Again, I ask: Are not two words synonymous to which the same definitions can be truly given? Nor are these last definitions the mere opinions of Zonaras and Phavorinus. As before they are taken from the Fathers, and are given in their phraseology and style. Is there no evidence in all this? Is it nothing that two lexicographers, writing in Greek, define pánzioua thus, and say nothing of immersion? Does this look as if immersion is the very essence of baptism, as some assert? Why is all this? The reason is obvious: they were giving the ecclesiastical, the religious sense of the word, and in so doing they could give nothing else. But who was Zonaras, and what the value of his lexicon? He was one of the four leading Byzantine historians. He wrote annals from the beginning of the world down to 1118. Also a commentary on the apostolic canons, decrees of councils, etc. He was first a courtier in the court of Alexius Comnenus, then a monk on Mount Athos. Of his history, Tittman says it is not surpassed by that of any Byzantine writer. Of his lexicon: "I consider it, after that of Hesychius, the most learned of all others that survive, the most copious and most accurate; so that by it we can correct and confirm Suidas, the author of the Etymologium, and others, and even Hesychius himself. Finally, it is invaluable for illustrating passages of authorssome before published, others preserved in him alone." The question is not as to the taste and rhetorical excellence of Zonaras. It is this: Did not a historian who wrote in Greek, and was perfectly familiar with the writings of the Greek Fathers, and who wrote commentaries in Greek on the apostolic canons, did not he know what ẞánzioua means? And yet of immersion he says nothing; every definition is an equivalent of xabaquòs. καθαρισμός. Does Mr. Carson say he is defining the nature of the rite, and not its name? I reply: its name and its nature coincide. The Fathers define its name as purification, and its nature is the same. The definition of Basil is not a definition of the nature of one rite, i. e., the rite of Christian baptism. He is speaking of three baptisms, that of John, that of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that of fire, at the judgment day. He cannot, therefore, be giving merely the import of one rite. Besides, the rite of Christian baptism does not import trial in the fires of the judgment day. Baptism by water does not import baptism by fire. It is the word, therefore, and the word alone that Basil defines. Nor is the definition accidental, but deliberate and formal. He fixes his eye fully and intently upon the point.

He brings up three cases in which the word is used. Purification is common to them all-purification by water, by the Spirit, by fire. There is a generic likeness but a specific difference, and so he defines: 1. Natural purification from filth-ó zou ¿úпov zabαgioμòs. 2. Spiritual purification, i. e., regeneration, 7 διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀναγέννησις. 3. Purgation by trial by fire, ἡ ἐν τῷ πυρί κρίσεως βάσανος.

§ 56. Proof from the use of prepositions.

But, as if to exclude all doubt, the prepositions that often follow Banrioua in patristic usage, require the sense purification, and exclude the sense immersion. They are dia, ex, anò, and in Latin, per. We find βάπτισμα διὰ πυρὸς, διὰ δάκρυων, διὰ μαρτύριου δι αἵματος δὲ ὕδατος. Purification by fire, by tears, by martyrdom, by blood, by water. Not immersion in fire, in tears, in martyrdom, in blood, in water. We find fáлrioμa àлò, or ἐκ πνεύματος, or ὕδατος, οι πυρός, purification from or by the Spirit, or water, or fire. Not immersion in the Spirit, or water, or fire. So we find baptisma per aquam, purification by water -not immersion in it. In making these remarks, I have my eye on numerous passages which, did my limits permit, I would gladly adduce. But the idiom, I think, no one will dare to dispute; but one beautiful illustration of it I will give from a translation, in a commentary of Hilarius. He is commenting on 1 Cor. 10 : 1, ἐβαπτίσαντο ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, and says, "their past sins were not imputed to them, but being purified by the cloud and by the sea, they were prepared to receive the law." "Non enim illis preterita mala imputata sunt sed per mare et per nubem purificati, præparati sunt ad legem accipiendum." Comment is needless. Who does not see that with him Banrio means to purify in the sacrificial sense, i. e., to remit sins? Hence, he says, their sins were not imputed to them, but they were purified By the cloud and the sea.

§ 57. Argument cumulative.

Any one of the cases I have adduced is decisive; but taking them as a cumulative argument, their force is irresistible. But the force of no one argument is greater than of that which is derived from the usages of language as to clinic baptism. Mr. Carson at least ought to feel this. He says that we may as well call black white as to call sprinkling or pouring immersion; and yet, a man not immersed, but only purified by affu

sion, is expressly said to have been baptized upon his bed on which he lay. Nor was this an unfrequent case. Hilarius says, on 1 Tim. 3: 12, 13-" non desunt qui prope quotidie baptizantur ægri." "There are not wanting, almost daily, sick persons who are to be baptized." Emperors were purified in this way. And yet, in formal histories in the Greek tongue, it is announced that they were baptized. Constantius άnovijoxov dose Banríεoda" dying, thought fit to be baptized." Theodosius the Great was thus baptized by Ambrose, in his last sickness. Basil says that they were so baptized when they could neither speak, nor stand, nor confess their sins; and when those present could not tell whether they knew what was done to them or not. Gregory Nyss. calls it evτágiov fáпtioμa-sepulchral baptism. In circumstances so entirely excluding all thought of immersion, yea, when it is expressly stated that they were not immersed, but that the rite was performed by affusion, it is said they were baptized. Did the Greeks proclaim a falsehood in their own tongue? Did they declare before heaven and earth that a man was immersed, when every man, woman and child knew that he was not? Yea, did they declare it, when out of their own mouth they could be convicted of falsehood, for they themselves declared that he was not? How would it sound in English to say that a man was immersed by affusion or sprinkling? And would it sound any better in Greek? See § 28, 5, and 15.

But take the other view and all is harmonious at once. A man sprinkled on his bed, was purified on his bed on which he lay. The sprinkling of water or of blood did purify. Hence, when Cyprian reasoned from the sprinklings of the Old Testament to prove that a man could be baptized, i. e., purified by sprinkling, his argument was in point. But on any other supposition it is totally devoid of force.

On this ground we see at once why Clement saw, in all the heathen purifications, an image of baptism handed down from Moses; and why he could say that it was a custom of the Jews to be baptized often on their couches. We see why Cyril could speak of baptizing with the ashes of a heifer; and Ambrose of baptizing by sprinkling the blood of a lamb with hyssop; and why water and blood were called baptisms, i. e., purifying agents, as before explained. We can see, too, why Tertullian and Justin Martyr looked upon all the aspersions and expiations of the heathen world as baptisms. Purifications they

were. Immersions they were not. Finally, we see why Justin Martyr said be baptized as to your soul from anger, etc., for to purify the soul from anger, etc., agrees both with Scripture and common sense. To immerse the soul from anger is at war with both.

§ 58. Mr. Carson's canons cannot weaken it.

It would be foolish, even if it were possible, to try to destroy such a cumulative argument by trying to neutralize its parts in detail, according to Mr. Carson's principles. But it cannot be done. All of his canons and principles of trial are powerless here. I am not trying to prove that partito means sprinkle or pour-but purify; and therefore the first touches me not. There is no room for his second canon, for my argument depends not on the use of καθαρίζω, in place of βαπτίζω, but on the use of Banrico itself. There is no room for the third and fourth canons. For I do not deal in rhetorical uses of Banrico, but in plain prosaic definitions of it, and prosaic illustrations of those definitions. There is no room for his fifth canon, for there is clear proof that the name and the nature of baptism coincide. Wherever the Fathers see the thing purification, they give the name baptism, whatever the form. I stated at the outset, that by looking at the result and end of immersion in pure water, i. e., purity, the word would lose its modal sense, and pass to the sense to purify, irrespective of mode. And I have given most decisive proof that it did so pass. And this proof is strengthened by ten thousand facts on every side. I feel as though I had hardly begun to adduce the proof that exists on this subject. Indeed, no man can see it fully who will not leave the sultry regions of modern controversy, on this subject, and enter into the patristic world, till its languages, feelings, and usages rise from the dead and surround him, and impress upon his mind the whole scene. He will then find that the modern Baptists and the ancient Fathers live in two entirely different worlds.

The position from which the inferences in § 40 have been logically derived, has been established by evidence most clear and unanswerable. It follows, therefore, that those inferences are also established as true; and if so, their practical bearings are numerous and momentous, and it might seem appropriate to disclose them here. But though the main position has been most clearly proved, yet its whole strength has not been presented, nor can it be till I have considered some of Mr. Carson's

attacks on my former articles a little more in detail. In doing this I shall have occasion to adduce still further evidence from the fathers, so various, pointed, and definite, that, in my judgment, no rational ground for doubt will remain. Having done this, I shall close by a more full exhibition of the practical bearings of the results at which we have arrived. It was, indeed, my intention to finish the discussion in this article. But the reception of Mr. Carson's violent attack, and the general interest now felt in the subject, seemned to indicate the propriety, not to say necessity, of a discussion more thorough and extended than is consistent with the limits of our article.

ARTICLE IV.

REVIEW OF MORMONISM IN ALL AGES.

By Professor J. M. Sturtevant, Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois.

Mormonism in all Ages, or the Rise, Progress, and Causes of Mormonism. By PROF. J. B. TURNER, of Illinois College. Platt & Peters, New York.

MORMONISM has of itself no claims to the respectful notice of the periodical press. The shameless imposture of Joe Smith and his associates is as naked of interesting incident, as it is devoid of any semblance of plausible argument. Its details are loathsome and disgusting, and present to the mind only those revolting views of human nature which one would gladly forget, after having been once called to contemplate them, that he might still retain some respect for his species. We doubt not even that the very respectable book, whose title stands at the head of this article, encounters no small prejudice in the minds of many persons, by being made itself to bear some portion of the disgrace, which appropriately belongs to the disgusting developments, which are found on its pages. There are forms of error and fanaticism which we can hardly attempt to expose, without suffering in public estimation some degree of personal degradation. But we are not sure that this feeling is not more the offspring of pride than of philanthropy. We are