo ut perficiatur. Vides ergo quia profusionem sanguinis sui baptisma nominavit.” "Our probation extends, not only to stripes, but to the shedding of blood, for Christ whom we follow, shed his blood for our redemption, in order that we may leave this world washed in our own blood. For it is the baptism of blood alone, which renders us more pure than the baptism of water. Nor do I say this presumptuously, but the Scripture authorizes it, by the statement of our Lord to his disciples: I have a baptism to be baptized with, which ye know not. You see, therefore, that he called the shedding of his blood a baptism." Here observe, 1. That the mind is fixed intently and alone on the effusion of blood. 2. He expressly states, that Christ calls this shedding of blood a baptism. 3. By a reference to other parts of his writings, his meaning is fixed beyond dispute. He uses diá after Bárτioμa, as do John of Damascus, Athanasius, and others, so as to render impossible the idea immersion. Origen, Vol. iv. p. 156, Ed. Delarue, Paris, 1733, τὸ τέλειον βάπτισμα διά τοῦ μυστηρίου παθοῦς. “The perfect purification by the mystery of his sufferings." John of Damascus, Vol. i. p. 261, Paris, 1712: τὸ βάπτισμα δι' αίματος καὶ μαρ τυρίου ὃ καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εβαπτίσατο. «The purification ö xai i by blood and martyrdom, by which Christ purified himself for us." Athanasius, Vol. ii. p. 286, Paris, 1698: Tò Barrioμa dià μαρτυρίου, και αίματος. "The purification by martyrdom and blood." In all these cases the use of dia with the Genitive renders the sense immersion impossible. See also § 64 at the end. 4. The only external act spoken of is outpouring; and, surely, to call this an immersion is absurd. Here, then, an impossibility of the sense immersion is clearly proved. 5. But,