ing facts in the history of language, and it will be my object to show that these facts are such as would naturally flow from the truth of the view which I have given. My position then is this: if we admit that in the days of Christ, καθαρίζω was the import of βαπτίζω, taking all the texts in the New Testament in which the word occurs, and the ideas connected with the rite, and looking at the laws of the mind and the natural course of thought, we shall find that no view can so well explain the usus loquendi of the Fathers and the opinions entertained by them, and by their opponents, of the import and effects of the rite. § 19. Baptismal Regeneration. This view shows how ȧvayevváw, to regenerate, and other words of like import, could easily become, with the Fathers, synonymes of βαπτίζω. That these words did so become, is a notorious fact, as will presently be proved, but the whole reason is not commonly assigned. The reason, at least in part, appears to be this: xadagiw, and of course antiw, in its spiritual sense, is in fact a synonyme of ȧvayevváw ;-for what is it to purify the spirit, but to regenerate? In fact, this very form of speech is used to denote this thing. Thus in 1 Pet. i. 22, 23. The idea to purify the soul in obeying the truth, through the spirit, in v. 22, is in v. 23 expressed by the equivalent born again of the word of God, in which ἀναγεννάω is used. So in Acts xv. 9. He made no difference between them and us, 'having purified their hearts by faith" (τῇ πίστει καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας αυτῶν). So, too, the pure in heart (xasagoi τn xagdía) shall see God, Matt. v. 8. "Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify (xadagion) unto himself a peculiar people," Tit. ii. 14. So Eph. v. 26. 66 It also explains the origin of Baptismal Regeneration, for where analogical senses exist, one denoting external and material, and the other spiritual purification, it is natural that they should run into each other, also that terms applied to one should be applied to the other. Thus, if Sarril means to purify, then there is natural purification and spiritual purification, and in a passage where spiritual purification alone is meant, the idea of external purification may commingle. Thus in Pet. i. 9, xáðagiouou denotes only spiritual purification from sin. But extensively the sense ritual purification by the external rite was commingled, among the Fathers-as also among the formalists of this day. The same is true in 1 Cor. vi. 11, where "ye are washed" (dreλoudades) denotes spiritual washing only, and yet the same idea of external ritual washing, has extensively been commingled, in the conceptions and interpretations of formalists.* Moreover, since spiritual purification is regeneration, there would be a tendency first to use dvayevváw in the place of Barrig when it denoted spiritual purification. Having thus become an equivalent of Barrigw in one sense, there would be a tendency in the word to assume its place when used in the other sense, and thus to denote the external rite, and not, in the first instance, to denote its actual efficacy. So in Justin Martyr, Barril is rarely, if ever, used at all to describe the rite, but ἀναγεννάω. Ε'πειτα ἄγονται ὑφ ̓ ἡμῶν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστί καὶ τρόπον ἀναγεννέσεως ὁυ καὶ ἡμεις αναγεννήθημεν ἀναγεννῶνται :" Then they are brought by us where there is water, and in the manner of regeneration, in which we were regenerated, they are regenerated;" that is, in the manner of baptism, wherein we were baptized, they are baptized. And this use was general and familiar, as may be fully seen in the quotations collected by Wall in his history of infant baptism. * Baptismal regeneration, as held by the Fathers, does not imply regeneration by mere water, without the spirit, but it is a commingling of external and internal purification, by the theory that it is God's established mode to give internal purification through external, and not independently of it. Hence, when the internal alone is spoken of, their mode of thinking mingled the external with it. The one purification in Eph. iv. 5, is spiritual only, so also in Rom. vi. 3, 4; yet the idea of the external purification was so commingled with it as to predominate. Another cause tended to the same result, the application of the figure "born of water" in John iii. 5, to external baptism. Of this I shall speak in the next section. Which exerted most influence let others decide. § 20. Denial of Water Baptism. This view explains not only the early prevalence of the idea of baptismal regeneration, but also of the other extreme, the entire denial of water baptism. As already stated, there are two kinds of purification, that of the Spirit and that of water;-one real and effectual, the other only a symbol, an external rite, and yet both are called by the same name, purification, or baptism. Now in the New Testament there is a class of texts, in which the true and spiritual purification alone is spoken of, and a saving energy is ascribed to it; as Eph. iv. 5, Gal. iii. 27, 1 Cor. xii. 13, Rom. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12, Eph. v. 26, 1 Pet. iii. 21, Titus iii. 5, John iii. 5. That the external form cannot be here spoken of, I propose to show in another place. I refer to these passages here to illustrate fully the idea. But soon, the external sense intruded, and with what was first said only of the essential spiritual purification, the idea of the external form was mingled, according to the uniform tendency of the human mind to sink from the spirit to the form, and thus made baptismal regeneration, and all its train of errors. And as one extreme begets another, those who opposed this view as too carnal, relying on those passages where baptism denotes clearly no more than a spiritual purification, would deny that the form was to be used at all. In practice, words are things. Systems grow out of words. And a word of a double analogical sense, like purify, would naturally give rise to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, on the one side, and to an entire denial of water baptism on the other; and that such were the results all know. On the other hand, the word in the sense to immerse, tends to no such result, for the spiritual sense, in this usage, has no relation at all to regeneration or purity in any form, and denotes, as before stated, only to overwhelm, to oppress. And it deserves notice, that the same passages, which, by this process of sinking the spiritual in the natural, gave rise to the gross errors of baptismal regeneration, are still the passages which, in consequence of the general concession of the church that they relate to the external form, fill the hands of the Romanists, Puseyites, Campbellites, and other errorists of the like kind, with their most powerful weapons. Had xadagig, and not Barrie, been used, so that its analogical uses could have been noticed, and its spiritual import felt, by modern scholars, the root of the error would have been seen. But by using the word baptize, as a technic, the laws which influenced the mind in its original use have been veiled. And, until that class of passages, from which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration sprang, is restored to their original, true, and spiritual sense, the occasions of this pernicious error can never be thoroughly eradicated from the Christian church. Hence I do not ascribe the origin of the usage of avayevváw, as a synonyme of Sarrigw, to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as some do, but rather believe that the natural and early use of this word to denote the rite, and a false application of certain texts to it, gave rise to the doctrine itself, and that, when this doctrine was established, the whole range of language pertaining to regeneration passed over to the rite, as φώς, φωτισμός, παλιγγεννεσία, Osoyevveσía, dvárλaos;—that is, light, illumination, regeneration, the divine generation, a new creation. Hence also pwricw, to baptize. § 21. Patristic Usages. Besides this general reasoning from well-known facts, there is also philological proof that the word was often used by the Fathers in the sense xadagizw. That the other sense also occurs I need not deny; for they were originally formed rather in the school of classic, than of Alexandrine Greek. In their case two currents met, and we are not to look so much for universally consistent use, as for evidence that the Alexandrine current did mingle in the stream. A general view of facts is this. 1. The earlier Christian writers do not so often use the word Barrila, as some synonyme derived from the sense to purify, as avayevváw, as before stated. Nor do they fix the mind on the idea immerse, but on purification, and use such paraphrases as denote it. Thus, after the passage of Justin Martyr already quoted, he says, in describing the mode of regeneration or baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, λουτρὸν ποιοῦνται, they wash or purify them. 2. They often use Bariouós in the legal and sacrificial sense, so as to exclude any idea but xaôapiouós. So Chrysostom, Hom. 33, says, "He calls his cross and death, a cup and baptism,—a cup, because he readily drank it; baptism (Sawrioμóv), because by it he purified, exánpev, the world;" that is, he calls it purification, because by it he purified the world, in which case the sense is sacrificial, he made atonement for the world,—and the reason assigned depends, for all its force, on giving to Sawridμós the sacrificial sense καθαρισμός. Such usages as βάπτισμα διὰ μαρτυpíou xai aïμarps, "purification by martyrdom and by blood," demonstrate the truth of this view. See §§ 25 and 26, also § 64. So Theophylact, on Matt. xx. 22, 23, says, "He calls his death βαπτισμὸν ὡς καθαρτικὸν ὄντα πάντων ἡμῶν; as making a purification, or expiation for all of us," where the whole force, as before, rests on giving to βαπτισμόν the sacrificial sense καθαρισμόν. As if he had said, he calls his death a purification, because it was designed to purify all of us. So, on Mark x. 38, 39, he says, "He calls his cross Barrioμóv, as about to make a purification for sins,” καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. Here the sacrificial sense is still more evident and undeniable, and requires Barrioμóv to mean xalapioμóv, as before. Many other passages of a like kind could be adduced, but it is needless. §§ 25, 26. 3. They sometimes, in describing the rite, use xabάip or xalapiga alone. Thus Gregory-Nazianz. says, ¿e xadaspóμevov |