FOR the special benefit of the more uneducated, I shall deduce my twelfth argument for immersion from the first precept of the decalogue of philology. That precept, according to my copy, reads thus:--The definition of a word and the word itself are always convertible terms. For example:--a law is a rule of action--is equivalent to saying, a rule of action is a law. Philanthropy is the love of man--is equivalent to saying, the love of man is philanthropy. Now, if a definition, or translation, (which is the same thing,) be correct, the definition, if substituted for the term defined, will always make good sense, and be congruous with all the words in construction.

      In order, then, to test the correctness of any definition or translation, we have only to substitute it in the place of the original word defined or translated. If, in all places, the definition makes good sense, that is, if it be convertible with the word defined, it is correct; if not, it is incorrect. Let any one unacquainted with Greek take a New Testament, beginning with the first occurrence of baptizo, or any of its family, and always substitute for it the definition or translation given, and, if it be the correct one, it will make sense; good, intelligible sense, in every instance.

      We, then, read--"In those days, the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea went out to John, and were sprinkled by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins." To perceive the impossibility of such an occurrence, it is only necessary to know that the word sprinkle is always followed by the substance sprinkled, and next by the object. We can sprinkle ashes, dust, water, or blood, &c., because the particles can be severed with ease; but can we sprinkle a man? We may sprinkle something upon him; but it is impossible for any man to sprinkle another in a river; and it is equally so to sprinkle the river upon him. The same reasoning will apply to pour. This verb is also to be followed by the substance poured. Now, was it not impossible to pour the Jews in the Jordan, or anywhere else? And to pour the Jordan upon them would be as unacceptable to them as it would [178] have been impossible for the Baptist. It remains, then, that we try the word immerse. That, too, is followed by the substance to be immersed. Now, a man can be immersed in water, in oil, in sand, in grief, in debt, or in the Spirit; though it is impossible to pour him into any one of these. Having, then, subjected these three to the same law of trial, two are condemned and reprobate: one only is possible, desirable, and reasonable.

      This test will hold to the end of the volume; even where the association may appear strange and uncouth in style, it will always be not only practicable in fact, but good in meaning. For example: Jesus was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. The influence of the Spirit poured out fills some place; into that persons may be immersed: as we are said to be immersed in debt, in affliction, in any special trouble; but a person cannot be poured or sprinkled into these. Such an operation is always impossible, under any view, literal or figurative.

      Let it be carefully noted, in this most useful test, that the three words are all to be subjected to the same laws. 1st. The material is always to follow the verb. 2d. The place, or thing, or relation into which the action is to be performed is to follow the material. In baptism, the material is a man; the element, water. Now, as John cannot pour the material James, neither can he sprinkle him; but he can immerse him in a river, in debt, in grief, &c. It is highly improper and ungrammatical to use such a phrase, unless by special agreement of the parties present.

      Some persons, accustomed to a very loose style, see no impropriety in the phrase, "sprinkle him--pour him," because of the supplement in their own minds. They think of the material which is sprinkled or poured upon him, and, for brevity's sake, say sprinkle him; that is, sprinkle dust or water upon him. But, in testing the propriety of such phrases, the ellipsis must be supplied. There is no ellipsis in "immerse him;" but there is always in sprinkle or pour him. The material is suppressed, because it is supposed to be understood as in the case--sprinkle clean water upon him. Now, while the abbreviation may be tolerated, so far as time is concerned, it is intolerable in physical and grammatical propriety; because it is physically impossible to scatter a man into particles like dust, or to pour him out like water; and it is grammatically improper to suppress [179] the proper object of the verb, and to place after it a word not governed by it.

      Before submitting my next argument on this proposition, I beg leave to introduce the special testimony of one of America's most eminent classic scholars. I believe I only accord with enlightened public opinion, when I introduce Professor Charles Anthon, of Columbia College, New York, as one of the most distinguished Greek scholars in the Union. His long devotion to the study and teaching of this language is not the only reason of this superiority. His laborious researches in ancient literature, his critical collation of copies, various readings, marginal notes, general criticisms, as editor of so many of the classics already in our colleges, and his excellent classical dictionary, have obtained for him this high reputation.

      Being addressed by Dr. Parmly, of Now York, on the subject of this proposition, last spring, he favoured him with the following answer. I shall quote the correspondence, that the subject may come fairly before the reader.

NO. 1, BOND STREET, N. Y., March 23, 1843.      

Professor Charles Anthon:

      In conversation with Dr. Spring, last evening, he stated, that in the original the word baptism, which we find in the New Testament, has no definite or distinct meaning;--that it means to immerse, sprinkle, pour, and has a variety of other meanings--as much the one as the other, and that every scholar knows it;--that it was the only word that could have been selected by our Saviour, having such a variety as to suit every one's views and purposes. May I ask you, if your knowledge of the language from which the word was taken has led you to the same conclusion? And may I beg of you to let the deep interest I take in the subject plead my apology.

      I have the honour to be, with great respect, most respectfully yours,

E. PARMLY.      

COL. COLLEGE, March 27, 1343.      

My dear Sir:

      There is no authority whatever for the singular remark made by the Rev. Dr. Spring, relative to the force of baptizo. The primary meaning of the word is to dip or immerse; and its secondary meanings, if it ever have any, all refer in some way or other to the same leading idea. Sprinkling, &c. are entirely out of the question. I have delayed answering your letter, in the hope [180] that you would call and favour me with a visit, when we might talk the matter over at our leisure. I presume, however, that what I have here written will answer your purpose.

	Yours truly,
	CHARLES ANTHON.

      Like all our testimonies, this comes from one who is not of us. I believe, Dr. Anthon is a member of the Episcopal Church in New York, of which his brother, Dr. Anthon, is pastor. We have yet another argument to offer on this subject, and shall then leave it with our readers.

[CBAC 178-181]