,774-©'. 
 

 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. «M 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/onbaptismchi^flyOOcoxf 
 
OJV BAPTISM. 
 
& 
 
ON BAPTISM; 
 
 CHIEFLY IN 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 l£t@mo logical iioettione 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. GREVILLE EWING, 
 
 In his " Essay on Baptism ;" 
 
 THE 
 
 polemic &i$tu$*ion& 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. TIMOTHY DWIGHT, S.T.D. LL.D. 
 
 In his Work entitled " Theology ;" 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Jfnfcrenttal tieasoninga 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV. RALPH WARDLAW, D.D. 
 
 In his " Lectures on the Abrahamic Covenant." 
 
 BY F. A. COX, A. M. 
 
 OF HACKNEY. 
 
 " Vehementer me agere fateor, iracuude nego. Omnino irasci amicis non temere soleo, 
 ne si merentur quidem. Sine verborum contumelia a te dissentire possum, sine animi 
 summo dolore non possum." Cicero. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED FOR B. J. HOLDS WORTH, 
 
 18, ST. pall's CHURCH YARD; 
 
 AND SOLD BY WAUGH AND INNES, EDINBURGH; AND 
 CHALMERS AND COLLINS, GLASGOW. 
 
 1824. 
 
J. Haddon, Printer, Tabernacle Walk, Finsbury. 
 
^> 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 
 Agreeing most fully with the sentiment expressed by 
 Mr. Ewing, in the Introduction to his Work, that " an 
 endeavour to detect error, and to establish truth, is an act 
 of friendship to every member of the body of Christ ;" I 
 trust that none of my paedobaptist friends will impute my 
 present undertaking to any unchristian hostility. Had I 
 felt the least irritation, I should never have attempted to 
 write ; being persuaded that the dispassionate inquirer is the 
 only proper controversialist, and that he who trembles with 
 anger, cannot judge with precision. I can discover no 
 sufficient reason, why the differences of opinion among 
 christians, on the subject of baptism, should not be placed 
 on a similar footing of temperate and amicable litigation, to 
 that which is sometimes observable in the proceedings of 
 the brothers or sisters of a family, who go into courts of 
 justice, not under the influence of rancour and malignity, 
 but for the sake of settling, upon a firm basis, the simple 
 question of property. 
 
 A baptist always writes with the peculiar disadvantage of 
 having almost every periodical work that influences public 
 opinion against him : he is aware, consequently, from the 
 prepossession of the writers in these publications, that if 
 they notice, they will condemn. This, however, does not 
 deter me from what I conceive to be a public duty ; nor, 
 
VI 
 
 when I consider the superior cultivation of the writers of 
 the present day, in the religious as well as in the literary 
 world, do I apprehend any of that coarse invective which, 
 in other times, defiled the pages of theological disputants. 
 As to the arguments themselves, they are published in order 
 to be examined ; I cannot, therefore, object to such exa- 
 mination, and hold myself bound to pay the utmost attention 
 to every candid criticism of our opponents, and to relinquish 
 at once, if such be found, every fallacious statement. My 
 persuasion is, that the popular feeling is theirs, the argu- 
 ment ours : if an evidence of the latter were requisite, it 
 might in part be deduced from the striking facts, that not 
 only have the best paedobaptist writers made us repeated 
 and most important concessions, while many, if not a 
 majority of their living teachers, constantly admit one-half 
 at least of our arguments for the mode of baptism ; but their 
 churches contain vast numbers of theoretic baptists, who have 
 discernment enough to appreciate the force of evidence, 
 but not piety enough to pursue the path of duty. 
 
 The Reply of Mr. M'Lean to Dr. Wardlaw, is a mas- 
 terly performance. My own Answer was written before I 
 had seen it, or indeed known of its existence ; but, among 
 other reasons for not subsequently suppressing that part of 
 my present publication, it is, perhaps, sufficient to state, 
 that, however meritorious, that work has scarcely been 
 heard of in England ; and a new discussion may have some 
 tendency to excite an increased degree of attention to that 
 part of the general subject, which our opponents have re- 
 cently seized upon as their favourite position in the con- 
 tested field; but whence, in my opinion, they can never give 
 successful battle. There is another work on the subject, 
 called " Eugenio and Epenetus," which is most worthy of 
 a serious and careful perusal. 
 

 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Preliminary Considerations 1 
 
 On the New Explanation of Terms proposed by Mr. Ewing 1 3 
 
 On the Correspondence between Baptism and Burial 58 
 
 Defence of Dr. Campbell 78 
 
 Brief Answers to various scattered Criticisms Ul 
 
 An Examination of Dr. Dwight's Discourses on Baptism, 
 in his Work, entitled, " Theology Explained and De- 
 fended 107 
 
 Strictures on Dr. Wardlaw's Three Lectures on the Abra- 
 hamic Covenant 127 
 
\ <s 
 
 ON BAPTISM, 
 
 6fc. Sfc. 
 
 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 In order to the clear comprehension of any 
 subject, more especially when it involves a con- 
 troverted topic, it is requisite, not only to consider 
 it in its separate branches, but to ascertain its 
 relative claims, and, if it belong to some general 
 system, its comparative importance, and true po- 
 sition. Sometimes it may happen, that the only 
 method of detecting the fallacy of an argument, 
 which has been rendered plausible and imposing 
 by the ingenious sophistries of an acute theorist, 
 is to bring forward these primary and antecedent 
 considerations, and by shewing its inconsistency 
 as part of some great whole, deduce the fact, and 
 ultimately lead to the exposure of the point of 
 error : in every instance it is essential to the truth 
 of a subject, that it should be capable of being 
 shewn to be consistent both with itself, and with 
 other ascertained and admitted facts or axioms, 
 which constitute the basis of reasoning, and the 
 
 
data of general knowledge. If this be not the 
 case, the mind will be filled with constant hesi- 
 tation — reasoning will be perplexed with endless 
 contradictions — and moral principles and deduc- 
 tions become the sport of scepticism. 
 
 It is easy to conceive, that a particular point 
 of discussion, or train of reasoning, when viewed 
 apart, or in an insulated form, might fix an 
 ascendant impression in a mind even of the highest 
 intellectual order, which could only be removed 
 by that mind being induced to take a more extensive 
 survey of the field of argument. It might then 
 appear, that previous prejudices had bewildered 
 and led the judgment astray, which could only be 
 recalled to its just exercise, and led to a legitimate 
 conclusion, by dispelling, in this manner, such 
 unhappy prepossessions, and by bringing from 
 another quarter the full light of evidence. To 
 determine, in fact, upon any question, however 
 minute and comparatively insignificant, with a 
 certainty that shall exclude doubt, or with a 
 moral confidence that shall bespeak deliberate, 
 judicious, and discriminating examination, it is 
 necessary to extend our researches far beyond its 
 own individual limits, and to take a compre- 
 hensive glance at other subsidiary and incidental 
 topics of general inquiry. This is the only 
 method of avoiding a hasty conclusion, an incon- 
 sistent theory, and the unhappy consequence of 
 both, a party feeling. 
 
 Suppose, to take an illustration from nature, 
 the construction, qualities, and uses of a leaf were 
 under investigation. Whatever discoveries might 
 
be made of its figure, colour, dimensions, and the 
 arrangement of its minuter parts ; it is obvious 
 that the most careful and microscopic examination, 
 and for the longest period, would furnish but a 
 very inadequate notion of the purposes of its cre- 
 ation, and the particular position it held, and 
 the relative value which attached to it in the 
 universal system. Whether it were designed for 
 protection or ornament, for the fruit, or the bird, 
 or the beast, could not be ascertained, without a 
 more general survey, and without knowing how 
 and where it grew, and what was its comparative 
 importance. A consideration of the branch to 
 which it was appended, and the tree to which it 
 belonged, with many other points, would be the 
 only way of forming a just conclusion. We must 
 understand the tree in order to be acquainted 
 with the leaf, and the vegetable world at large to 
 which it belongs must be, in some degree, com- 
 prehended, ere we could arrive at the particular 
 truth of which we were in pursuit ; and the errors 
 which a limited inspection would naturally pro- 
 duce must be, and could only be corrected, by a 
 more extended and general examination. 
 
 Baptism is a branch of the tree of scriptural 
 knowledge ; or, if you please, a leaf. If it be 
 contemplated apart from its general connection, 
 the investigation must necessarily be» imperfect, 
 and the deductions will be likely to be incon- 
 clusive. To understand the part, we must, in 
 some measure, comprehend the whole. It belongs 
 to a system, and its position must be ascertained; 
 and whatever conceptions we form of it must be 
 
 b 2 
 
harmonized with that great whole to which it is 
 attached. Baptism is a rite of the Christian 
 church ; it is a part of Christianity ; to understand 
 the nature, design, and character of baptism, we 
 must, therefore, understand Christianity; and 
 must not only shew that it belongs to the system, 
 but is, in its great purposes and principles, in 
 harmony with that system. If our conception of 
 the particular design and appointed practice of 
 baptism do not accord with the essential prin- 
 ciples of Christianity, there must somewhere 
 exist a fallacy in our arguments ; and even if it 
 could not be proved that our reasonings or illus- 
 trations were inconsistent with each other, it 
 would be sufficient to shew that they were incom- 
 patible with the great principles and foundation 
 of our faith. There must be error ; to this con- 
 clusion we are necessarily conducted a priori; 
 the detection of it, then, becomes important. If 
 it can be demonstrated, therefore, that poedo- 
 baptism is inharmonious with Christianity as a 
 general system, this branch of the argument is 
 established against it; and being so established, 
 upon the subsequent detection of the inconse- 
 quential reasonings and fallacies of the minuter 
 details of the subject, we are furnished with a 
 powerful corroborative argument to strengthen 
 and confirm us at every step of the refutation. 
 
 The baptismal controversy, as it is usually con- 
 ducted, hinges upon the mode and subjects of 
 baptism ; and these are the points to which the 
 present work is chiefly and necessarily devoted, 
 as an answer to Mr. Ewing, Dr. Dwight, and 
 
Dr. Wardlaw : but in my opinion our oppo- 
 nents lose much, and we proportionably gain, 
 by considering the practice in connection with 
 the principle of Christianity. This has seldom 
 been attempted : it is, nevertheless, one of the 
 most important branches of the inquiry, and 
 must necessarily confirm any process of critical, 
 historical, and argumentative discussion. To this 
 point, then, I have determined to devote a few 
 preliminary pages, from the conviction that it is 
 very important, has been seldom elucidated, and 
 is in every way confirmatory of our general 
 sentiments. 
 
 Two questions here present themselves ; — What 
 is Christianity ? and, What is Baptism as a part 
 of Christianity? 
 
 Christianity, as a system of religion, whether 
 viewed in its essential doctrines, precepts, and 
 promises, or in its implantation as a principle and 
 spring of eternal life through faith, must ever be 
 considered as a spiritual dispensation. " The law 
 was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by 
 Jesus Christ ;" and the Divine Author of our 
 religion, when explaining its grand characteristic, 
 declared, " My kingdom is not of this world.' 
 Had he, in the construction of his religion, ap- 
 pealed to the senses, rather than the conscience 
 and the judgment; had he instituted forms of 
 worship, without requiring the service of the 
 affections ; had he united the state with the 
 church, and himself assumed the sceptre of Au- 
 gustus Csesar, instead of exhibiting the better 
 dominion, and ascending to the higher station oF 
 
G 
 
 Lord of Conscience ; had he rendered it the 
 proper object and aim of the first propagators of 
 his Gospel to proselyte nations, rather than to 
 convert souls, and to establish religion, rather than 
 to build up " a spiritual house;' had he desired 
 them to coerce by the sword, rather than to con- 
 vince by argument and evidence, and to acquire 
 multitudes to join his standard, rather than to 
 gain disciples who should learn his doctrine, and 
 willing servants who, from devoted love, should 
 obey his word; — then his kingdom would have 
 been " of this world." But no discussion is re- 
 quisite to prove to those with whom my principal 
 argument is concerned, that Christ has established 
 a spiritual religion, and has combined the spirit 
 and power of godliness with its outward forms ; I 
 have only to remind them of the fact, and request 
 them to observe its bearings. Christianity is, as 
 we have stated, a spiritual dispensation —a system 
 of redeeming mercy exhibited to a fallen race, 
 which had forfeited every hope, and merited 
 " everlasting destruction" — a system which, con- 
 sequently, from its very nature, addresses itself to 
 intelligent creatures, capable of discerning its 
 glory, appreciating its claims, and participating, 
 through the exercise of faith and love, its inva- 
 luable blessings. If this dispensation or kingdom 
 be viewed as spiritual, such must necessarily be 
 its subjects. A spiritual kingdom cannot admit 
 of other than spiritual subjects ; the idea would be 
 incongruous and absurd, as well as manifestly un- 
 scriptural ; for when the subjects of this kingdom 
 are described, they are represented, not only as 
 
rational beings and moral agents, not only as in- 
 tellectual and immortal, but as regenerate and 
 holy — " born of God," — " born of the Spirit," — 
 " believers," — " disciples," — " saints," and con- 
 stituting the " body of Christ." 
 
 Hence it is, in the personality of religion, that 
 we fix the very root of our argument. If there 
 be one general consideration relating to the gospel 
 of Jesus, more obvious, more essential, more 
 clearly pervading all its statements, and entering 
 more completely into its essence, than another, it 
 is this, that man is individually responsible to God 
 for his actions, and as such an object of appeal, 
 entreaty, warning, and promise, eligible to an 
 immortal destiny of woe and delight, of condem- 
 nation or salvation. In this there can be no sub- 
 stitution ; one person can no more occupy another's 
 situation, as a being responsible to God, than he 
 can possess another's mind, and exercise the men- 
 tal and moral faculties of another being. He can 
 neither be righteous nor wicked, saved nor lost, 
 for another. And hence it follows, that there can 
 be no substitution of the indications of religion or 
 of its acquirements, either with regard to faith or 
 practice. No one can profess faith, no one can 
 put on Christ, no one can obey God, no one can 
 perform a duty which is enjoined as a public ex- 
 pression and avowal of any Christian principle, 
 for another. The personality of the religion of 
 Jesus, is surely its obvious peculiarity, and its 
 most illustrious as well as indisputable distinction. 
 Christianity, however, does not merely consist 
 of doctrines, precepts, and promises ; but its 
 
divine originator has incorporated with it, and 
 rendered essential to its proper profession, the 
 observance of two ordinances, Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper, by which all its genuine disciples 
 are required to give a testimony to the world of 
 their religion, and by a practical exhibition of its 
 nature and influence to attract and win over to its 
 practice the mass of mankind. Christianity being 
 a spiritual dispensation, and the observance of its 
 precepts and ordinances, involving, and indeed 
 demanding, the exercise of devout and holy 
 passions— of faith, and love, and joy in God, "by 
 whom we have received the reconciliation;" — the 
 service is not only of a personal kind, but emi- 
 nently spiritual : a peculiar elevation and refine- 
 ment of soul, a consecration of all the mental and 
 moral faculties, the presentation of the whole man 
 as a " living sacrifice" upon the altar of duty, 
 " holy, acceptable to God, which is our reasonable 
 service," — all are distinctly required, and all 
 tacitly admitted to be given, by the very act of 
 participation in the observance of religion. When 
 the disciples of Christ sit down together at the 
 sacramental festival, these considerations, it is 
 universally allowed, enter essentially into the idea 
 of its proper celebration. They approach that 
 board as willing and welcome guests ; and by cul- 
 tivating and expressing devout remembrance of 
 Christ, and impassioned love to him as their Re- 
 deemer, " shew forth his death till he come." 
 There they enjoy " the feast of friendship and 
 the flow of souls." There they put forth all the 
 vigour of personal religion — all the energy of a 
 
9 
 
 sanctified mind; and that commemorative institu- 
 tion displays the rationality as well as the ardour 
 of true piety, and its own perfect accordance with 
 the entire system of the gospel, in relation to the 
 understanding and the heart of man. 
 
 Hitherto, then, it appears, that Christianity is 
 founded upon the consideration of moral agency 
 and personal responsibility, its requirements pre- 
 suppose capability and obligation with regard to 
 its disciple ; for, although one principal rite only 
 has been selected for the illustration of this senti- 
 ment, an equally convincing evidence might have 
 been adduced from the other ordinance of the 
 Christian church, which is placed on a similar 
 footing with the Lord's Supper. What, it may be 
 inquired, from our antecedent impressions, from the 
 knowledge we had acquired of the genius of Christi- 
 anity after a careful examination of its principles 
 and institutions, would be and ought to be our anti- 
 cipations of the character of a rite, appointment, or 
 service, which was about to be for the first time 
 announced, or for the first time to become the 
 subject of particular inquiry ? Would it be natural 
 to expect that it should harmonize in its principle, 
 nature, and design, with the other sacred institu- 
 tions of the system, or that it should essentially 
 differ from them ; or if there were some points of 
 general agreement, that it should evolve a new 
 principle, in some considerable degree at variance 
 with those previously established, and even at vari- 
 ance with what must be allowed still to form the 
 general basis and reason of its own observance ? If, 
 for instance, all the established and admitted prin- 
 
10 
 
 ciples of Christianity, and all the other regulations 
 it imposed, required the operation of a certain 
 feeling, or the manifestation of a general qualifying- 
 disposition in the individual, or the class of per- 
 sons directed to practise the ordinances in ques- 
 tion, is it presumable, that with regard to the new 
 institution, the same qualification should not be 
 required, or merely required in part, or of some 
 of those only who were to observe the appoint- 
 ment : thus placing the observers of the rite upon 
 a different footing from each other, and rendering 
 that rite itself questionable in its character, 
 dubious in its features, and anomalous in its de- 
 sign ? Could it be supposed that every other insti- 
 tution demanded the exercise of the reason, the 
 judgment, the conscience, and that even Chris- 
 tianity itself could only be received through the 
 medium of the affections — and yet that neither 
 reason, judgment, conscience, nor affection, were 
 necessary to the due observance of this other, and 
 only of this other rite? And could it be supposed, 
 that while all other observances required personal 
 religion, this was practicable by those who were 
 morally incapable of religion, or that it might be 
 practised upon them solely on the ground of the 
 qualifications for the service which any of their 
 relatives ox friends might possess — when especially 
 it is to be remarked, that the entire reason of its 
 being practised at all, was founded upon a con- 
 sideration of personal obligation, and was in- 
 stituted to express a personal dedication to God ? 
 Ought we not, in such a case, either to question 
 the fact of the introduction of such an appoint- 
 
]] 
 
 ment into the system, otherwise consistent and 
 harmonious in all its enactments, regulations, and 
 principles — or, to conclude, that we have miscon- 
 ceived and misinterpreted the law ? 
 
 We are thus led to the true answer to our second 
 inquiry — What is baptism as a part of Christianity ? 
 Is it of an anomalous character — partly Jewish, 
 and partly Christian, in principle — partly personal, 
 and partly relative — partly congruous, and partly 
 incongruous, with the general system ? Are some 
 to receive it because they believe, and others be- 
 cause they are related to those that believe? Are 
 some to be baptized on a profession of faith, and 
 for this treason only, that they do profess it — and 
 others without such a profession, and when inca- 
 pable from their infant age of any moral obligation, 
 or any personal duty ? Were this the case, baptism 
 must stand alone — it is not analogous to any other 
 institution — it is not accordant with the general 
 principles and the spirit of Christianity — it is 
 without precedent in the example of Christ, and 
 in the admitted practice of the Apostles in the 
 adult baptisms recorded in the New Testament — 
 it is a mere appendage to Christianity, not a part 
 of the system — it is in some cases significant, in 
 others not so — it may be " a putting on Christ," 
 or it may be a mere external badge — nay, rather, 
 a momentary indication that the individual receiv- 
 ing it is — What? A disciple ? No. — A worshipper ? 
 No. — An heir of glory ? No. — One who is " buried 
 with Christ," and who rises with him to " newness 
 of life ?" No — but an indication that the individual 
 is related to the Christian professor, and his rela- 
 
12 
 
 tionship is supposed to constitute a right to the 
 reception which, in the case of the infant recipient 
 confers no benefit, prevents no evil, and contains 
 no moral obligation — and with the assured con- 
 viction, in the mind of the whole party concerned 
 in the anomalous transaction, that the baptized 
 individual, not only cannot then profess Christianity, 
 but may be its future opponent and despiser! 
 
 Most perfectly therefore do I agree with the 
 statement of my valued friend, Mr. Birt, in his 
 pamphlet, entitled "Adult Baptism;" and in his 
 words I conclude this preliminary discussion : — 
 
 " It is the very essence of religion which con- 
 stitutes the ground on which our brethren are at 
 issue, both with themselves and with us ; and 
 until they prove that our Lord has established two 
 kinds of religion — the one relative, which they 
 insist on at the baptism of infants, the other per- 
 sonal, which, with us, they maintain in all other 
 religious ordinances — the one proceeding from 
 man, the other the work of God — the one evinced 
 by the graces of the Holy Spirit, the other existing 
 without evidence — the subjects of the one, moral 
 and accountable agents, of the other, babes inca- 
 pable of responsibility — the character of the one 
 being in conformity to the revealed will of God, 
 and the other so entirely destitute of all character 
 as to be perfect neutrality — until this be done, 
 they have really effected nothing." 
 
ON THE NEW EXPLANATION OF TERMS PRO- 
 POSED BY MR. EWING. 
 
 That part of the controverted subject of Bap- 
 tism which relates to the spiritual design of the 
 institution, is always the favourite topic of minis- 
 terial discourse in the denomination to which I 
 have the pleasure to belong ; but as our Poedo- 
 baptist brethren are " ever and anon" urging us 
 by their publications to pursue the beaten track 
 of etymological disquisition, we feel it incumbent 
 upon us, for the truth's sake, occasionally to follow 
 in the same direction. While their critical and 
 theological writers continue to attack us with 
 their eVta irrepoevra and otVol piyTjXoi — with " winged 
 words" and " terrific shafts," the multitude never 
 fail to interpret silence on our part into a con- 
 sciousness of defeat; and if we actually do not 
 reply to often -answered statements, or to novel 
 and ingenious subtleties, it is supposed we cannot 
 or dare not advance into the arena. If religion 
 and religious duty were not deeply implicated, 
 and if we did not feel solicitous that every consi- 
 deration which the utmost learning and skill could 
 adduce ought to be fairly and thoroughly investi- 
 
14 
 
 gated, we should allow representations of this 
 kind to pass sub silentio, nor turn aside from the 
 course of ordinary engagement. Reflecting, how- 
 ever, on the general importance of the subject, 
 I have taken up the pen, from the hope that the 
 interests of truth and piety may be in some mea- 
 sure promoted. Observing the mild and friendly 
 spirit that pervades Mr. Ewing's publication, the 
 ardent desire of the writer is to manifest, what he 
 is conscious of possessing, a similar feeling ; and 
 he cannot help congratulating the Christian world 
 on the kind and pious tone which, notwithstanding- 
 strong appeals and admissible pleasantries, has of 
 late been introduced into the discussion of contro- 
 verted subjects. 
 
 Etymological disquisition 1 have called a beaten 
 track ; and it is often deemed a barren one ; but 
 in the present instance we are invited into a new 
 path, which, for this reason, is unusually attractive. 
 Whether we are going to tread on firm ground, 
 and whether we can safely trust our guide, must 
 be afterwards ascertained ; we shall at least be 
 bold enough to adventure a few steps. 
 
 Mr. E. is " persuaded that the word baptize has 
 never yet been properly analyzed." Under the 
 influence of this persuasion he very naturally 
 enters upon this task; and had he really suc- 
 ceeded we should most readily have united in his 
 triumphant Evp^a, instead of excepting against it 
 as a premature exultation. He writes thus ; — 
 
 '* The following are admitted as general rules 
 for reducing words to their first principles. Let 
 
15 
 
 those letters and syllables which are merely the 
 signs of derivation and inflection, be cut off. Let 
 intermediate vowels, employed for the purpose of 
 enunciating consonants, be disregarded, or consi- 
 dered as easily changeable into one another. Let 
 those consonants, also, which are pronounced by 
 the same organ of speech (as the lips, the teeth 
 or the palate,) be freely interchanged, as we find 
 them actually to be in the practice of speaking. 
 That part of the word which remains unvaried 
 after these operations, falls to be considered as the 
 radical term. Apply these rules to the words in 
 question. Discard the terminations, and you 
 have the syllable bap; change the intermediate 
 vowel a into o, and the labial consonant b into the 
 labial consonant p, and you have the term pop, 
 which is the root required." p. 22. 
 
 " Will the reader, then, have the goodness to 
 accustom his ear to the following sounds ? Pop-to, 
 pop-tizo, pop-tistes, pop-tos, pop-tismos, and pop- 
 tisma. In this identical form the root occurs, in 
 Greek, in Latin, and in English. In Greek we 
 have iroinrv^oj, I blow, hiss, or whistle, cheer my 
 horse by calling to him or patting him with my hand, 
 stroke, or applaud; also the nouns Tro-mrv^fia and 
 iroinrvofibQ, a puff, hiss, or whistle, a smack or gentle 
 sound with mouth or hands, expression of favour, 
 applause, cheering, or soothing, a gentle stroke, a 
 soft blow with the hand. In like manner poppysmus 
 and poppysma in Latin, which are the same words 
 as those just mentioned in Greek, and of the same 
 signification. In English the term, pop is thus ex- 
 plained by Dr. Johnson." — (Then follows a quota- 
 
1G 
 
 tion of the several explanations and illustrations 
 in his Dictionary.) p. 24. 
 
 " Mr. Walker, after giving in his Dictionary 
 Johnson's explanation of pop, adds, ' undoubtedly 
 derived from the noise caused by the sudden ex- 
 pulsion of some small body.' This is true, but it 
 is only part of the truth ; for the word pop applies 
 equally to the noise caused by the sudden impul- 
 sion of some small body. In short, it is the noise 
 caused by the agency of body in motion upon body, 
 and that in any direction whatever. It may be 
 entrance or exit, ascent or descent. We say, to pop 
 in, to pop out, to pop forth ; to pop up, or to pop 
 down ; to pop into ; to pop upon ; to pop out of, or 
 out from ; to pop off. I have to add, that the word 
 is not limited in its application to solids or to the 
 aerial fluid, but is with equal frequency applied 
 to water, or any other fluid whatever. Finally, 
 though a pop may be sometimes so powerful that 
 the noise shall be startling, it is generally caused 
 by the stroke of a small body ; and hence it is 
 usually so slight and gentle, that the noise, though 
 marked in the very sound of the word, comes in 
 fact to be commonly nothing at all." p. 26. 
 
 " Keep in mind, now, the above explanation, 
 and apply it to baptism, (pop-tism,) and you are 
 furnished with a key which will naturally and 
 consistently account for all its much disputed 
 acceptations. You have only to observe, that a 
 person or thing may be either popped into water 
 or any other fluid, or may have water or any 
 other fluid popped upon, or popped into him or it, 
 and the whole mystery vanishes." p. 27. 
 
17 
 
 No one can deny, after entertaining himself 
 with these passages, that our author has popped 
 upon a very amusing, if not a very convincing 
 etymology; but one is tempted to use the words 
 of an Homeric stanza, though with a different 
 application, — 
 
 01 $e icf axyvfiavot 7rep, kir avno -t\bv yeXacraav' 
 
 i. e. Although distressed, they smiled pleasantly 
 upon him ; — for though it is to be regretted that 
 a person of learning and various attainment should 
 have allowed himself, to treat this subject so ludi- 
 crously, yet it produces no emotion of anger ; and 
 were it not for the intimate association of the 
 novel criticism with important truth, we should 
 suffer it to pass with only the expression of " a 
 pleasant smile." It is necessary to keep in mind, 
 that for an explanation of ttott, pop, we have at 
 full length the definitions and illustrations of 
 Johnson's English Dictionary ! 
 
 Suppose, then, we first proceed in our author's 
 own manner. He admits, that by the same rule 
 the root may be pronounced bob or bab. This, 
 indeed, is obvious ; for — Discard the terminations, 
 and you have the syllable bap; change the vowel 
 a into o, and the labial consonant p into the labial 
 consonant b, and you have the term bob, which is 
 the root required. Will the reader, then, have 
 the goodness to accustom his ear to the following- 
 sounds ? Bob-to, bob-tizo, bob-tistes, bob-tos, bob- 
 tismos, and bob-tisma. In English the word bob is 
 thus explained by Dr. Johnson : — 
 
18 
 
 To Bob. v. n. To play backward and forward; 
 to play loosely against any thing. 
 
 And sometimes lurk I in a gossip's bowl, 
 In very likeness of a roasted crab ; 
 And when she drinks against her lips I bob, 
 And on her withered dewlap pour the ale. 
 
 Shakspeares Midsummer Night's Dream. 
 
 They comb, and then they order every hair ; 
 
 A birth-day jewel bobbing at each ear. Dryden. 
 
 I'm rich in jewels, rings, and bobbing pearls, 
 Pluck'd from Moor's ears. Dryden. 
 
 It is not necessary to cite all the explanations 
 and references, after the example of Mr. Ewing 
 with regard to the word pop; since we are at 
 present only in search of an illustration, to afford 
 the reader some general idea of the curious 
 method he has adopted, and since the authority 
 in question is universally accessible. Now, to 
 pursue our author's strain, " having thus trans- 
 lated the word baptism, we are prepared to shew 
 that it signifies the sudden and slight application 
 of water or some other liquid ; but, in a more lax 
 sense, the application of it in any manner, or for 
 any purpose;" or rather the application of a solid, 
 (" for the word is not limited in its application to 
 fluids" ) the slight application to the lips or the 
 neck, so as to resemble, for instance, the jogging 
 of the elbow when a person is drinking, (vide ex- 
 ample from Shakspeare,) or the motion of an ear- 
 ring. Hence, in fact, baptism may be bobbing in 
 any way. "It is not always that the analysis is 
 of so easy and satisfactory a nature!" 
 
19 
 
 By the rules already laid down, our root may 
 be pronounced vap; and "in Latin," as Dr. 
 Murray remarks, " vap, wet, blow, ventilate, 
 cool, dry by the wind, or produce evaporation by 
 exposure to the air, produced vap-or, in Greek 
 atmos, from at, blow."* In this we may feel a 
 little perplexed to determine whether the proper 
 action is to dry, or to wet, or to blow ; some one 
 might perhaps ingeniously conjecture that a vapour 
 bath is intended ! In the present instance I am 
 unable to find the verb to vap in Johnson ; but he 
 gives us to vapour, which, amongst other signifi- 
 cations, is said to mean to brag, and also to scatter 
 in fume or vapour. Perhaps a certain reviewer 
 had both these explanations in his eye when he 
 wrote — " The body of evidence which the author 
 has adduced completely overthrows the doctrine of 
 immersion;" — that is, vaps, vapours, or eva- 
 porates it ! 
 
 The convenience of this term is surprising ; for, 
 as a witty friend has observed, — Discard the ter- 
 minations, and you have the syllable bap; 
 change the intermediate vowel a into o, and the 
 labial consonant b into the labial consonant ni, 
 and you have the term mop, which is the root re- 
 quired. This derivation possesses the confirma- 
 tory circumstance, that (Johnson also being wit- 
 ness,) we can go to the Latin language and find 
 mappa, and (ourselves being judges,) to the Greek 
 also, where we happily discover fiairkLv per Syncop. 
 for fiap-rrkiv ; from napirro, capio, prehendo, to take, 
 
 * See Mr. E.'s note on page 23 of his Essay. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 that is, in any way; and metonymically, to surprize. 
 Hence to rnarp, or map, or mop, may be to take a 
 person or child, and surprize him by popping upon 
 or moptizing his face with water. I am indisposed 
 to pursue the ludicrous applications of this new 
 term, but they may be easily conceived. 
 
 There is something, however, which I beg to 
 submit to Mr. E wing's critical acumen. He has 
 certainly not made the most of his discovery; for 
 by simply changing the labial consonant b into 
 the labial p, we have pap, as the root required ; 
 which would surely seem, by the very sound as 
 well as the sense, to point to the subjects of the 
 ordinance. The idea of infants must immediately 
 occur ; or, if we press the Greek and Latin into 
 our service, we have the parents and sires. Of 
 this our celebrated lexicographer will again bear 
 testimony. His explanations are as follow: — 
 
 Papa. n. s. Trainrag', Lat. papa. A fond name 
 for father, used in many languages. 
 
 Pap. n. s. Food made for infants, with bread 
 boiled in water. 
 
 It might, perhaps, place the question of etymo- 
 logy in a still stronger light, were we to select 
 another Greek term, and apply the proposed sys- 
 tem in a similar manner. I had thought of 
 attempting this, as a further exposure of its fallacy; 
 but the critical observations about to be intro- 
 duced, will supersede the necessity of resorting 
 to this method. 
 
 I have felt some inclination, also, for the sake 
 of my mere English readers, to try the merits of 
 the modern verb to hoax ; and had even thought 
 
21 
 
 of descanting upon the vulgar hoax, the political 
 hoax, the literary hoax, and, lastly, the critical 
 hoax ; but lest I should be accused of a severe 
 personality, I at once forbear. 
 
 Ridicule, it may be said, is not the proper test 
 of truth, or the certain means of detecting so- 
 phistry. Of this I am perfectly aware; and 
 should be sorry indeed to resort to it as the only 
 or the best method of confuting error in the pre- 
 sent controversy. It is for this reason I here cut 
 short my sarcastic animadversions ; craving the 
 reader's forgiveness for the brief indulgence of that 
 risibility which, not only the quaintness, but the 
 extreme futility (as will soon be shewn,) of our. 
 author's etymological attempts have irresistibly 
 excited. 
 
 The novel theory presented to our attention 
 appears to have been devised for the purpose of 
 supporting a favourite hypothesis ; it is, however, 
 liable to numerous objections, of which it will be 
 proper to mention a few. 
 
 I. In instituting his analysis, our author seems to 
 have no very distinct conceptions of his own ultimate 
 aim, but to feel great indecision of mind respecting 
 the scope and object of the operation which he has 
 undertaken to perform. Some of his remarks imply 
 a wish to discover the primary form of the word 
 in question, to which the term root is generally 
 applied by grammarians ; but there occur other 
 observations, wholly irreconcileable with the sup- 
 position that such is his purpose. Of this lat- 
 ter class we have an instance, p. 23, where he 
 represents himself as supported by Aristotle-. 
 
22 
 
 " I plead for no innovation, but am supported by 
 the ancient and high authority of Aristotle. 
 
 ^.TOiy^eiov filv ovv Ioti (frwvi) ciSiaipaTog' ov ttcktu 2t aXX' 
 It, r]Q iri<f)VKS <JW£T}j yivzaBai (ptovi)' nai tCjv ^rjpuuv da\v 
 aciaipeTOL (jxjovat, wv ov^tfxiav \lyu> crroi^uov. — 7T£pt 
 
 TToirtTLKng, Kt<f>. k. " The root (of a word) then, is an 
 undivided sound : not every such sound, how- 
 ever ; but one that is significant : for cries of 
 beasts also are undivided sounds, but I do not say 
 that any of them is a root." p. 23, 24. 
 
 To give a just view of the case, it will be ne- 
 cessary to cite the passage at somewhat greater 
 length, and also to correct some errors of translation 
 into which Mr. Ewing has fallen. Aristotle is speak- 
 ing of diction or elocution ; the chapter is entitled 
 UepX XeZtuQ Kiu twv avTi)Q fizpw, and he proceeds thus ; 
 
 — Tr)£ oe Xtsfwc inrdai]g too tVi to. fiipr}' gtoi\uov, 
 (jvWafiri, arvv^eafiog, ovofia, prjfia, apOpov, tttwctiq, \oyog. 
 Srot^HOV filv ovv Ian ^>wv») aSiaiptrog' ts iraaa Se, aXX' 
 1% r\g TrtyvKS <tvv£ti) ylveaOcu <$>ii)vi)' koi yap raJv Qiipiiov 
 tla\v aSiaiptroi <pu)vai, wv ovctpiav Xtyw otoi^iov . TavTrjg 
 £t p.ipr\, to, re ^covfjev, Kai to rj/aicpiovov Kai a^wvov. "Eoti 
 Se $a>vJjev ptv, avev irpog(3o\rig £X oy $ tii V'Q v . «kouotj)v oTov, 
 to a teal o). '}ip.i(p(vvov oe, to aera TrpoafioXijg e^ov <j)iovriv 
 
 ILK0V(JT1]V' dlOV, TO (T, KOI TO p. "A<p(l)VOV OE, TO jUCTa 7T0OCT- 
 
 /SoXfjc icaS* avTo p:tv ovdtpiiav ix ov < P ( °i f ^ v > ptTa oe twv 
 kXpvTwv Tiva. (piovriv yivop.evov ukovcftov' oTov, to y f Kai 
 to S. Tiivtcl Se $ia<j>ipz.i ayj}p.a(ri re tov <TTop.aTog, not Totroig, 
 Kai Sao-vrrjri, Kai ^iXor?jri, Kai ju/jkei, kiu j3joa^ur»/ri" tri £e 
 Kai o^urtjri, Kai (iapvT^n, Kai tio ueaij/ Trepl wv KaB' tjcaoroi/ 
 tv Toig pitTpiKolg 7rpogiiK£i Ot-wptiv. Si>XXaj3ij o"e eari (pojvt) 
 aar)p.og, avvOtTri 1% ii(j)iovov Kai (frwvrjv t)(OVTog. Kai yap to 
 yp avtv tov a <ruXXa/3j), koi uera tov a- oiov, to ypa. k. t. X. 
 
 "• Of all diction (speech or elocution,) these are 
 
23 
 
 the parts ; — element, (or letter,) syllable, conjunc- 
 tion, noun, verb, article, case, and sentence. An 
 element, then, is an indivisible sound : not every 
 such sound, however; but one which has conduced 
 to the forming of an intelligible sound, (or word) ; 
 for there are indivisible sounds of beasts, but I by 
 no means say any of them is an element. Of 
 this the parts are, the vowels, semi-vowels, and 
 mutes. A vowel is that which, without any addi- 
 tion, has an audible sound, as a and o ; a semi- 
 vowel is that which, in composition, is also itself 
 audible, as s and r ; a mute is that which, in com- 
 bination, having itself no sound, audibly modifies 
 the sounds of other letters, as g and d. These 
 differ in the conformation of the mouth, (required 
 for their pronunciation,) in their positions, in 
 being aspirated and unaspirated, and in length, 
 and in shortness ; also in their being acute, grave, 
 and between the two. The inquiry respecting 
 these, severally, belongs to the subject of mttrc.s. 
 A syllable is a sound without signification, com- 
 posed of a consonant and a vowel ; for the letters 
 gr, without a, form a syllable, and with a, as 
 gra? &c. 
 
 Having given the passage from Aristotle in its 
 connection, let us now inquire, to what purpose it 
 has been adduced by our author? That any suffrage 
 of the ancient philosopher is given to Mr. E.s 
 method of analysis, by which his present conclu- 
 sions are sanctioned, will surely not be contended; 
 and from its utter irrelevancy to any such end, 
 we infer, could never have been designed; although 
 the manner of its introduction was calculated to 
 
24 
 
 occasion this misconception. But as no other 
 purpose appears answered by this quotation in 
 Mr. E.s pages, it would seem that his intention 
 was to point out a coincidence between his own 
 views and those of Aristotle with regard to an 
 ultimate part of a word ; this is obvious also from 
 his having rendered aroix^ov a root. But the 
 slightest attention to the language will shew 
 that (ttoixhov, in the Greek sentence, is not to 
 be understood of a grammatical root, but of an 
 elementary letter. If, therefore, the scope of 
 our author's analytical labours be the same 
 with the element of the Peripatetic philoso- 
 pher, he has prematurely stopped short in his 
 enterprize. Pop cannot be the sound, because it 
 is not the element to which the ultimate etymo- 
 logy proceeds ; this would be one of the letters 
 or undivided sounds 7r, o, /3, a, or some of their 
 interchangeable vowels or consonants.* If, on 
 the other hand, he quits Aristotle, and adopts the 
 
 * M. Dacier, in his notes on Aristotle, explains his state- 
 ment in a manner that corroborates our objection. He says — 
 " Les Grecs appellent les lettres d'un mot qui signifie les 
 elemens, pour faire entendre, que comme tous les corps sont 
 composes des elemens, et se dissolvent dans les memes prin- 
 cipes, il en est de meme de touts les mots, ils sont formes des 
 lettres, et retournent dans ces memes lettres, quand ils sont 
 detruits. Puisque la lettre est un element e'est done un son 
 indivisible, car tout son qui peut etre divise ne peut etre une 
 lettre ; comme tout corps compose ne peut etre un element ; 
 mais pour definir la lettre, il ne suffit pas de dire qu'elle est un 
 son indivisible, e'est pourquoi Aristote ajoute, mais celui qui 
 est articule et intelligible, e'est a dire, qui siynijie quelque chose ; 
 car la voix des betes est un son indivisible; mais parce qu'elle 
 ne peut rien srgnifier, elle n'est pas une lettre." 
 
25 
 
 common idea of the term root, he has proceeded 
 much too far ; inasmuch as tto-k is no Greek word 
 whatever, and the verb in the present tense, /3a7rrw, 
 has all the appearance of the theme to which the 
 other tenses are reducible : or if we seek a simpler 
 form, it will be presently shewn how it may be 
 legitimately traced.- 
 
 II. What are designated " general rules for 
 reducing words to their Jirst principles" and which 
 are presumed to give validity to the results of the pro- 
 posed analysis, are utterly unavailable for the pur- 
 pose. That " intermediate vowels" are " easily 
 changeable," and that " those consonants which 
 are pronounced by the same organ of speech," 
 may be " freely interchanged," (or, rather have been) 
 need not be disputed ; but how this fact became 
 a rule for the authors proceeding, is inconceivable! 
 A rule, being a practical direction, necessarily 
 assumes certain things upon the existence of which 
 depends the propriety of its observance; a rule 
 clearly being no rule, except so far as the circum- 
 stances in which it may be adopted, are known 
 and definable. But we are not furnished with the 
 slightest assistance to enable us to form an idea 
 of the essential circumstances in the present in- 
 stance. On the supposition, that these changes 
 are at all times equally eligible, it may be asked 
 why, when our author has subjected bap to his 
 process, he should stop short; or why the new 
 syllable pop is not equally susceptible of being 
 changed back again to its primaeval form ? 
 
 It may be further remarked, that the term "ge- 
 neral" while it sometimes signifies frequency of 
 
26 
 
 occurrence, in other instances denotes comprehen- 
 sion of particulars ; if its present use were in- 
 tended in the latter sense, it implies what is 
 contrary to fact. That the changes in question 
 do occur, has been admitted, but they are far from 
 being comprehensive, though icicle and loose enough 
 to sustain an ambiguity. So little applicable, 
 therefore, is the designation " general rules, " 
 to that which consistently with fact may be 
 meant, that we trust, upon perceiving their 
 tendency to produce a most erroneous impres- 
 sion, our author will, for the future, discard 
 them. In the mean time, we must insist, that 
 they have absolutely accomplished nothing, and 
 cannot be exempted from the charge of utter fu- 
 tility. 
 
 III. Our author s professed analysis is unsup- 
 ported by the principles which are essential to verify 
 a philological hypothesis. With regard to these 
 principles, our author leaves us entirely to con- 
 jecture, although without any such essential data, 
 he determines, e.v cathedra, that " the analysis is 
 not always of so easy and satisfactory a nature.'' 
 The verification of an analysis surely depends on 
 the two following conditions, at least: — 
 
 1. That the word adduced as a root should be 
 an integral part of the language. All legitimate 
 induction in philology, no less than in universal 
 science, issues in fact. In vain do we reason 
 and analyze, if we arrive at no elementary and 
 agreed truth. The fact at which analysis must 
 necessarily aim in the present and in other 
 similar instances is, a aord existing in the Ian- 
 
27 
 
 guage to which our investigations refer. This 
 is virtually conceded, when it is said, that the 
 root is a sound that is significant, and "not every 
 sound ;" since upon what principle it can be main- 
 tained, that a word is significant in a language 
 where it does not in reality exist, is utterly in- 
 conceivable. But the professed radical pop is 
 neither shewn to be found in Greek, nor in any 
 cognate language. 
 
 2. The changes for which the etymologist 
 pleads, must have the evidence of competent 
 authority. The alterations proposed, and a thou- 
 sand others with which a catalogue of terms might 
 be swelled, are allowed to be possible ; but the 
 possible and the real, that which was supposable, 
 and that which is fact, do not so nearly approxi- 
 mate, that they can be regarded as identical. 
 It was possible, that the change proposed might 
 be made; as what change is not possible? But 
 the authority which proves the fact is neces- 
 sary to decide which of the numberless possibi- 
 lities has been realized. Should it be imagined, 
 that whatever change was possible in a word, may 
 be assumed to have taken place ; and that, without 
 any other restraint on wild conjecture, than the very 
 inefficient and useless one of a required coincidence 
 in some one abstract idea — we put it to the author 
 to consider, how short is the time during which 
 he is likely to remain the last discoverer in this part 
 of the etymological field — how soon his views will 
 be superseded by other novelties ? We put it to him 
 to consider, what valuable attribute of language 
 could survive the general adoption of this ety- 
 
28 
 
 mological licentiousness? The demand must 
 then be renewed for the authority in this 
 question. What Greek author has used sy- 
 nonymously the different words attempted to 
 be identified? What record exists of the change 
 asserted? What poet, what historian, what gram- 
 marian, what Greek scholiast, will come to our 
 author's assistance from the " vasty deep" of de- 
 parted time? Till some evidence of this des- 
 cription be produced, he may indeed furnish 
 amusement to those who can be entertained by 
 the play of fancy, but he affords no assistance to 
 those who would inquire after truth. 
 
 Without the two conditions which have now 
 been mentioned, no analysis can be verified as 
 arriving at a root even in the least comprehen- 
 sive notion of that term ; which is merely a certain 
 combination of elementary sounds with a signifi- 
 cation. A root of this kind must however be so 
 barren a root for argument in the baptismal contro- 
 versy, that it could hardly have been deemed wor- 
 thy of the author's attention, if he had not viewed 
 it as essentially retaining its first signification, 
 through all the subsequent changes of form. The 
 theory, that a radical meaning invariably attends 
 a radical form, is the only one which can be of 
 much use in discovering the meaning of a term in 
 a disputed instance. Without inquiring whether 
 the argument in which we now engage be general, 
 or merely ad hominem, we must urge a reasonable 
 claim that the deductions be clear, as the preten- 
 sions are high and important. 
 
 That particular evidence of a true derivation 
 
29 
 
 which consists in a coincidence of some one idea 
 in the acknowledged word, and a supposed deri- 
 vative, will necessarily depend on the nature of 
 the common idea as to the part it forms of the 
 whole meaning — as to its being a leading idea — one 
 which, if it do not obtrude itself into each sub- 
 sequently acquired meaning of the word, can, 
 however, in no instance be difficult of discovery — 
 one which is of a kind to exclude others from all 
 equality of rank and pretensions with itself. Where 
 there is a failure in these requirements, where the 
 supposed radical idea is so general that it must of 
 necessity enter into half the words of a language, 
 and consequently, is so small a part of the mean- 
 ing in most, as to require a most acute perception 
 to detect its presence, it must, in such instances, 
 be essentially destitute of any intelligible force of 
 evidence for the purpose in view. 
 
 Of the latter description is the instance we have 
 recently had proposed. The radical meaning 
 which seems first to present itself in our au- 
 thor's analysis, is that of a sound, from which 
 it becomes a body in motion, yet a diminutive 
 body : this restriction being struck off, it remains 
 " the motion of a body on a body," that is to 
 say, it is motion; the motion of one substance 
 upon another. Now let the reflection for a mo- 
 ment be admitted, that this idea is one which is 
 implied in almost every active verb, and we may 
 at once appreciate its value as evidence in the 
 present instance. Depending on the recurrence 
 of an abstract idea of motion of body on body, as evi- 
 dence of derivation, we shall ultimately find there 
 
30 
 
 is some root of such prodigious fertility that a very 
 few such would be requisite in any language. 
 
 The case is quite different where the alleged 
 idea is of obvious prominence. That, for example, 
 in which lexicographers have so generally agreed, 
 as the radical idea of the word now under dis- 
 cussion, namely, immersion, or covering a body with 
 liquid, is precisely of this description. Although 
 the possibility is not denied, of finding other words 
 which imply a similar idea, it may safely be 
 asserted, that in no other is it in any comparable 
 degree prominent : in its full force and obvious- 
 ness, it belongs to this alone. 
 
 It is rather a curious fact, illustrating however 
 how slightly our authors general notion belongs 
 to the word with which he would unite it, that he 
 is himself a witness of its being employed to render 
 a synonymous term, the first meaning of which, as 
 adduced on his own page, is " I stand." The 
 original word, from which Baimo is derived, is, he 
 informs us, iny ; adding, that in all probability it 
 was the very word, in the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, 
 used by John the Baptist, as the name of the new 
 ordinance which he administered ; the very word 
 used by the messengers from Jerusalem when they 
 asked, " Why baptizest thou ?" The very word 
 used by the Apostles and Evangelists, as long as 
 they preached in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. 
 Admitting this statement, let us inquire, what is 
 the signification of nop 1 If, indeed, it be found to 
 mean " the agency of body in motion upon 
 body," the correspondence would seem to invest 
 the argument from the radical idea with some 
 
31 
 
 degree of plausibility ; but Mr. Ewing declares, 
 and I am on no account inclined to dispute it, that 
 "i»i7 signifies to stand, continue, subsist, to 
 cause, or make to stand! It will require some 
 labour to reconcile this contradiction ; besides, in 
 the administration of the ordinance in question, 
 there can be neither " standing," nor " causing to 
 stand." 
 
 IV. The admission of Mr. Ewing s principle of 
 etymology would introduce the utmost uncertainty into 
 language. If it were allowable to discard one 
 syllable, and change every letter of another, the 
 very foundations of intelligible speech would be 
 broken up, and the confusion of Babel be intro- 
 duced into every region of knowledge; words 
 would no longer constitute the proper medium 
 for the transmission of ideas ; they might mean 
 any thing or nothing: — facts the most certain 
 might be disproved ; testimony the most per- 
 spicuous might be overthrown ; history the most 
 important might be annulled ! It would be only 
 to pop upon some radical or supposed radical let- 
 ter or letters, and the interested scribe or the 
 subtle controversalist, by discarding one syllable 
 and altering the expression of another, attacking 
 the labial consonants or exploding the poor in- 
 significant vowels, might answer his own purpose — 
 toss about the apple of discord, or completely pop- 
 pize (7ro7T7rw£w) blow or hiss away the documents of 
 past ages with a puff (iroTnrvapa). Is it possible 
 that language should be so indefinite ? And is it 
 either judicious or correct thus to alarm the re- 
 ligious world with the critical tocsin ? In reality, 
 such would be the inevitable effect produced upon 
 
32 
 
 the construction of language, were the proposed 
 transformations and distortions admissible, that 
 a priori, this method of investigation must be 
 pronounced essentially and radically erroneous, 
 although it were adopted by all the grammarians 
 in the universe. 
 
 V. If there be any real signification in the al- 
 leged Greek formation ttott, it is perfectly different 
 from the English verb to pop. The analogy is 
 entirely in the sound. The most obvious original 
 compound into which it enters is ttottttvc,^, for the 
 meaning of which we readily accept of our op- 
 ponent's definition, / blow, hiss, or whistle, cheer 
 my horse by calling to him, or patting him with my 
 hand, stroke, or applaud. In the same form we 
 have the interjection ttottoi, which is expressive 
 either of applause or indignation. To the English 
 reader, then, it is quite sufficient to propose the 
 question, whether there be any such resem- 
 blance between the applications of our term 
 pop and the whistling of a boy, the blowing of 
 the wind, or the patting of a horse, as to substan- 
 tiate the alleged correspondence? and whether, 
 above all, there can be imagined any kind of ana- 
 logy between these and the mode of administering a 
 Christian ordinance! — It would require much less 
 ingenuity than our author possesses to prove the 
 identity of the terms used by the English and the 
 Grecian drivers ! 
 
 Unless it were a mere oversight, there would 
 appear disingenuousness in the attempt to palm 
 an English term upon us, as explanatory of an 
 original Greek particle, and to make the English 
 applications of an English word at so considerable 
 
33 
 
 a distance of time, the rule of determining the 
 elementary construction of a minute syllable in a 
 long departed language ! It is, in fact, reversing 
 the whole principle of etymology, which is, to 
 treat the modern languages as derived from the 
 . ancient, and not the ancient from the modern ; it is, 
 moreover, substituting sound for sense. 
 
 VI. Were the attempt to press the imaginary 
 root in question into the consideration of the elements 
 of the word Baptism, as successful as it is vain and 
 futile, no single point would he gained. — Admit that 
 hapto is popto, and that baptism is poptism; admit 
 that to pop, is to pop in, to pop out, to pop forth, to 
 pop up, or to pop down, to pop into, to pop upon, to 
 pop out of, or out from, to pop off ; is the great ety- 
 mological question determined ? Is there less va- 
 riety in the senses of the term poptism than in those 
 of baptism? Is the original idea, or is the original 
 practice ascertained better than before Mr. Ewing 
 popped upon us with his critical alchemy, and pre- 
 tended to the discovery of the grand secret? By 
 whatever name we designate the institution, it 
 leaves untouched the question of the mode and 
 subjects of baptism; and decides nothing with 
 regard to apostolic practice. Instead of saying 
 that John or the disciples of Christ baptized the 
 people, Mr. Ewing insists upon our saying that he 
 poptized them : be it so — in christian courtesy, were 
 it not at least for the ludicrous sound of the ex- 
 pression, we should be willing to adopt it : but 
 then the enquiry remains, what is poptism ? Is it 
 popping in or into, or under or upon ? Oh, says 
 Mr. Ewing, it is popping upon and upon the face. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 I assure you that poptizo signifies, I pop water 
 upon the t( turned-up face" of the person poptized : 
 I have consulted Johnsons Dictionary, and he 
 quotes once from Addison, and once from L Es- 
 trange to show that the verb to pop in certain cases 
 means to pop upon; and this English sense is the 
 undoubted radical notion of the Greek syllable 
 7ro7r, which has, moreover, the very sound of our 
 own native word ; and, believe me, "it is not al- 
 ways that the analysis is of so easy and satisfactory 
 a nature! ! ! " 
 
 Now, some persons might happen to observe, 
 that the far greater number of explanations given 
 by Johnson really support the notion of the ad- 
 vocates of immersion ; for call it poptizing or bap- 
 tizing in or into, or out of, or from, or up or down, 
 niMERSiox and emersion are still implied! 
 
 Before, however, our author's suggestions are 
 so entirely rejected, he may, perhaps, demand a 
 better etymology. Although it is by no means 
 necessary for the vindication of our doctrine, and 
 mode of baptism, to obey this summons ; yet we 
 have no objection to direct the inquirer to a deri- 
 vation which is supported by no inconsiderable 
 authority : it is found in the Lexicon Etymologicum 
 Grcecum of the Rev. John Harmar, appended to 
 Scapula's Lexicon. " Bcnr™, mergo, tingo, a j3aw 
 et ir'nrTw, cado. Qui mergitur it in aquam cadendo. 
 Hinc fiinrTiZeiv, aqua tingere ; Anglice, to baptise, 
 id est, leviter immergere." Mr. Harmar was Greek 
 Professor in the University of Oxford during 
 the Commonwealth, but was ejected at the 
 "Restoration. Anthony Wood styles him " an 
 
35 
 
 excellent Grecian — a most excellent philolo- 
 gist."* 
 
 Another, and perhaps, preferable etymology, 
 may be mentioned ; but whether the derivation be 
 from /3a'w, which signifies entrance into, and 71771-™, 
 or rather ttItw, which conveys the idea of falling, 
 or descending into, or from fidw only; the term 
 fiaTTTw, be it compounded, or simple and elemen- 
 tary, suggests in its earliest form, an idea 
 eminently favourable to our mode of baptism. 
 
 " Bct7r7w, ^ w , mergo, lavo, tingo. Quoe mer- 
 guntur, eunt cadendo ; ut possit esse a /3aw et 
 fiilh) cado. Propriiis; teguntur liquore, recepta 
 in apertam cavitatem. Ergo a fiwiv tto7w: et fivirreXv 
 quoque est pro /3aVr«v et aia Heb. est cavum : unde 
 nan foramen, ostium. Aut quia mersa in profun- 
 dum eunt, afiaSv, Sed concludamus flairTa) esse 
 simpliciter a /3aw et significare ingredi facio in hu- 
 morem. Quod tingo : ingredi facio in colorem. 
 Sic 8w&> ingredior, mergor. Jnv. gl. lyr. ' ! Ejuj3<j3a£<«> 
 imbuo. Ita ergo a j3aw /3a7rrw, ut ab Uoj laisrw. 
 Clariora haec erunt, si referamus ad Hebrseum *3 
 quod est venit, ivit, abiit, etiam occidit. Sic solem 
 occidere est xu."t 
 
 The signification of a Greek term is to be de- 
 termined by the testimony of the best critics and 
 lexicographers, in connection with the primitive 
 and current uses by the most approved writers in 
 the language. That these authorities are univer- 
 
 * Vid. Athene Oxoniensis, vol. ii. p. 478 ; and Pal- 
 mer's Noncon, Mem. vol. ii. p. 265. 
 f Matthi.e IYTartinii Etymologicum, Bremae, 1625. 
 D2 
 
36 
 
 sally in favour of immersion, every reader may 
 convince himself by a simple inspection of the 
 Lexicons. In the Septuagint, flair-io is frequently 
 introduced as a translation of the Hebrew word 
 bao which unquestionably means to dip or 
 immerse. The term is uniformly employed in the 
 Rabbinical laws for the admission of proselytes, 
 which was by immersion ; and it is a rule with 
 the Jews, " wherever in the law, washing of the 
 flesh or the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing 
 else than pJn hi nV^e, Tebileth colhagoph, the dipping 
 of the whole body in a laver ; for " if any man dips 
 himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, 
 he is still in his uncleanness."* My friend, Dr. 
 Newman, has recorded a conversation which he 
 once held with Professor Porsox, in company 
 with a " much respected friend,'* and which, as a 
 corroborative testimony of no mean consideration, 
 may properly be inserted in this place. It is with 
 melancholy pleasure. I add of that friend, (now, 
 alas, no more !) that he was also dear to my heart, 
 even from the days of early companionship at 
 school, and that he was eminently distinguished 
 for his attainments. " Not long before the death 
 of Professor Porsox, I went, in company with a 
 much respected friend, to see that celebrated 
 Greek scholar at the London Institution. I was 
 curious to hear in what manner he read Greek. 
 He very condescendingly, at my request, took 
 down a Greek Testament, and read, perhaps, 
 twenty verses in one of the gospels, in which the 
 
 * Maimon. Hilchot. Mikvaot. c. i. § 2. ap. Gill. 
 
37 
 
 word parr™ occurred. I said, ' Sir, you know 
 there is a controversy among Christians respecting 
 the meaning of that word.' He smiled, and re- 
 plied, ' The Baptists have the advantage of us !' 
 He cited immediately the well known passage in 
 Pindar, and one or two of those in the Gospels, 
 mentioned in this letter; I inquired, whether, in 
 his opinion, fiairriZio must be considered equal to 
 fiairno, which he said was to tinge, as dyers ? 
 He replied to this effect ; that if there be a 
 difference, he should take the former to be the 
 strongest. He fully assured me, that it signified 
 a total immersion. This conversation took place 
 August 27, 1807." (Baptismal Immersion De- 
 fended, pp. 13, 14, &c.) 
 
 To this testimony I may subjoin the language 
 of Witsius — " it cannot be denied, that the native 
 signification of the word baptise, is to plunge or 
 to dip ;" — and of Bossuet, " to baptise, signifies 
 to plunge, as is granted by all the world." 
 
 An attempt is made to neutralize the significa- 
 tion of the verb j3a7rro> in its application to dyeing. 
 Our author insists, that dyeing, staining, and paint- 
 ing, were originally similar operations, having 
 been first suggested by the accidental bruising of 
 fruits, or the effects of rain upon earths and mine- 
 rals. In reply to this, it might be sufficient to 
 say, that in whatever manner the process was pri- 
 marily discovered, the current meaning of the 
 term which expresses it, involves the idea of im- 
 mersion, and did so at the very period when the 
 contested words were in colloquial use. Pliny 
 states, " the Egyptians began by painting on white 
 
38 
 
 cloths, with certain drugs, which in themselves 
 possessed no colour, but had the property of ab- 
 stracting- or absorbing colouring matters ; that 
 these cloths were afterwards immersed in a heated 
 dyeing liquor, of an uniform colour, and yet when 
 removed from it soon after, that they were found 
 to be stained with indelible colours, differing from 
 one another according to the nature of the drugs 
 which had been previously applied to different 
 parts of the stuff."* In this passage, we are favoured 
 with an intelligible distinction between painting, 
 immersing (or the act of dyeing) and staining ; yet 
 we are required to admit, that they were one ! It 
 will not, however, be deemed rude to inquire, 
 whether, if the premises be admitted, the conclu- 
 sion is obvious, or whether any point is gained by 
 demanding such a concession ? Admit that staining 
 and painting are the original ideas of the word — 
 is poptism, or pouring or sprinkling, staining or 
 painting ; or do they properly represent each other? 
 The inevitable answer to this question suggests the 
 fact — that the disputed term was employed in its 
 current, usual, and recognized application. 
 
 There is a passage in Plato's Commentaries 
 on Government, in which the repeated applica- 
 tion of the term to the art of dyeing, exhibits this 
 subject in the most convincing point of view. 
 " The dyers, when they are about to dip a quan- 
 tity of wool to' make it of a purple colour, cull out 
 the whitest of the fleece, and prepare and work it 
 with a deal of trouble, that it may the better take 
 the grain; and then they dip it, (fiaarovm.) The 
 
 * Plin. lib. xxxv. cap. 2. 
 
39 
 
 dye of things thus dipped is lasting and unchange- 
 able, and cannot be fetched out or tarnished, either 
 by fair water, or any preparations for discharging 
 colours. But things which are not dyed after this 
 manner, you know what they are; no matter what 
 dye they are dipped in (fiaTrr^) they never look 
 well; without this preparation they take but a 
 nasty colour, and that is easily washed out too." 
 
 The following reference is very triumphantly 
 adduced : " And he was clothed with a vesture 
 dipped in blood;" — properly, it is alleged, " a 
 vesture baspattered, sprinkled, spotted, or stained 
 with blood." — " In this case, evidently, the ves- 
 ture was not popped into the blood, but the blood 
 was popped upon the garment, and thus it was bap- 
 tized with blood." It is added, " Some may 
 think the usual translation is defensible, on the 
 supposition that it is a bold hyperbole, and an ex- 
 pression parallel to that in Is. ix. 5, where we read 
 of " garments rolled in blood." We should have 
 no objection to the idea of hyperbole, were not the 
 expression " a vesture dipped in blood," unna- 
 tural, that is, unlike the thing signified (namely, 
 the blood-stained garb of a conqueror,) which is 
 never the case with the figures of Scripture." 
 
 If any thing is evident here, it is that Mr. Ewing 
 has mistaken the sense, and unwillingly produced 
 a quotation most unequivocally in our favour. The 
 illustrious personage described is the Word or 
 Son of God, under the image of a conqueror 
 seated upon a white horse, going forth to a mighty 
 conflict, "followed by the armies of heaven." It 
 is not the representation of a conqueror returned 
 
40 
 
 from battle, with his garments supposed to be be- 
 spattered or stained with the blood of his vanquished 
 foes; but of one going forth to the war. A 
 sharp sword issues out of his mouth, " that with 
 
 it he should Smite the nations;" "iva tv avry Traraaaij to. 
 
 Wvr). But it may be demanded, is it not incon- 
 gruous to represent his vesture as stained or be- 
 spattered, or dyed in the blood of his enemies 
 before he has engaged in the conflict ? The answer 
 is, it does not in reality, though it is so commonly 
 understood, refer to the blood of foes splashed in 
 mortal strife upon the garment of the conqueror ; 
 it simply contains an emblematical representation 
 of Christ, under the figure of a general, com- 
 mencing some great expedition, clothed in the 
 splendid vestment which was usual on such occa- 
 sions. The name given to it by the Roman writers 
 is paludamentum. It was the distinguishing robe 
 of the general, and was usually of a purple, 
 or scarlet colour. As the prcetexla, or white robe, 
 worn by the chief magistrate, constituted the usual 
 domestic badge of honour, so the paludamentum 
 distinguished the hero when he marched to battle. 
 " Quibus erat," says Pliny, " moris paludamento 
 mutare prate&tam." — " A vesture dyed in blood," 
 was, therefore, a vesture of a red or purple colour, 
 to express the military character of the expedition ; 
 as even to the present day, a peculiar dress, of a 
 vivid and sanguinary hue, is worn by those who 
 are devoted to war. What then becomes of our 
 authors bepop-ped or besprinkled vesture ? It is 
 found only in his own imagination. 
 
 Tt is alleged, for the twentieth time at least, in 
 
41 
 
 this controversy, that /3a7rr<t> is used with reference 
 to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. iv. 33. " his body was 
 wet (or wetted) with the dew of heaven." — " It 
 was," says Mr. E. " popped upon, not even by 
 effusion, but by the gentlest distillation that is 
 known in nature." To this it has been generally 
 replied, and I think satisfactorily, that a body 
 exposed to eastern dews, would be as wet as if 
 plunged into water : the passage, however, merits 
 a little more detailed explanation. The verb here 
 is used in the passive voice, in the second aorist 
 and the indicative mood, implying consequently 
 that the action was past and indefinite as to time. 
 It does not imply the manner in which the effect 
 was produced, but the effect itself, not the mode 
 by which the body of the king was wetted, 
 but its condition, as resulting from exposure to the 
 dew of heaven. Suppose, by way of illustration, 
 we select another word, and put it into the same 
 voice and tense ; as £/3Xa/3»j viro aov " he was hurt 
 by you." It is obvious, that this representation 
 might refer to an injury done long ago, and would 
 predicate nothing of the manner in which it was 
 inflicted: it simply expresses the fact and the con- 
 dition of injury which resulted. This is the very 
 idiom of all languages, as we say, he was burnt or 
 drowned ; the effect is simply expressed, without 
 any reference to mode ; or if, in either case, it 
 were to be added by fire or by water, it would 
 express no more. The state of the body is intended 
 as having been drenched with dew ; signifying the 
 condition of being drenched ; as being burnt with 
 lightning, or in a conflagration, would mean the 
 
42 
 
 state of being burnt, which resulted from the acci- 
 dent or visitation of fire. It is worthy of consi- 
 deration also, that the Chaldee word paosn used 
 in the place in question, signifies to dip or dye, 
 and even to sink. 
 
 Our author attempts to overthrow the force of 
 tingo, as a translation of ficnrTw, by stating, " Tingo 
 is the Greek riyyu), which is very properly ren- 
 dered in the Lexicons, madefacio, humecto, mollio, 
 I moisten, wet, soften, or mollify." This is precisely 
 as though I were to represent in English, that 
 to wash, is properly rendered in the Dictionaries, 
 (in Johnson, our great lexicographer, to wit) to 
 moisten, to wet ; and to insist, therefore, that moist- 
 ening a pill with a drop of water, or wetting lime, is 
 washing it. The reader would object to me, that 
 I had been guilty of concealing the primary sense 
 of the term, and that which essentially enters into 
 its general meaning and current signification, 
 merely to favour some strange hypothesis of my 
 own, and that it was disengenuous in me not to 
 cite the original definition, " to cleanse by ablation" 
 Now, it is very surprising, that Mr. Ewing should 
 have omitted to mention, that /3a7n-w is very pro- 
 perly rendered in the Lexicons, first, mcrgo, im- 
 mergo, tingo, intingo ; that mergo is very properly 
 rendered in the Lexicons (Ainsworth, for instance,) 
 to put wider water, or any other liquid thing ; and 
 that even tingo is also very properly rendered in the 
 Lexicons, to dye, colour, ox stain. Our good friend 
 is in eager search of the original import of terms, 
 and he will surely feel obliged to us to recal him 
 from the secondary to the primary signification. 
 
43 
 
 A sentence is quoted from Herodotus, in which 
 it is stated, that among the Egyptians, if any one 
 should touch a swine, he would go and plunge 
 himself into the river, (efiaipt hwvruv) : but, it is 
 argued, there is one manifest point of difference 
 between this person and the person baptized as a 
 professor of Christianity, for he performs the 
 operation for himself True; but the question is 
 not whether he or another for him, performs the 
 operation, but what is the meaning of the term? 
 Does Herodotus state, that the Egyptian, who con- 
 tracted pollution by touching a swine, sprinkled, 
 or poured upon, or popped water upon himself? Our 
 opponent admits, that he intends to describe his 
 plunging into the river; and this is all we require to 
 prove the etymological point. 
 
 The case of Aristobulus, however, the brother 
 of Mariamne, mentioned by Josephus, is a decisive 
 evidence of the use of the term in the sense of one 
 person dipping another. It occurs twice in relat- 
 ing the same story ; in the Jewish Antiquities, and 
 in the Wars of the Jews. Aristobulus was drowned 
 at the instigation of Herod, by certain Greeks, 
 who enticed him into a pool, where, under pre- 
 tence of play, j3tt7m'4ovTEc, o\)K.avr\K.av 2wc kul TravraTraaiv 
 
 airoirvai^ai, " immersing, (or putting him under 
 water) they did not desist till they had quite suffo- 
 cated him." 
 
 When it is related that Naaman went and 
 washed seven times in Jordan, the term in ques- 
 tion is found in the Septuagint. Mr. Ewing ar- 
 gues, that Elisha bade him wash, using the verb 
 Xovw, and the historian records, that he baptized, 
 
44 
 
 using the verb ficnrrio, according to the word of 
 Elisha ; hence Naaman washed every part of his 
 body, because the leprosy covered every part ; but 
 " I am persuaded, he did not plunge overhead." 
 Were the reply to be, " I am persuaded he did," 
 it would be just as convincing ; but the evidence 
 is entirely against my opponent ; for if the verbs 
 \ovio and flaw™ be here used interchangeably, it 
 proves, — not so much the manner of the washing, 
 (of which the other circumstances, going to the 
 river, the nature of the disease, and the constant 
 washing, by bathing, both in warm countries ge- 
 nerally, and for religious purposes in particular, 
 are indicative) — but that Xovw and /3a7rrw have a 
 similar signification. The former is the proper 
 word for bathing, from which comes \ovrp6v a 
 bath ; and however variously the term is applied, 
 like the English word wash, it generally implies, 
 dipping in the water that which is to be cleansed ; 
 this at least is the generic import. 
 
 It is strenuously contended, that the terms in 
 question relate to " operations on a small scale, 
 and of a gentle nature. " Thus we have the dip- 
 ping of the priest's finger, the dipping of a bird, 
 &c. &c. and this " with a single exception/' The 
 logic of this, is really incomprehensible. Because, 
 it is a bunch of hyssop, or a priest's finger, or a 
 little bird, we are to understand dipping to mean 
 either sprinkling or pouring, though the analogy 
 is beyond our powers of discernment. If the 
 hyssop had been as large as the cedar, the finger 
 like a monument, or the bird, a vulture, we might 
 then allow that dipping was dipping ; the very 
 
45 
 
 reasons, if any, which might render the applica- 
 tion of the term suspicious. Because, the dipping 
 of the whole body is not on so small a scale as the 
 dipping of the finger, and because a bird is not a 
 man, therefore, it is not dipping, and however so- 
 lemnly performed, it is not a gentle operation III 
 
 Numerous examples, however, might be ad- 
 duced in direct contradiction of the statement, 
 that operations of a gentle nature are commonly 
 implied. The punishment of Clytemnestra, for 
 her parricide, is thus represented in the predic- 
 tion of Cassandra: "The child, discovering his 
 fathers murder, with his own hand shall thrust 
 (fityei) (or, as Scaliger renders it, merget, shall 
 plunge) his sword into the viper's body" — Elg 
 
 airXayyy i\itvric aurt\ap fiuipti ^icpog. CaSSAXD. V. 
 
 1121. 
 
 Again, in Sophocles, " Thou has thrust (e[5a^ag) 
 thy sword into the Grecian army" — 'Efia^ag tyx<>e 
 
 ev ttooq apyuwv arparoj. oOPH. Aj. V. 95. 
 
 In Aristophanes, we have "lva n<) <re fifyu> /3a^/i a 
 aaptiviaKov, " lest I dip you into a Sardinian dye." 
 'Axapv. i. 3. The scholiast explains it thus : "If 
 you do not tell me the truth, I will beat you till I 
 make you all red with blood." 
 
 In the following passage — 6 Se fi6\ig a vvv (f>ipu 
 
 (j)(po)V inrb fXiKoag av j3aTTTi<yddr] Trpoudiinrjc; (Llban. Epist. 
 
 310) " he who bears with difficulty the burden he 
 already has, would be entirely overwhelmed (or 
 crushed) by a small addition," it will be admitted, 
 that the process is not very gentle ; and we are 
 very much tempted to suspect, that in this sense 
 
46 
 
 it might be now properly applied to Mr. Ewings 
 argument. 
 
 It has been already intimated, that in the cita- 
 tions respecting the hyssop, the priest's finger, 
 and the bird, whether the scale of operation be 
 small or large, gentle, or sudden and violent, 
 the idea of dipping is in every instance conveyed; 
 and no less so by all the classical current uses 
 of the terms in question. Hecuba in Euripedes, 
 calls to her servant, " Go take the water-pot, my 
 good old maid, and dip it (]3a^ac) in the sea." 
 One of the scholiasts on this passage remarks, 
 and he is surely no insignificant authority- in 
 the Greek language, fiainuv signifies to let down 
 or put any thing into water (tori to x a ^" v ™ £ <c vcwp) 
 or any other liquid." Homer in the Odyssey, 
 describing the extinction of the eye of Poly- 
 phemus, has this simile — " As when a smith to 
 harden a hatchet or massy pole-axe, dips it 
 Q3o7rr£i) in cold water." " If a man dips (fiaxpme) 
 any thing into wax, as far as it is dipped 
 (c'wc £j3m//f) it is moved:" Aristotle. He also men- 
 tions a pool in Sicily, "into which if birds and 
 other animals are dipped (a?ro/3a0ri) after they are 
 strangled, they instantly recover." And again : 
 •' It is the custom of some nations to dip their 
 children (airoficnrruv) into cold water to harden 
 them." Numberless other passages of the same 
 kind might easily be introduced were it at all 
 needful; let these however suffice as specimens 
 of the undoubted use and current acceptation of 
 the contested terms. 
 
47 
 
 Sprinkling does not appear to be regarded by 
 our author with so much favour as "pouring. It 
 would be needless to follow him here through 
 all his learned quotations : let us merely inquire 
 of him, if pouring be the proper method of ad- 
 ministering baptism, what reason can be assigned 
 for the constant use of a term in the New Tes- 
 tament, which every critic admits signifies im- 
 mersion, and which even Mr. Ewing allows 
 to mean immersion as much as pouring ; and the 
 entire omission of all those Greek words which 
 contain in their primary, or general application, 
 the sense of effusion or pouring ? Either of the 
 following verbs might have answered the purpose; 
 /3«AAw jacio, ekx^ w cffundo, l~i\(io infundo, Ikxvvoj 
 effundo, Kara-^i^ cffundo, irooayiu) adfuiulo; they are 
 moreover all made use of in the writings of the 
 apostles, and yet they are never applied to the 
 ordinance of baptism : the same may be affirmed 
 of pavriZw, I sprinkle. 
 
 There is another consideration of great im- 
 portance; the ancient Greek fathers, when writing 
 in their vernacular language, must surely be 
 supposed to understand that language better than 
 a modern critic who has only obtained it from 
 books. To deny this would be to affirm, that 
 a Otaheitan, who had never conversed with an 
 Englishman, but who had acquired our vernacular 
 tongue from a grammar and a dictionary, (say, if 
 you please, Johnsons Dictionary !) was more likely 
 to understand English than Mr. Ewing. It hap- 
 pens that these christian fathers frequently use 
 Kara^vmQ as corresponding with ftairTKTfxog, No one 
 
48 
 
 will dispute that the former term signifies im- 
 mersion at least, for it frequently means not only 
 plunging down, but going to the bottom and 
 perishing. 
 
 'Ev TQiai rdlq KaraSvaecn kcu laapidfxoig raiq liriKXr)(jeai 
 to fiiya fivn'ipiov th j3a7TTt(7jUaroc TtXeiovrat, $va kcu 6 ts 
 OavaTH tvttoq i&iKavioOfj, Kai rr\ TrapaSoati rije Oeoyvwaiag 
 rag \pv\ag (pojTiaOiooiv ol ficnrTiZoptvt- " The great 
 
 mystery of baptism is accomplished by three 
 immersions, and the same number of invocations ; 
 and thus the emblem of death is shadowed forth, 
 and those who are baptized, have their souls 
 illuminated by the communication of divine 
 knowledge." Basil. M. de Spirit. Sanct. T. II. 
 Cap. 15. 
 
 'O j3a7rrtt70ac trvvOairrerai t<£ Xpt^, Sia tCov tqiCjv Kara- 
 Suctewv ti)v Tpiijueoov Ta(j>r)v rs Kvpin a^/iaTi^wv, Ka\ 
 airoOvf)(rK(i)V oaov ye Kara tov TraXaibv Kai apapTriTiKov 
 
 avOpuirov. "Whoever is baptized, is buried with 
 Christ, by three immersions, representing the 
 Lord's burial for three days, and dying, as to the 
 old and sinful man." Theophylact. Ad Coloss. 
 Cap. II. v. 12. 
 
 Tv7roc ts Qa.va.T8 ts Xpt^s l<zi to fiaTTTiaua' $ia yap tCjv 
 rpih)v (caraSvcrewV; rag rpug r)p£pag Trig t5 Kvpis Ta(j>r)g 
 
 ar\fiaivu to ]3a7rrt(Tjua. " Baptism is an emblem of 
 the death of Christ; for by three immersions, 
 baptism represents the three days of the Lord's 
 burial." Damascenus. Orthod. Fid. lib. 4. 
 cap. 10. 
 
 H/xwi', naOcnrep tv tivi Ta<f>it>, Ttjj) vEotl KaraSvovTwv Tag 
 K£<f)a\ag, 6 TraAaibg avOpioTrog SaTrrtTai koX KaraSvg kcitu) 
 
 KoviTTZTat ">\og KaOoTraK- When we immerse the head 
 
49 
 
 in water, as in any sepulchre, the old man is 
 buried, and the lower parts being immersed, the 
 whole person is entirely concealed. Chky- 
 sostom, in Johan. Cap. III. 
 
 The Greek, fathers universally indeed express 
 themselves in a similar manner; so that, when- 
 ever they speak of the manner of performing the 
 rite of baptism, they say it is done h> rpttri KaraoWcxi 
 "by three immersions." 
 
 To fix the signification of the term the more 
 completely, it may be remarked, that k-araoWc 
 and avaSvaig are continually conjoined in the 
 description of the baptismal service ; and that 
 I may not be supposed to require the reader to 
 rely upon my unsupported assertions, I shall beg 
 to preface the quotations about to be adduced, 
 with the definitions of Mr. Ewing himself in his 
 Lexicon; "KaraoWc, a going doicn." This word he 
 derives from Karacvw, which is explained, " I go 
 down, hide myself, make to go down.'"' Again : 
 " 'Avadvmz, an emerging, rising up, from 'Avaovw, / 
 emerged I observe, further, that these words are 
 " very properly rendered," in the same manner, "ifi 
 the lexicons." Thus prepared, let us study a few 
 passages. 
 
 'At tozlq KaradixrsiQ teal avaSvcreiQ rS paTTTiafiarog, Savarov 
 
 koX ava-amv crrj/xauwt. "The three immersions and 
 emersions of baptism, signify death and resur- 
 rection." Photius, apud Oecumenium, in Cap. 
 VI. ad Romanos. 
 
 To fia.TTTKTf.ta toairtp cm rr)c icaTadvaELOQ Savarov, sra> 
 Sia t7iq avadvotiDQ, rr)v ava^amv tvttoi. " Baptism typi- 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 fies ; as by immersion death, so by emersion resur- 
 rection. " Theophylact ad Coloss. Cap. III. 
 v. 1. 
 
 Ata rr\g iv t<£ vdari KaraSvaewg T£ /cat avativaewg, rpnrXrig 
 Ti. iTrtic\v<j£ijjc;, ty)v rpiripepav ra^jjv K<u tt]V ava<zacriv avT» 
 
 r§ xp'cS tKeiKovtZofiev. " By immersion in water, and 
 emersion, even a triple inundation, we represent 
 the three days' burial, and the resurrection of 
 Christ himself." Germaxus Constantinop. in 
 Hist. Eccles. p. 146. 
 
 Ba— n^OfxiBa icat avroX, /xifxs/j.evoi rov Savarov Sia Trig 
 KaTa^i>(Tc(i)g, ical tjjv ava~aaiv Sia Trig avaEixnwg. " We 
 
 ourselves also are baptized, imitating the death 
 (of Christ) by immersion, and the resurrection by 
 emersion."'' Theophylact Ep. 1. ad Corinth. 
 Cap. X. v. 2. 
 
 Dr. Campbell, speaking of terms which rarely 
 occur in the Greek Testament, remarks; — "This 
 is one of those cases wherein the interpretation 
 given by the earliest Greek fathers deserves par- 
 ticular notice. There are so many advantages 
 which people have for discovering the import 
 of a term or phrase in their mother-tongue, un- 
 usual perhaps in writing, but current in con- 
 versation, above those who study a dead language 
 solely by the means of books extant in it, that no 
 reasonable person can question that some de- 
 ference is in such cases due to their authority." 
 Trans, of Four Gospels, Prelim. Diss. IV. § 8. 
 
 Mr. Ewing introduces the often recited pas- 
 sages from the Greek writers in which the meta- 
 phorical sense of being overwhelmed with calamity 
 
01 
 
 and oppressed with taxes occurs, and which he 
 and his reviewer before referred to, pronounce 
 to be most satisfactory evidence against immer- 
 sion-baptism. These quotations are given on 
 both sides of the question — the one maintaining 
 that to overwhelm, signifies to pour upon, the 
 other that it means to immerse. Let, however, the 
 ipse dixit of either party be discarded, as ob- 
 viously impossible to be admitted in evidence. 
 Some of the preceding examples merit, in this 
 point of view, peculiar notice, and cannot fail, 
 I apprehend, of producing a powerful impression 
 upon every dispassionate inquirer. In one of the 
 above recited instances, the term Inundation is 
 used with reference to the immersion and emersion 
 of christian baptism. This proves at least the 
 Greek writer's opinion of the meaning of that 
 term in its application to the present subject. 
 The verb he uses is ethkXu^w, " very properly ren- 
 dered in the lexicons/' inundo, submergo, I inundate, 
 I plunge or dip under water. The corresponding 
 term kclto&vw, perpetually used in the preceding 
 examples, is precisely of similar import, and is 
 translated in the lexicons by the latin verb de- 
 mergo, which is thus anglicized in Ainsworth, 
 to dive, to flounce, to plunge over head and ears. 
 
 This word is also applied to being overwhelmed, 
 or involved in debt. The phrase is fully explained 
 in Latin, when Livy speaks of being JEre alieno 
 demersus; and which phrase, Ainsworth, who had 
 no thought of controversy in his mind, explains 
 very justly and expressively by the English idiom, 
 over head and ears in debt. 
 
 e 2 
 
52 
 
 To Mr. E.s and the pcedobaptist translation 
 in general of the Greek quotations, in which 
 (5cnrTi%u) occurs in the sense of oppressing or over- 
 whelming % I have no objection ; but instead of 
 aiding, it subverts their cause. Does the word 
 oppress or overwhelm signify to pour upon or 
 sprinkle? Let us inquire of the authority so much 
 relied upon by Mr. Ewing — 
 
 To oppress, v. a. (oppressus, lat.) to crush by 
 hardship or unreasonable severity: to overpower, to 
 subdue. Is this at all analogous to sprinkling or 
 pouring? 
 
 To overwhelm, v. a. (over and whelm) to crush 
 underneath something violent and weighty. Is this 
 represented by sprinkling or pouring ? 
 
 The sensible remarks of Robinson will form 
 an appropriate conclusion to this part of our 
 subject.* "Whether John the Baptist and the 
 Apostles of our blessed Lord baptized by pouring 
 on water, or by bathing in water, is to be deter- 
 mined chiefly, though not wholly, by ascertaining* 
 the precise meaning of the word baptize. A 
 linguist determines himself by his own knowledge 
 of the Greek language, and an illiterate man 
 by the best evidence he can obtain from the 
 testimony of others. To the latter it is sufficient 
 to observe, that the word is confessedly Greek ; 
 that native Greeks must understand their own 
 language better than foreigners, and that they 
 have always understood the word baptism to 
 signify dipping ; and therefore, from their first em- 
 
 * Hist, of Baptism, p. 5. 
 
53 
 
 bracing of Christianity to this day they have always 
 baptized by immersion. This is an authority for 
 the meaning of the word baptize, infinitely pre- 
 ferable to that of European lexicographers ; so 
 that a man who is obliged to trust human tes- 
 timony, and who baptizes by immersion because 
 the Greeks do, understands a Greek word exactly 
 as the Greeks themselves understand it ; and in 
 this case the Greeks are unexceptionable guides, 
 and their practice is, in this instance, safe ground 
 of action." 
 
ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BAPTISM 
 AND BURIAL. 
 
 The validity of an argument founded upon a 
 metaphorical allusion, must depend entirely upon 
 the manner in which it is conducted, and its 
 general coincidence with conclusions deducible 
 from other sources. Its independent merit may 
 be comparatively small, when it ought, however, 
 by no means to be overlooked. If the evidence 
 adduced in support of our system rested entirely 
 upon a figure of speech, it might be reasonable 
 and just to regard it with some feelings of sus- 
 picion ; because from the very nature of baptism 
 as an institution of the christian church, a positive, 
 plain, authoritative precept or example, would 
 seem to be requisite to enforce its observance : 
 such a precept or example being proved, how- 
 ever, to exist, a figurative allusion may be taken 
 as corroborative of our interpretation of its import. 
 Although it might be contended on the one hand, 
 that a metaphor afforded but a flimsy foundation 
 of argument, where a definite and positive law 
 was essential ; yet on the other, it must be con- 
 sidered, that as every metaphor or simile has 
 some truth upon which it is constructed, that 
 
55 
 
 primary idea or fact must be invariably regarded. 
 There is in every case such an original idea, and 
 it is in that idea the two subjects of comparison 
 meet, and from some acknowledged correspond- 
 ence with them both, the propriety of the figure 
 is evinced. Hence in reasoning upon a metaphor, 
 we may in reality be reasoning upon a simple 
 truth, which is its basis, and is consequently 
 capable of sustaining our statements. 
 
 This is precisely our situation with inference 
 to the 4th and 5th verses of the sixth chapter of 
 Romans, and the 12th verse of the second chapter 
 of Colossians. Were there no clear enunciation 
 of the law of baptism in Scripture, and no suffi- 
 cient evidence of the original mode of its adminis- 
 tration, it is questionable how far we ought to 
 rely solely upon a single metaphorical expression, 
 unless we could absolutely determine its primary 
 meaning, by divesting it of its decorations. Still, 
 in the present case, we are not reduced to the 
 necessity of proceeding upon such a principle. 
 Our author and every poedobaptist admits that 
 some correspondence is intended to be expressed 
 between baptism and burial, by the allusion con- 
 tained in the above cited passages. The question 
 is not whether any, but what correspondence sub- 
 sists, or is intended to be asserted or implied ? Is 
 it such a correspondence as tends to substantiate 
 the baptist argument, or is it only such as admits 
 of the poedobaptist interpretation and practice ? 
 This is the great subject of consideration. 
 
 I shall not offer any comment on the extraor- 
 dinary opinion that " the only original reason why 
 
56 
 
 baptism has been thought to imply immersion, is 
 the expression which occurs in Rom. vi. 4. and 
 Col. ii. 12." — because this is so original an idea, 
 (we believe peculiar to our author) and proposes 
 so summary and gratuitous a method of disposing 
 of all the Greek terms, all the public circumstances 
 belonging to the institution, and all the 'pre- 
 requisites of repentance and faith in the mind of 
 the instructed disciple of the Saviour, that we 
 shall at once leave it, adorned with the "blushing 
 honours" of self-refutation. 
 
 The argument for immersion deduced from the 
 metaphorical allusions in Romans and Colossians, 
 Mr. Ewing endeavours to evade in two ways ; 
 —first, by considering the reference to be not to 
 the act of interment, but to the preparatory rites ; — 
 secondly, by attempting to shew that, even in the 
 act of interment, the ancient mode was so dissimilar 
 to the present, that it fails to sustain the required 
 inference that to baptize is to plunge, dip, or 
 overwhelm. Although he has not stated the 
 question in this logical form, these are in reality 
 his arguments, and under these two general di- 
 visions, I shall, for the sake of perspicuity, arrange 
 my observations. 
 
 I. Considerations with regard to the 
 
 PREPARATORY RITES. 
 
 Our author remarks that, "to bury," not only 
 includes all the preparations of the body for in- 
 terment, but is used in cases where our method 
 of interment was not practised, where no in- 
 terment followed at the time, and where no final 
 
57 
 
 interment followed at all." In the Hebrew ibjitm, 
 " they embalmed him," is, in the Septuagint, 
 Wa^av, "they buried him." The instance is after- 
 wards cited of the woman who poured ointment on 
 our Saviour's head, of whom he said — "In that 
 she hath poured this ointment on my body she 
 did it for my burial.'' 
 
 The remark that the Septuagint adopts the 
 verb 6airTw, to express the act of embalming Joseph, 
 has no bearing upon the subject; for as it is 
 immediately added, (Gen. 1. 26.) "he was put in 
 a coffin in Egypt," it is obvious, that the LXX 
 have rather interpreted than translated the Hebrew 
 word. Besides, not only would the authority of 
 the Septuagint as the basis of etymological 
 argument be notoriously inadequate, we need 
 not advance beyond the very chapter wherein 
 the term is taken to prove the frequent inac- 
 curacy of that version. Compare, for instance, 
 the second and the twenty-sixth verses. In 
 the former the words are — DtftanrrnK maims *pn «*i 
 bsnsr^n* D't&nm wrm va^-nx osrb — which, in the 
 Septuagint, are rendered, Kai iroocrira^v 'iaW/^ ro'ig 
 
 Traialv civtov toXq ivTCMpiacrTaig ivTa<puz<Ta.i tov irartpa iwtov' 
 Kai iv-afy'iaaav di IvrafjuacrTai tov 'IcroajjA. In the latter 
 
 verse (26th), the expression is wtc nurvi, translated 
 in the Septuagint tea) IBwpav avrhv. Here it is 
 observable in the first passage, that the Septuagint 
 translators have omitted the term servants, and have 
 rendered the two different Hebrew words for phy- 
 sicians and for the act of embalming, by the same 
 Greek term, and that twice over : in the second 
 passage, they have given quite a different word, as 
 
58 
 
 the translation of the very same Hebrew verb. The 
 English translation of the Septuagint would be — 
 "And Joseph commanded all his emb aimers to em- 
 balm his father; and the embalmers embalmed 
 Israel/' ver. 2. "And they buried him," ver. 26, — 
 whereas the real and literal rendering of the 
 Hebrew is — "And Joseph commanded his ser- 
 vants, the physicians, to embalm his father; and 
 the physicians embalmed Israel," — "and they 
 
 EMBALMED him." 
 
 "It is our happiness," says Mr. Ewing, "to 
 know that our blessed Saviour never was finally 
 interred." Whence the peculiar satisfaction of 
 such a discovery can arise, I am really at a loss 
 to imagine; especially as this remark is followed 
 by the immediate citation of the words "he was 
 buried, and he rose again the third day." In 
 Acts xiii. 29, 30. it is recorded, "they took him 
 down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre; but 
 God raised him from the dead ;" and yet we are 
 instructed to deduce peculiar consolation from the 
 thought, that "he was never finally interred!" 
 Surely he was either interred or not — he was 
 either laid in a sepulchre or not. Does Mr. E. 
 intend to say he was not interred because he did 
 not see corruption? or that he was not Juially 
 interred, because he did not remain in the se- 
 pulchre during a longer period than three days ? — 
 or because his female friends had not time to 
 finish the entire process of embalming him ? 
 Whether finally interred or not, was he really 
 interred ? If Mr. E. intends to insinuate the 
 negative (which he seems to do by representing 
 
59 
 
 that our Lord was not interred, but only prepared 
 to be buried), we must charge it upon him as a 
 serious contradiction to Scripture testimony, and 
 as tending to subvert one of the most important 
 facts of Christianity, upon which our faith re- 
 poses; if he admit the affirmative, then his reason- 
 ing is ruined ; he has virtually said nothing. 
 Either horn of this dilemma will inevitably pierce 
 his argument. 
 
 Besides, so far as the notion of the interment 
 not being final, can be supposed to have any 
 foundation in fact, and any force in argument, it 
 is altogether in our favour. " Our blessed Saviour 
 was never finally interred ;" the Baptists do not 
 finally immerse, that is, they do not drown their 
 candidates, but represent a spiritual burial with 
 Christ, and a resurrection to newness of life, by a 
 temporary, not a final submersion under water. 
 
 But why, it may naturally be inquired, does 
 Mr. Ewing resort to so singular a subterfuge ? It 
 is to answer a particular purpose, as we shall 
 immediately perceive ; and we shall perceive also 
 that the purpose is by no means answered. He 
 would persuade the reader, that " being buried 
 with Christ in baptism," refers to the preparation 
 for burying ; especially to the washing performed 
 on the occasion. We are to understand, therefore, 
 that the washing, as a part of the preparation for 
 interment, signifies burial; and that this is the 
 particular idea in the phrase " as the manner of 
 the Jews is to bury :" for, says our Author, " ex- 
 cept this washing, and the anointing which fol- 
 lowed it, I can see no point of resemblance be- 
 
60 
 
 tween the burial of Christ and our baptism at 
 all," p. 99. Now, in the first place, it would be 
 putting Mr. Ewing upon a most perplexing search, 
 to require him to produce any passage in Hebrew 
 or Greek antiquity, wherein washing means bury- 
 ing: or wherein, consequently wmrtjp, the washing 
 vessel signifies the burying vessel. If we allow the 
 latitude of signification for which he would plead, 
 with reference to the verbs BcnrTh), kv-atyiaZh), and 
 ivratftiatrfibg, it will by no means sustain his state- 
 ment ; for the expression xaSiog eSog hs\ rote 'l^aioig 
 lvTa<piaZ,uv, "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," 
 refers ( ipso judice) to the whole process of embalm- 
 ing, " as far as in this instance it went," to use 
 his own phraseology. How far then did it go ? — 
 ** And when Joseph had taken the body, he 
 wrapped it in a clean linen cloth," Mat. xxvii. 59. 
 " And there came also Nicodemus (which at the 
 first came to Jesus by night) and brought a mix- 
 ture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound 
 weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and 
 wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the 
 manner of the Jews is to bury," John xix. 39. Ac- 
 cording to Mr. E wing's reasoning, the latter ex- 
 pression ought to be interpreted to mean only the 
 preparation for the burial ; whereas it obviously 
 signifies, " that this mode of proceeding is usual 
 with the Jews at the time of their burying their 
 dead, or when they bury their dead." Here both in 
 Greek and English we should understand, not 
 that the preparations were the burial, but that they 
 were attended to as usual on that occasion. 
 
 " Preparations of his body for his burial were 
 
61 
 
 made, both by anticipation, and after the event of 
 his death had taken place. In both cases they are 
 called 'his burial, '" p. 96. It should have been 
 " in neither case" We have already explained 
 the signification of the phrase " as the manner of 
 the Jews is to bury ;" the other passage shall be 
 given with the interpretation of an eminent pcedo- 
 baptist, Dr. Doddridge : — " John xii. 1 — 7, Mat- 
 thew xiv. 8, and xxvi. 12. And indeed my depar- 
 ture out of the world is so near, that with respect 
 to this action of our friend Mary, which you are 
 ready to condemn, I must say, that she has 
 reserved this ointment for the day of my burial; 
 and not knowing whether she may have an oppor- 
 tunity of assisting in those last offices, she has now 
 done ivhat she could; for in that she has poured out 
 this ointment on my body, she has in a manner come 
 before the time thus to anoint and to embalm my 
 body for the burial." — Family Expositor. Preserve 
 also in recollection the phrase already cited, '« they 
 laid him in a sepulchre;" and then enquire with 
 what possible reason it can be contended that the 
 preparations are denominated the burial ? It is to 
 the preparations exclusively — the embalming — the 
 
 allusion is made, — elg rrjv tf/xwav tov IvrwpiaxTfidv fiov 
 
 TerrjprjKfv avr6. The term used, it will be observed, 
 is Iwa^iaafioQ : for the meaning of which, and of 
 the verb whence it is derived, we have only to 
 apply to Mr. Ewing's own Lexicon, — '"Evra^m^w, 
 I prepare a corpse for burial, as by washing, anoint- 
 ing, swathing, &c. I embalm. 'Evra^iaajiog, a prepa- 
 ration of a corpse for burial, as by anointing, Sec. 
 
62 
 
 embalming. Is the preparation for a solemnity the 
 performance! Do washing, anointing, and the 
 other last offices of kindness constitute the bury- 
 ing? Does our Lord say of Mary that she buried 
 him ? Does he not rather say she hath anointed 
 me for (in preparation for, by anticipation of) my 
 burial ? — Herodotus also expressly distinguishes 
 the preparatory rites, or the embalming, from the 
 burial or interment — "o? oc av y avTwv Aeywrrhwv v 
 
 t,dvti)v ofxoiiog vtto kookoSuXov apTra)(pUQ, I] u— 1 avTov row 
 TTOTafxov <paiv7]Tai teS"vi7u>£, kW ijv av tioXiv t^avei^y, 
 Tovrovg iraaa avajKtf tori Tapi\ev(ravrag avrbv, kcu 
 inoiaTu\avTaq wc KaXXtura, Saipat. h> ipytri Ziinym' ovct 
 ipavvai t'stcrrt avTov uXXov ov^iva, out? tmv ttqogy]k6vtu)v, 
 oute tCov (j)iXu)v' tiXXa. fiLv ot tpitg avrol ol tov Nh'Aou, cits 
 
 TtXLoV Tl 1) ClvSQhJTTOV Vf/CpO)', \UpaTTTUL,QVTtQ SaTTTOVGl. 
 
 11 If any Egyptian or stranger be found either 
 destroyed by a crocodile, or drowned in the river, 
 the city nearest which he is discovered, is com- 
 pelled to embalm the body, and shew every pos- 
 sible attention, and to bury it in some sacred 
 place: no one is suffered on any account to touch; 
 neither friend nor relative ; but only the priests of 
 the Nile, who bury the dead body with extraor- 
 dinary respect." Herod. Euterpe, xc. 
 
 Surely, after these considerations, it is rather 
 too much to require us to believe, that " what is 
 said in Scripture of Christ's burial, can have no 
 reference to interment, but must refer exclusively 
 to preparatory rites." p. 101. Surprizing! Christ 
 was laid in a sepulchre, but was not buried ; for 
 to be buried is to be anointed and washed; to he 
 
63 
 
 laid in the sepulchre, means then, not to be laid in 
 a sepulchre — it signifies, to be rolled in linen with 
 spices! If the subject were not so serious, we 
 should be really tempted to exclaim, " Risum 
 teneatis, amici ?" — but no dispassionate inquirer 
 can come to any other conclusion than that a 
 favourite hypothesis, adopted merely for the pur- 
 pose of supporting a system, has warped the better 
 judgment of our respectable opponent. 
 
 But, in the second place, so far from washing be- 
 ing the principal act, and from which the entire 
 reference to burial is taken, it is not mentioned at 
 all ; — in the account of funeral preparations anciently 
 it is also very frequently omitted; and it might even 
 be plausibly maintained, that in the present in- 
 stance it was not practised. These considerations 
 are all so point blank against our author, that 
 they merit a distinct, but very brief illustration. 
 
 1. Washing is not named. A simple inspection 
 of the history is itself a sufficient proof; and Mr. 
 Ewing being aware of it, and somewhat conscious 
 of the necessary inference, slips in by a sort of ac- 
 cident, incidentally, which the reader will, per- 
 haps, have the kindness to allow, for his sake, to 
 slip out of his recollection, that " although the wash- 
 ing is not specified, it must be supposed to have 
 taken place previously to the wrapping of the body 
 in the fine and clean linen cloth with the spices." 
 p. 99. It is surely remarkable, that the washing, 
 to which, in our authors opinion, the allusion in the 
 6th of Romans is made, instead of being intro- 
 duced as the chief circumstance, was merely inci- 
 
64 
 
 dental, at the utmost probably practised, but not 
 even named. 
 
 2. In ancient accounts of funeral preparations, it 
 is so comparatively unimportant, or it is to be consi- 
 dered as so little a part of the ceremony of embalming 
 or burying, as frequently to be unnoticed when they 
 are described. In the history of Jacob's departure, 
 it is said, " they embalmed him, and he was put 
 in a coffin in Egypt." In the Septuagint, it is, as 
 Mr. E. remarks, Ww^av, " they buried him." But 
 if washing had been so important a part of the 
 ceremonial, one might have expected the inspired 
 writer to say, they washed him, and put him in a 
 coffin. (Gen. 1. 26.) Of Asa, it is recorded, 
 " they buried him in his own sepulchre, and laid 
 him on the bed which was filled with sweet odours 
 and divers kinds of spices, prepared by the apo- 
 thecaries 1 art." (2Chron. xvi. 14.) We read among 
 the Jews, of the spices of the dead; " they don't 
 say a blessing over a lamp, nor over the spices of 
 idolaters; nor over a lamp, nor over ono hv a'oeran, 
 the spices of the dead." 1 Misn. Beracot, c. 8. § 6. 
 R. Jonathan alludes to another part of the pre- 
 paratory customs thus unoa n»n *jto% let the dead 
 be wrapt in his own linen. — T. Hieros. Terumot, 
 fol. 46, 2. 
 
 I am not contending, that the dead body was 
 not in general washed; bat that this was an incon- 
 siderable and incidental part of the preparations 
 for interment, not such as to constitute a point 
 of allusion as to a chief and important ceremonial. 
 The reference, in a case of allusion, where the part 
 was to be taken for the whole, would surely be to 
 
65 
 
 some one of the principal circumstances, as to the 
 swathing of the body in linen, or the use of spices 
 for its preservation, or the final act of interment, 
 and not to that which is evidently and wholly 
 incidental. There is no conceivable reason why 
 the washing only should be represented as the 
 burial, and allusively as the baptism, or of the 
 nature of the baptism of the Christian dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 3. It seems probable, that in the case of our 
 Lord's sepulture, the washing was really omitted. 
 The whole ceremony was performed with as much 
 rapidity as comported with respect: the Sabbath 
 was approaching; and they had only time to de- 
 posit the body hastily in the sepulchre, after that 
 imperfect embalming which was practised at the 
 moment, to do him honour, but which was to 
 have been completed at, what Mr. E. calls, the 
 final interment. It is plain, they would not be 
 particular about cleansing the body in the usual 
 way ; but as far as the record informs us, (and we 
 are not warranted to invent history where Scrip- 
 ture is silent) they simply and with the utmost 
 expedition wrapped the body in linen with spices. 
 
 In the third place, had the term Ban™ or Bcnrrt&u 
 been employed in the descriptions given by He- 
 rodotus and Diodorus Siculus, of the prepa- 
 ratory rites of burial, it might have invested the 
 professed discovery of the genuine application of 
 the word in question with some degree of plausi- 
 bility; and though we should not choose to resort 
 to such a plea, in support of a palpable innovation, 
 the eagerness with which our pcedobaptist friends 
 
6G 
 
 seize upon the most trifling- circumstance, and 
 press into their service the most recondite and 
 remote signification, which can at any time, or in 
 any instance, be found to have attached to any 
 phrase or monosyllable, superinduces the con- 
 viction, that their learned advocate would have 
 been much gratified, if either of the ancient his- 
 torians had been so accommodating as to adopt 
 these terms. It is not Ba7rrw, however, but Xovu> 
 they have seen fit to use; we cannot help it — but 
 so it is : but, in spite of the wishes of modern 
 critics and theorists, Herodotus writes, that 
 " after seventy days are expired Xovaavreg t6v 
 
 v£Kpbv KciTtiXicrcrovcTi ttclv avTOv to oCofia avvdovog fivaoivr)Q 
 
 " having washed the dead person, they roll up his 
 whole body in fine linen." Euterpe. Diodorus 
 also is firm to the verb A ova* — " Lastly, having 
 washed the body, they anoint it with oil of cedar 
 and other things, for about thirty days." Biblioth. 
 lib. 1. 
 
 Homer also, in referring to Patroclus, employs 
 the same verb- — 
 
 Kai tote Sjj XovaavTO, kcli riXtiipav AfV tXatio. 
 
 II. 6. v. 350. 
 
 As soon as washed, they anointed him with oil. 
 
 Sometimes the bones of the dead were washed 
 with wine; but, unhappily, even in this case, the 
 Greek writers adhere to Xovto or aXei^co, to wash or 
 to anoint, and will not favour us, upon any consi- 
 deration, with j3a7rTa>. Thus, in the Odyssey, 
 Agamemnon informs Achilles of the performance 
 of this ceremony upon him — 
 
G7 
 
 Avrap iirt\ ct) rT£ (pXo^, livvotv H^xa'yoto 
 Huj^ev dii toi Xiyofxtv Aeuk' o-t 'A^tXXeu, 
 0"ivo> tv aKO))Tty icj iv aXtKpan. — 
 
 ODYSS. w. v. 71. 
 
 But when the flame your body had consura'd, 
 With oils and odours we your bones perfum'd, 
 And wash'd with unraix'd wine. — 
 
 There is another consideration, to which, with 
 our friend's permission, it may be proper to advert. 
 The Greek language is remarkably copious, and 
 it would have been both natural and easy for the 
 inspired writer to have selected many other terms 
 for the purpose of expressing either washing or 
 embalming, in the allusive passages in Romans and 
 Colossians; for example, Xqvoi, to wash, or Ivracpid^oj, 
 to embalm : instead of which, he says, in the for- 
 mer epistle, Svv£ra0j)|U£v ain-w, and in the latter, 
 'SnvTo^ivTsg avrq, making use, in both cases, of the 
 verb Ocl-toj, to bury, in the genuine and legitimate 
 sense of interring, committing to the earth, or 
 " laying in a sepulchre." 
 
 As a further elucidation of the subject, let us 
 simply consider the words " buried with him ;" 
 when the construction and the signification will 
 remain uninfluenced by the omission of the con- 
 cluding part of the sentence. Suppose we had 
 found the phrase alone; whether it were to be un- 
 derstood literally or metaphorically, is indifferent 
 to the argument. How, then, according to our 
 author, must the expression be interpreted? Thus: 
 — " To bury, does not mean to inter, to put in the 
 ground ; it only means to anoint, to wash, or 
 sprinkle the body with spices, or to roll it up in linen. 
 
 f 2 
 
68 
 
 To be buried, therefore, is to be anointed, or 
 washed, or sprinkled with spices, or wrapped up in 
 linen." Common sense would reply, and so would 
 sound criticism : — " Though these are all prepa- 
 ratory rites, and such as were usual with the an- 
 cients, yet the historian does not say, that he was 
 anointed, or washed, or sprinkled, or rolled in linen, 
 but that he was buried, or entombed!" And might 
 not common sense and sound criticism concur 
 also in this question — Had the writer said, anointed 
 with him, or washed as he was washed, what should 
 we have thought of the following interpretation 
 — " To anoint, or to wash, means to put into the 
 ground, or into a cavern; consequently, " anointed 
 with him," does not refer to any of the preparatory 
 rites of sepulture, but to the act of interment — to 
 burial 7" Surely, if we were allowed thus to play 
 upon terms, and divert from their legitimate and 
 most obvious signification, the plainest historical 
 records of inspiration, we might, indeed, acquire 
 the reputation of being ingenious sophists, but not 
 faithful and sound divines. 
 
 II. Considerations with regard to the 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INTERMENT ITSELF. 
 
 If Mr. E. had proved his point, that the allusion 
 in the vith of Romans was to the preparatory 
 washing in the funeral solemnities, it would seem 
 to be a work of supererogation to attempt a new 
 interpretation of the recorded fact of our Saviour's 
 sepulchral interment; but, being somewhat per- 
 plexed upon adverting to the illustration contained 
 in the xiith of Matthew, and the direct statement 
 
69 
 
 in the xiiith of Acts, he summons all his ingenuity 
 again into the field. " For as Jonas was three 
 days and three nights in the whale's belly, so 
 shall the Son of man be three days and three 
 nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. xii. 40.) 
 Again — "They took him down from the tree, and 
 laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from 
 the dead." (Acts xiii. 29, 30.) 
 
 It is alleged, " his body was not lowered into 
 a grave, and covered with earth. It was not laid 
 under ground, but carried into a tomb hewn out of 
 a rock. — The entrance to it was not the mouth of 
 a pit, but is called " the door," — like the door of 
 a parlour, that is, of an apartment on the first 
 floor. — It (the body) was never finally deposited 
 in the tomb — but was carried into the tomb, and 
 left in it for security. — It was not interred within 
 the tomb, for the women who saw how the body 
 was laid, thought of no obstacle to the getting 
 access to it, except the stone at the door, which 
 must be rolled away. — The body of Christ was 
 not lowered, and rose up, but was carried in and 
 came forth; and what is said in Scripture of his 
 final burial, can have no reference to final inter- 
 ment, but exclusively to preparatory rites." p. 100, 
 101. It had been previously stated, " that among 
 the Jews, the sepulchres appear, from an early 
 period to have been valued in proportion as they 
 were elevated above the surface. — The hills and 
 the rocks were the chosen situations, and the build- 
 ings were not constructed in subterraneous exca- 
 vations, but reared as conspicuous and ornamental 
 
70 
 
 superstructures, for the reception of the dead." 
 p. 95. 
 
 It is not easy to imagine a series of assertions 
 more calculated to mislead, although a little close 
 attention will be sufficient to detect their sophism, 
 and expose their fallacy. In order, however, to 
 do this the more effectually, and with a view espe- 
 cially to our illustration of the phraseology in 
 question, " buried with him by baptism," it will 
 be requisite to ascertain the prevalent idea of the 
 ancients when they discoursed on the subject of 
 burying, and the usual mode, and particular places 
 of performing this ceremony. 
 
 1. With regard to the general and most pre- 
 valent idea among the ancients, when discoursing 
 on the subject of burial, or interment. — The opinion 
 of Cicero will surely be admitted to merit some 
 attention, and he represents interment as the most 
 natural, and the most ancient mode of burial. At 
 mihi quidem antiquissimum scpulturce genus id fuisse 
 videtur quo apud Xenophontem Cyrus utitur. Red- 
 ditur enim terra* corpus, et it a location ac sit urn, 
 quasi operimento matris obducitur* " The most an- 
 cient kind of burial appears to have been that 
 which, according to Xenophon, was used by Cy- 
 rus. For the body is restored to the earth, and so 
 placed as to be covered with its mother s veil." Speak- 
 ing of the Trausi, as being uniform in their man- 
 ners with the rest of the Thracians, excepting in 
 what relates to the birth of their children, and the 
 
 • Dp Leg. ii. 22. 
 
71 
 burial of their dead, Herodotus observes with 
 
 reference to the latter, rbv St aTroyevo/uLevov, TraiZovrig 
 re Kal i)B6fi£voi yij kov—tovgi, liriXiyovreg oaiov. (cokoiv 
 £sa7raXXa^ac, eari Iv 7ra<7y Evdatfiovlq' " AVheil anyone 
 
 dies, the body is committed to the ground, (or hid in 
 the earth,) with clamarous joy: for the deceased, 
 they sa} 7 , delivered from his miseries, is then 
 supremely happy." He further speaks of nations, 
 where the practice is for a wife to be " sacrificed 
 by her nearest relation on the tomb of her husband, 
 and afterwards buried with him." <T(pd&rai tg rbv 
 
 rdcpov vtto tov olniiicoTCLTOv kuwr^g' G<t>aydu<ja ct, Gvvucnr-ETUi 
 
 rw avSpL — Herod. Terp. iv. v, 
 
 The custom of raising tumuli or barrows over 
 the dead was universal in times of the remotest 
 antiquity; of which Homer, Xenophox, Virgil, 
 in fact all the principal Greek and Roman authors 
 furnish ample evidence. It prevailed also among 
 the Germans, and other uncivilized nations. But 
 such a practice is sufficiently indicative of the 
 original and most prominent idea of burial that 
 prevailed in remote antiquity ; namely, that of 
 committing to the earth, and covering with earth. 
 Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus, after detailing 
 the whole process of embalming, describe the 
 deposition of the dead in coffins, and placing them 
 in the ground, as the subsequent and final opera- 
 tions, to the latter of which the distinctive term is 
 exclusively applied. Comp. Diod. Sic. Biblioth. 
 lib. i. cap. 91 — 93. Herod. Euterpe. 
 
 All the ancient nations cherished extreme horror 
 at the thought of being uninterred, with reference 
 to which the original idea is most clearly marked. 
 
72 
 
 When Ulysses visited the infernal regions, he 
 thus expresses himself: 
 
 " There wandering through the gloom I first surrey'd, 
 New to the realms of death, Elpenor's shade ; 
 His cold remains, all naked to the sky, 
 On distant shores, unwept, unburied lie." 
 
 The ghost urgently implores the rites of sepulture, 
 
 " The tribute of a tear is all I crave, 
 And the possession of a peaceful grave." 
 
 The Greeks and Romans entertained the firmest 
 conviction that their souls would not be admitted 
 into the Elysian fields till their bodies were buried, 
 or committed to the earth ; and if this were not 
 the case, they were supposed to wander about for 
 a hundred years, in a state of exclusion from the 
 mansions of the blest. Travellers, therefore, who 
 happened to find a dead body, cast dirt upon it 
 three times, and whoever neglected to do so drew 
 a curse upon himself, which no sacrifice could 
 remove. Horace makes the shade of Archytas 
 solicit this service of a passing seaman ; and urges 
 that it would not occasion any great delay what- 
 ever might be his haste : 
 
 " At tu, nauta, vagae ne parcc malignus arena?, 
 
 Ossibus et capiti inhumato 
 Particulam dare 
 
 Quanquam festinas, non est mora longa ; licebit. 
 Injecto ter pulvere curras." 
 
 Carm. i. 28. 
 
73 
 
 Similar considerations are deducible from the 
 scriptural account of the burial places of the 
 ancients. On the death of Sarah, Abraham en- 
 treated the sons of Heth to give him possession of 
 a burying-place, and he purchased of Ephron the 
 son of Zohar, the field of Machpelah and the cave 
 therein, which was in the end of the field, Gen. xxiii. 
 3 — 20. David expresses great satisfaction when 
 informed, " that the men of Jabesh-Gilead were 
 they that burled Saul," having rescued their 
 Sovereigns remains from the enemies' walls, and 
 committed them to the family sepulchre, — 
 2 Sam. ii. 4. 
 
 It is surely needless to accumulate further 
 evidence that the ancient writers, both profane 
 and sacred, when recording or referring to the 
 funeral service, intended by burial the actual com- 
 mittal of the body to the earth — that this was the 
 primary, and has ever been the predominant and 
 characteristic notion of burying. 
 
 2. We have next to examine the usual mode, 
 and the particular places appropriated to the 
 burying of the dead. "You are to form to your- 
 self," says Lowth, " an idea of an immense sub- 
 terraneous vault (in cases of splendid interment), a 
 vast gloomy cavern, all around the sides of which 
 are cells to receive the dead bodies." The most 
 ancient modes and places of burial, appear to have 
 been in fields, gardens, caves and mountains. 
 Calmet mentions that Ezekiel intimates graves 
 were dug under the mountain upon which the 
 temple stood ; since God says, that in future his 
 holy mountain should not be polluted with the 
 
74 
 
 dead bodies of their kings. Moses, Aaron, Eleazar 
 and Joshua were buried in mountains ; Saul and 
 Deborah under the shade of trees ; Sarah in a 
 cave. Mr. Ewing's own account of the proceed- 
 ing with regard to our Saviour is correct ; he was 
 carried into the new tomb of Joseph in the side of 
 the mount, or solid rock — in the side of which a 
 tomb was "hewed out." The sepulchres of dis- 
 tinguished individuals were frequently in very 
 elevated situations ; not in valleys, but in the sides 
 of hills, the entrance by a door. 
 
 The tombs at Napolese, the ancient Sichem, 
 where Joseph, Joshua and others were buried, are 
 hewn out of the solid rock, and are durable as the 
 hills in which they are excavated ; constituting 
 integral parts of mountains, and chiselled with 
 inconceivable labour. The tombs of Telmissus 
 described by Dr. Clarke are of two kinds ; the 
 one the true Grecian soros, and the Roman sarco- 
 phagus ; the other, " sepulchres hewn in the face 
 of perpendicular rocks." One quotation from this 
 celebrated traveller with regard to Jerusalem will 
 suffice: — "Having* quitted the city by what is 
 called ' Sion gate,' we descended into a dingle or 
 trench, called Tophet or Gehinnon, by Sandys. 
 As we reached the bottom of this narrow dale, 
 sloping towards the valley of Jehosaphat, we 
 observed upon the sides of the opposite mountain, 
 facing Mount Sion, a number of excavations in the 
 rock, similar to those already described among 
 the ruins of Telmissus. We rode towards them. 
 When we arrived, we instantly recognized the sort 
 of sepulchres which had so much interested us in 
 
75 
 
 Asia Minor. . . . They were all of the same kind 
 of workmanship, exhibiting a series of subterra- 
 neous chambers. The doors were so low, that to 
 look into any one of them it was necessary to 
 stoop, and in some instances to creep upon our 
 hands and knees: these doors were also grooved 
 for the reception of immense stones, once squared 
 and fitted to the grooves, by way of closing the 
 entrances. Of such a nature were indisputably 
 the tombs of the sons of Heth, of the kings of 
 Israel, of Lazarus, and of Christ. "* 
 
 It appears then that ancient sepulchres, and 
 those especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, were 
 excavations in the sides of rocks or mountains, cor- 
 responding with what we usually term caves, or 
 cells, or "gloomy caverns;" and consequently to 
 be laid in a sepulchre, was to be deposited in 
 one of these receptacles of the dead ; that is, to 
 be placed in one of these hollows, cut in the side 
 of the solid rock, some at one elevation, some at 
 another, all below the summit, and of course far 
 underground, or in a subterraneous situation. 
 Whether a body therefore were lowered down 
 perpendicularly, or put in horizontally, it was, 
 in being buried, introduced into a subterraneous 
 vault. 
 
 As our author has so triumphantly quoted 
 Johnson on the word Pop, it may be proper here 
 to introduce an explanation of the word sepulchre 
 from the same distinguished lexicographer; after 
 which the words " laid in a sepulchre" may be fairly 
 left to be their own interpreters. 
 
 * Travel*, p. ii. vol. 1. 
 
76 
 
 Sepulchre, n. s. [sepulcre, Fr. sepulchrum, Lat.] 
 A grave ; a tomb. 
 
 To entail him and 's heirs unto the crown, 
 What is it but to make thy sepulchre ? 
 
 Shakspeare's Henry VI. 
 
 Flies and spiders get a sepulchre in amber, more durable 
 than the monument and embalming of any king. Bacon. 
 
 There, where the virgin's son his doctrine taught, 
 His miracles, and our redemption, wrought; 
 
 Where I, by thee inspir'd, his praises sung, 
 And on his sepulchre my offering hung. Sandys. 
 
 Perpetual lamps, for many hundred years, have continued 
 burning, without supply, in the sepulchres of the ancients. 
 
 Wilkins. 
 
 If not cne common sepulchre contains 
 Our bodies, or one urn our last remains, 
 Yet Cyrex and Alcyone shall join. Dryden. 
 
 We have now ascertained two points — the first, 
 that the universal notion connected with burying 
 from the remotest antiquity, was that of com- 
 mitting to the earth ; and that the particular mode 
 of doing so, in cases where honourable interment 
 especially, was intended, was that of putting the 
 body into a subterraneous vault. 
 
 Let us now turn to the statement of Mr. Ewing — 
 " His body was- not lowered — not covered with 
 earth — not laid underground," yet, he adds, " it 
 was carried into a tomb hewn out of the rock." 
 How it could be carried into a subterraneous vault, 
 and not carried or laid underground ; or how it 
 could be covered with a mountain, or with a con- 
 siderable part of it, and not covered with earth, is 
 rather difficult to imagine ! An ancient sepulchre 
 
77 
 
 is considered to resemble a first apartment in a 
 house, the door was like the common entrance to 
 a parlour; and what follows? A building erected 
 on the surface is precisely similar to a cave exca- 
 vated far below it! Passing this discrepancy, our 
 author's ingenuity can never avert the conclusion 
 from his own premises, that the parlour is under 
 the roof, and not above it ! In this point indeed it 
 may possibly be said to resemble a subterraneous 
 excavation. 
 
 It is stated, that " when they entered the sepul- 
 chre, and went out of it," it is not said that they 
 went down, and came up, but that "they went in," 
 and "came out." This criticism on the words 
 
 zlatXBovaai — i^tkQovaai, hot,X0ev — airriXdov, is singularly 
 
 futile, for a person of our opponent's acknow- 
 ledged learning. Whether they went down or up, 
 or longitudinally or transversely, upon entering the 
 sepulchre, in no way affects the question whether 
 the, sepulchre itself were subterraneous or superficial 
 in its position ; and the terms employed, s mply 
 express their entrance and exit. 
 
 Having thus followed Mr. Ewing through all 
 the tortuosities of his course, and candidly, we 
 trust, examined all his statements, it is time to 
 close the present section. If we do not greatly 
 err, our impartial readers will admit that his 
 argument is defunct ; and so far as respects its 
 future resuscitation in the baptismal controversy, 
 we recommend that it he finally buried! 
 
DEFENCE OF DR. CAMPBELL. 
 
 The reputation of Dr. Campbell as a biblical 
 critic we have been hitherto accustomed to con- 
 sider as unquestionably established ; and without 
 reckoning him as infallible, all parties avail them- 
 selves of his opinion. It was, therefore, with no 
 inconsiderable surprize, that we found Mr. Ewing 
 first impugning his authority, and his "literary 
 Christian friend " afterwards displacing him from 
 the situation of the first class of Scripture critics. 
 He is, says the latter, " abundantly opiniative," 
 and "as a critic and philologist, often exception- 
 able ;" the former charges him with vanity, dog- 
 matism, and inconsistency, if not insincerity in 
 his religious profession. 
 
 This twofold attack upon his critical acuteness 
 and his moral character, originates entirely in his 
 having ventured to record his sentiments upon 
 the unwelcome subject of baptism, (in which he 
 agrees with multitudes of his poedobaptist 
 brethren, in and out of the establishment, in main- 
 taining the true primitive meaning of the term 
 baptize) and in his presuming to give a translation 
 of a particular passage, which militates against 
 the system of our author and his friend. This 
 
79 
 
 is "the head and front of his offending;" and 
 if the Doctor were indefensible in his statements, 
 we should willingly leave him to his fate, without 
 considering our general views in the slightest essen- 
 tial degree affected : truth, however, as well as 
 candour, require some further examination into 
 the merits of the case. 
 
 The contested passages are the sixth and 
 eleventh verses of the third chapter of Matthew. 
 In the former it is stated, according to the com- 
 mon translation, that the people were baptized of 
 John in Jordan; and in the latter he affirms of 
 himself, "I baptize you with water," and predicts 
 of Jesus " he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost 
 and with fire" Dr. Campbell remarks upon the 
 disagreement of these different renderings with the 
 original text, in which the phraseology is in every 
 instance the same. He charges it upon the trans- 
 lators in general as an inconsistency, that in the 
 6th verse they should have rendered lv t$ 'lopSavp, 
 "in Jordan," and ev uSart, in the 11th verse "with 
 water." Passing over the remarks on the Popish 
 and Protestant translators which might be variously 
 explained, let us examine Mr. Ewing's criticisms 
 and objections. 
 
 He begins by asserting that the translation was 
 different in these two verses, because there was 
 a difference of the connection in which they occur; 
 " in verse 11, the writer speaks of the act and the 
 elements of baptism — in verse 6, he speaks of the 
 place, where the Baptist was performing the act;" 
 and that in Jordan means " in the plain of Jordan, 
 in the valley of Jordan, or in Jordan-dale" 
 
80 
 
 This is all very ingenious ; but unfortunately 
 for the poedobaptist argument, it is by no means 
 substantial or tenable. In the first place, it will 
 furnish no inconsiderable evidence of the fallacy 
 of this representation if we read the 5th and 6th 
 verses, which compose the whole sentence, in 
 their connection, and observe how the criticism 
 will apply to the narrative. — " There went out to 
 him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan ; and were baptized of him in 
 the plain of Jordan, confessing their sins." The 
 
 words are iraaa ri irspL\(jjpog tov 'lopSavov, all the 
 
 country along the Jordan, which was the plain 
 of Jordan. Hence, according to our author, 
 the statement would be, the inhabitants of the 
 plain of Jordan went out of the plain, to John, 
 to be baptized in the plain of Jordan. In what 
 manner, and for what reason they went out 
 of the plain, to be baptized in the plain, is ex- 
 tremely difficult to imagine. If we understand 
 that they went out of their towns and villages in 
 the adjacent country to be baptized in the river, 
 nothing can be more natural and intelligible ; but 
 Mr. Ewino- does not admire the inference which 
 seems inevitable from such an interpretation, 
 although, before this article is dismissed, it will be 
 demonstrably shewn that this was the fact. 
 
 In the second place, the parallel and explanatory 
 record of John (chap, i.) is completely corrobora- 
 tive of Our interpretation : ravra cv BiiOafiapj lyivero 
 irioav tov 'IopSavou, oirov r\v 'Iwavi'ijc pairrl^wv, " 1 liese 
 
 things were done in Bethabara, upon the Jordan, 
 where John was baptizing." What Matthew calls 
 
81 
 
 tv 'IopSavy, in Jordan, John, says Mr. Ewing, calls 
 lv Br\QaQagq, in Bethabara. By no means : for he 
 says not lv 'lopcavy, in Jordan, but iv ry 'IopScmy, in 
 the Jordan, which is, in fact, an elliptical expres- 
 sion for lv rw 'lopdavy Trorafiw, in the river Jordan ; 
 precisely as we say, in English, in the Thames, 
 that is, in the river Thames. 
 
 John moreover states, that Bethabara was iripav 
 rov 'lopSavou, that is, observes our author, beyond 
 Jordan, " I do not say at any distance from the 
 river;" but he consents to adopt Dr. C.'s trans- 
 lation, " situate on the Jordan." It happens that 
 Bethabara was not only not at any distance from 
 the river, but derived its name from its being the 
 place of common ford of the river, where the Is- 
 raelites crossed under Joshua. Literally, it is jva 
 beth, a house, and -op gnabar, a passage. The 
 most important MSS. read Bethany, which, how- 
 ever, still signifies, by its etymology, " a place, 
 or house, close by a ferry." 
 
 In the third place, by consulting the testimony 
 of Mark, we find incontestible proof in our fa- 
 vour. The several forms of expression occur in a 
 manner that unquestionably and for ever settles 
 
 the point. Mark i. 5. kcu Ifia-TiZovro rravreg lv rw 
 
 'lopdavy Trorafxu V7r' avrov " and were all baptised 
 by him in the river Jordan." V. 8. 'Eyw ptv 
 IficnrTiaa. vfiag lv vlan " I indeed have baptized you 
 
 IN WATER." V. 9. kcu ij3aTr-io9i] vtto ^Iwavvov Iiq rov 
 
 'Iopt)av>?v " and was baptized by John in the 
 Jordan." It will be observed, that in the Jordan, 
 in the latter quotation, is tie rov 'Iop8aw?v, which 
 Mr. Ewing would triumphantly have adduced as 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 a proof that it was at or upon, or in the region of 
 Jordan, but he is prevented by the previous ex- 
 pression, in the river Jordan ; and if either Greek 
 or English could furnish a more explicit and deci- 
 sive statement, I should be happy to know it. 
 Mr. E. indeed insists, that it means, the country on 
 the banks ; but how, in the river, (for remark, it is 
 lv, in, not £7rt or wipav, upon) can signify the 
 country on the banks, is as inexplicable as that, in 
 the British channel, should denote in Dorsetshire, 
 or in Devonshire, each " a countrv on the banks!*' 
 
 The real signification of the phrase is also very 
 decidedly fixed by the several forms of expression 
 in theSeptuagint. " So the king returned, and came 
 iwg tov 'lopdavov, to the Jordan."' (2 Sam. xix. 15.) 
 The same words are used, 2 Kings vi. 2. and vii. 15. 
 " And they two stood lirl tov 'topdavov, by the Jor- 
 dan." (2 Kings ii. 7.) Elijah " took also the mantle 
 of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and 
 stood ht\ rov xeiXovQ tov 'IopSavou, upon the banks of the 
 Jordan" (2 Kings ii. 13.) We request the learned 
 reader to consult the several expressions in the 
 Septuagint translation of the 3rd chapter of Joshua, 
 where he will find to the brink of the water — in the 
 Jordan — unto the Jordan — the soles of the priests' 
 feet in the water — and dipped in the water — stand- 
 ing in the midst of the Jordan, (v. 8. 13. 15. 17.) all 
 confirmative of our usual mode of interpretation. 
 
 Dr. C. is next attacked for stating, that " both 
 in sacred authors and in classical, it (fiairTi^uv) 
 signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was ren- 
 dered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, 
 tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was 
 
83 
 
 by immersion." The objection is, that " he has 
 not specified any of his sacred or classical autho- 
 rities," and that " for deciding - the meaning of a 
 Greek word, Dr. C. refers us to the authority of 
 the translation of it by a Latin father." The ques- 
 tion is asked, " What should we have thought of 
 Johnson's English Dictionary, if he had supported 
 his explanations by authorities solely among the 
 French writers ?" 
 
 The reason Dr. C. did not " specify any of his 
 sacred or classical authorities," was, that the use 
 of the term Ba7n-w, and the frequentative BaTrrt^w, was 
 so notorious, and that all the Lexicons, Scapula, 
 Schleusner, Hederic, Suicerus, &c. had so unani- 
 mously given dipping, plunging, immersing, as the 
 original and most current idea, founded upon those 
 authorities, that it would seem unnecessary to 
 support by a citation of examples, what no com- 
 petent and unprejudiced scholar denied. Classical 
 authorities have been repeatedly, and we affirm 
 triumphantly, as it regards the meaning assigned 
 by every Greek Lexicon, adduced in the contro- 
 versy. And I now once again demand of Mr. 
 Ewing to point me out the Lexicon which 
 does not give dipping, plunging, or immersing, as 
 the unquestionable, settled, and universally admitted 
 primitive signification of the contested terms. 
 
 It is moreover not correct to say, that Dr. C. 
 appeals to a Latin father to decide the meaning of 
 a Greek word. Far from it : he considers it as 
 already decided, and appeals to Tertullian's trans- 
 lation as a corroborative evidence, as a proof, not 
 only that sacred and classical writers and Greek 
 
 G 2 
 
84 - 
 
 fathers, but Latin authors also, in fact, the whole 
 world, and every authority, justify his interpreta- 
 tion. An unprejudiced eye must perceive, that 
 Dr. Campbell refers to Tertullian solely for this 
 purpose ; and it was a wise appeal. He intimates, 
 that Tertullian was the oldest of the Latin fathers; 
 a designation which Mr. E. has chosen to over- 
 look. But this is precisely the circumstance that 
 rendered the appeal proper and important; for by 
 this authority, it appears, that as soon as the Greek 
 term began to be translated into other languages, 
 its original and genuine signification was obviously 
 understood. For the character of Tertullian, Mr. 
 Ewing refers the reader to Mosheim and Lardner, 
 " or any other writer on ecclesiastical antiquity;" 
 leaving it to be supposed, that these authors would 
 convince him that he was more of a child than a 
 father in literature and theology. This implica- 
 tion, however, is wholly unfounded; and his re- 
 ferences are, for himself, ill-chosen. Let us turn 
 to the first. " Hitherto we have made no men- 
 tion of the Latin writers, who employed their 
 pens in the christian cause. And, indeed, the 
 only one of any note we find in this country, is 
 Tertullian, by birth a Carthagenian. — He was 
 a man of extensive learning, of a fine genius, and 
 highly admired for his elocution in the Latin 
 tongue. We have several works of his yet re- 
 maining, which were designed to explain and 
 defend the truth, and to nourish pious affections in 
 the hearts of christians. " Again — " The most 
 eminent and learned of all the followers of this rigid 
 enthusiast (Montanus) was Tertullian, a man of 
 
85 
 
 great learning and genius, but of an austere and 
 melancholy natural temper."* 
 
 It is surprising that Mr. E. should approve and 
 adopt the slanderous insinuation in Stephens's 
 Thesaurus, by Valpy. " Cyprian, as in other 
 parts of his writings, so particularly in one of his 
 epistles to Coscilius, on purpose, as I think, trans- 
 lated ficnrriZovTeg, by Tingentes." The word used is 
 consilio, with design, with a crafty intention. Mr. 
 E. declares, " I believe it;" but upon what chris- 
 tian principle, and upon what historical evidence, 
 he can vindicate such a direct charge of immoral 
 principle, I am at a loss to conceive. He followed, 
 it is said, Tertullian, his master ; the latter, there- 
 fore, is to be regarded as the primary offender. If 
 he followed his master, why is he to be impugned 
 for a corrupt motive ? or if he did so, Tertullian 
 was the original and greatest transgressor, and the 
 charge is indeed a most serious one : — this pole- 
 mical sword cuts with a double edge at the chris- 
 tian character of both these ancient fathers ; and I 
 can only say, that I should not choose to take the 
 responsibility of such an attack. 
 
 The reference to Johnson here is most unhappy : 
 " What should we have thought of Johnson's 
 English Dictionary, if he had supported his ex- 
 planations by authorities solely among the French 
 writers ?" And what are we to think of the merits 
 of a question, which is totally inapt and irrelevant? 
 Does Dr. Campbell support his explanations solely 
 
 * Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. Cent. ii. p. 2. c. 2; and p. 2. 
 c. 5. 
 
86 
 
 by the Latin authorities 1 Does he not mention 
 the sacred and the classical authors in general I 
 Does he not name them first ? And does he not, 
 as we have shewn, incidentally allude to Tertullian 
 as a corroborative testimony, being the oldest of the 
 Latin fathers ? Now if some, sixteen or eighteen 
 centuries hence, a Greek or a Turk, should appeal 
 to Johnson's Dictionary for the primary and cur- 
 rent significations of an English word in the last 
 century, and if he should find by a search into 
 our authors, or by the testimony of our other 
 lexicographers, that it had a particular meaning, 
 he would be justified in pronouncing upon its 
 application : but if his testimony should happen 
 to be disputed, and the primary and current sig- 
 nifications disclaimed by some ingenious writer 
 who chose to maintain the secondary or the least 
 common uses of the term, in order to support a 
 system of opinion, or a mode of practice with 
 regard to some public law, which the primary and 
 current and generally received application of it 
 would not suit, — then, if he could discover that 
 the French, Spanish, German, or any other authors 
 contemporary, or nearly contemporary with John- 
 son, and with the English classical writers of his 
 day, in giving an account of the English law in 
 question, adopted a word in their own respective 
 languages which corresponded in meaning with the 
 primary and current senses of the English term, it 
 would furnish a strong corroborative proof, that it 
 was not the secondary or rare and very disputable 
 applications of it which, in that age, were employed 
 in representing the public law or institution in 
 
87 
 
 question. So much for the propriety of Dr. C.'s 
 appeal, and so much for the statements of his 
 objector! 
 
 In remarking upon Mat. iii. 16. "Jesus when 
 he was baptized went up straightway out of the 
 water," Mr. E. expresses himself thus — " I suppose 
 that no man upon earth who can read avifirj evOvg airo 
 tov w&zroc, imagines it to be any thing else than 
 ■ he went up straightway from the water.' ' It is 
 presumable, notwithstanding the hostility against 
 Dr. Campbell, that he was at least able to read 
 the words recited ; and yet he imagined them to 
 mean "he no sooner arose out of the water." 
 Vossius, Venema, Doddridge, and a thousand others 
 were certainly able to read these words, and yet 
 they imagined them to have a meaning different 
 from the interpretation of our Glasgow friend, and 
 conformable to that of the Principal of Marischal 
 College, and of almost all the critics, both Baptist 
 and Poedobaptist ! If our brethren appeal to 
 authorities, we have no objection ; if they proceed 
 on another ground we are still ready to be guided 
 by the Horatian maxim — 
 
 " Nullius addictus jurare in verba niagistri." 
 
 I perceive nothing in the remark of Mr. Ewing 
 on Dr. Campbell's translation of Mark vii. 3, 4, to 
 detain us. He has produced no evidence what- 
 ever to weaken the force of Dr. Campbell's critical 
 observations, who has shewn to a demonstration 
 that the sense is confused by our translators 
 having adopted the same word to translate two 
 
88 
 
 very different o?ies in the original ; and that con- 
 sequently the true rendering is, as the Principal 
 has given it— "The Pharisees, and indeed all the 
 Jews, observing the tradition of the elders, eat not 
 until they have washed their hands, by pouring a 
 little water upon them (vopuvrai ;) and if they come 
 from the market by dipping them, (/3a7rri<Ta>vTfu)." 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot remarks — "The Jews used the 
 washing of the hands, and the plunging of the 
 hands ; and the word vtyiDvrcu, wash, in our evan- 
 gelist seems to answer to the former, and j3a7rrt(rwi>- 
 rai, baptize, to the latter." The statement of 
 Grotius is — "They purified themselves with 
 greater care from pollution contracted at the 
 market, not only by ivashing their hands, but by 
 im??iersing their whole body" Vatablus expresses 
 the same opinion ; others consider it only an im- 
 mersion of the arms ; and others, of the hands — 
 in either case the argument is ours : the action 
 was not sprinkling, or pouring, but dipping. 
 
 Our author is displeased with Dr. Campbell's 
 eulogium upon Wetstein, who says that fiairTi&aOai, 
 is to immerse the hands in water : v'nrTsaOai, to pour 
 water on the hands. Whether Wetstein deserved 
 to be called " an excellent critic" or not, is of 
 no moment; Dr. Campbell's opinion, especially 
 when it is coincident with that of all the authori- 
 ties, is not to be despised, or set aside by the 
 stroke of a pen. 
 
 Few persons will read without astonishment the 
 statement — "I have always had little confidence 
 in his (Dr. C.'s) making a conscientious confession 
 of the whole counsel of God. He seems to have 
 
89 
 
 had a vanity in patronizing what he did not prac- 
 tise. The passage on this subject (baptism) in his 
 Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit 
 Eloquence" (in which he refers to a disputant ivho, in 
 defiance of etymology and use, maintained that baptize 
 means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and 
 in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method 
 was the earliest, and long the most general practice), 
 "is nothing but a specimen of the easy confidence 
 with which he could impute dogmatism to others, 
 while he was dogmatizing himself with the most 
 glaring licence," p. 88. Dr. Campbell destitute of 
 
 CONSCIENCE, Of HUMILITY, and of ARGUMENT ! ! ! 
 
 But why is his memory to be blasted with these 
 tremendous accusations? — Because he has as- 
 serted, that j3a7rrw and /3a7TTi£w, signify to plunge, 
 to dip, to immerse, which multitudes of the most 
 eminent poedobaptist critics had previously de- 
 clared ; and because again he has intimated, that 
 to affirm that the word baptize means more properly 
 to sprinkle than to plunge is to defy etymology and 
 use, and to say that sprinkling was the earliest 
 practice, is to defy all antiquity. At the hazard of 
 incurring similar charges, I distinctly re-affirm the 
 same, and venture to add, that Dr. Campbell had 
 the best reasons for what he stated, and three 
 witnesses to the truth of it, whose testimony no 
 sophistry or cross-examination can overthrow — 
 etymology, use and antiquity ! Mr. Ewing 
 knoivs well that every authority is against him, 
 and in favour of Dr. Campbell. If Mr. Ewing or 
 any of his brethren will produce me a single 
 case, in which it is shewn that sprinkling is more 
 
90 
 
 properly the radical idea than plunging, I will con- 
 cede the etymological point at once ; and if he or any 
 of his brethren will bring forward one single 
 instance only of infant sprinkling - from the New 
 Testament or the Old, or one single command 
 inculcating the practice, I will instantly concede 
 the practical point, and attach myself to the Pcedo- 
 baptist denomination. Will Mr, Ewing or any of 
 his brethren venture to give me a similar 
 
 PLEDGE ? . 
 
BRIEF ANSWERS TO VARIOUS SCATTERED 
 CRITICISMS. 
 
 Having disposed of the two grand novelties 
 which our Author has pressed into the service of 
 this controversy, and of his remarks on Dr. Camp- 
 bell ; I propose to furnish answers in the briefest 
 form to the other criticisms, of a subordinate de- 
 scription, which lie dispersed through his volume. 
 
 Acts ii. 2, 3, 4. 
 
 Kai iyivETO a(pvo) ek tov ovpavov vX°S w<r7TEp 0epOjU£v>/e 
 wvoTjQ fiiatag, Hal E7rX//ptt»(7ev oXov tov oikov ov rjoav 
 KaOi'ifXtvoi. Kai to(p9i)(Ta.v aiirolg StafiepiZofjuvai yXwaaai 
 axm irvpbg, £Ka0t<X£ re i<tf 'iva tKaorov a\)T<l)v. Kai iirX^adriaav 
 airavreg HvEVfiarog aylov, Kai r/p^avro XaXuv Iripaig 
 y\tx>(j<jaiQ , KaOu)Q to Ylvsi/fia loiSov ai)TOig a.iro(j)Biyy£<r9ai. — 
 
 " And suddenly there came a sound from heaven 
 as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the 
 house where they were sitting. And there ap- 
 peared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, 
 and it sat upon each of them : And they were 
 all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
 with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them 
 utterance." 
 
 In translating this passage, Mr. Ewing has 
 marked emphatically the phrase — "aflame sat 
 down upon everyone of them." This, however, 
 
92 
 
 is far from affording any assistance to his' general 
 argument ; for it would be extremely difficult to 
 discover any analogy between pouring or sprinkling 
 and sitting down : or, perhaps it will be said, be- 
 tween sitting down and immersing. True ; but 
 we neither require nor plead for such an illustra- 
 tion, as will be immediately explained. 
 
 Citations are introduced to prove, that the Holy 
 Spirit is represented as descending from above, and 
 as poured out upon all flesh, from which is to be 
 deduced the propriety of pouring in baptism. 
 But the fallacy of this reasoning is obvious ; for 
 the inspired expression is not • ' the Spirit descended" 
 or " the Spirit was poured out" but "a sound like 
 that of a violent wind, ewXiipwmv o\ov rbv oIkov, 
 filled the whole house," — and " they were all 
 tirXiiaOrifTav, filled with the Holy Spirit." It will 
 be alleged that in adducing the prophecy of Joel, 
 Peter uses the words Ikx^ airb tqv YlvtvfxaTOQ fxov, 
 " I will pour out of my Spirit;" and afterwards 
 iUx™ tovto, "he hath shed forth, (or poured out) 
 this ;" and that this was the accomplishment of 
 the promise of baptism with the Spirit. But what 
 was the accomplishment of the promise ? And what 
 
 do the words, tovto Iotl to tlprifxlvov dta tov Trpo(j>i]Tov 
 
 'WjA — lt this is the very thing spoken of by the 
 prophet Joel" — signify ? The promise refers to 
 the ivhole of the communication and its results, not 
 to the mode of that communication. I might as 
 well affirm that the baptism with the Hol-y Spirit 
 refers to the sound of the wind, or the appearance 
 of the cloven tongues, as that it refers to the 
 pouring out of the Spirit, or his descending from 
 
93 
 
 above. The promise was not to the circumstance 
 of the pouring out, or to the circumstance of the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit; but to their being 
 replenished, imbued, extraordinarily possessed, with 
 this divine energy. Perfectly coincident with 
 this idea is the phraseology in Matthew ; which 
 is not " he shall pour water upon you, and pour 
 
 fire upon yOU, but avrbg v/j.ag ficnrTiati Iv Hvev/xari ayiy 
 
 k<u TTvpi, he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit, and 
 in fire." The latter expression is peculiarly con- 
 firmatory of our interpretation ; for few persons, 
 whether critics or not, will be disposed to under- 
 stand the phrase as signifying pouring fire upon 
 you, (which is in fact neither Greek nor English,) 
 but as denoting the entire circumstance of their 
 abundant repletion with the heavenly influences. 
 
 If, in the prophecy of Joel, or in the other recited 
 passages, the word ficnrTw were used in describing 
 the mode of imparting the Spirit, there might be 
 some plausibility at least in the argument of our 
 opponents, of which however at present it is ab- 
 solutely devoid. In no one instance is the contro- 
 verted term employed to represent the communi- 
 cation of divine influences : the phrases are — 
 "except a man be born (yemm&f) of water," — "ye 
 shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is 
 come upon you, (l^^£\66vTogy , — " I will pour out 
 (kxew) my Spirit," — " the Holy Ghost fell (&r£x&re) 
 upon them." If the reference, in the allusion to 
 the bestowment of the Spirit under the figure of 
 baptism, were to the mode of the communication, 
 it seems inevitable that some one of these terms 
 
94 
 
 would have been used in the allusive passage ; 
 but neither of them occurs ; another, and totally 
 different one is introduced. Is it alleged — "but 
 it is expressly said, ' Ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost and with fire ?' " — This is all we 
 require; the objection is a virtual concession. 
 It is not declared — " Ye shall be poured upon, 
 fallen upon, come upon" but (the inspired writer 
 using a different word) " Ye shall be baptized." It 
 is quite obvious, therefore, that although the 
 bestowment of the Holy Spirit be represented 
 figurately as descending from above like "every 
 good and perfect gift," yet the result of that com- 
 munication, the state of repletion with these in- 
 fluences, is very differently described — it is called 
 baptism. A person may indeed be immersed 
 by means of pouring, but immersion is the being 
 plunged into water, or overwhelmed by it ; and no 
 one of the terms employed to represent the mode 
 of imparting the Spirit, can describe the effect 
 of the communication. Were the water to ascend 
 from the earth, it would still be baptism, were the 
 person wholly covered with it. Both the literal 
 and figurative uses of the word immersion are pre- 
 cisely similar in the English language. 
 
 Titus iii. 5. 
 
 Kara rov avrov eXeov itrtdtrev i)fJ.ac, dia Xovrpou iraXiy- 
 yevzaiag, not civaKaivwcrtcoQ nvtvfxaroQ ayiov' " Accord- 
 ing to his mercy he saved us by the washing of 
 regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 The question is, what is denoted by " the wash- 
 
95 
 
 ing of regeneration ?" — It will be admitted to 
 signify cleansing and entire cleansing, or the puri- 
 fication of the soul for the service of God. Let 
 us inquire what is intended by regeneration ? Does 
 it signify the manner in which the Spirit operates 
 upon the heart, or does it refer solely to the whole 
 effect produced ? The latter is unquestionable : 
 regeneration is the entire change of heart, pro- 
 duced by divine influences : consequently the 
 xcashing of regeneration is the operation of cleansing 
 the whole moral man — removing his impurities by 
 a spiritual process upon the entire system ; as we 
 may imagine the body is cleansed by bathing, or 
 "washing in pure water." 
 
 In the New Testament there are two verbs 
 used in the sense of washing, vtimo and X6vw ; the 
 former signifies to wash a part of the body ; the 
 latter means to bathe the whole body, from which 
 it will be seen that the noun in the above recited 
 passage is derived. In John xiii. 10. the distinction 
 is expressly remarked — 6 XeXovfitvog 6v xpaW e'x« v 
 
 Toi>£ 7ro<5ac vtyaaQai, aXX \an KaOapoQ oXog ; the participle 
 
 XiXovfiivog, is used of him whose whole body is 
 washed, and the verb vtyaoBai, is joined with 
 rove 7roSac, the feet. This is Dr. Campbell's re- 
 mark. 
 
 Let it be recollected further, that Xovrpbv, 
 is the common word for bath ; it is continually 
 applied by the ancients to designate the baptistry, 
 and to denote baptism. Whether correct in their 
 interpretation or not, it is evident in what sense 
 they understood the word. 
 
90 
 
 Mat. xx. 22, 23. — Luke xii. 50. 
 
 AvvaaOe 7ridv to 7iOTiiptov 6 lyio /ueXXw Trivdv, Kai to 
 (BciTTTia/jia, o tyoj (daTTTi^Ofiai, jSaTrTiaOrivai ; Atyovmv airriji' 
 AvvafJitOa. teal Xiju avToli;' To fjitv rroTi'ipiov fxov wiecrde, 
 Kai to (iaTTTia/ia, o tyw (ia7TT(Zof.iai, ficnrriaQiiascrOt' k. t. X. 
 
 jBuTTTtafia §i %X M (SawTiaBrivai, Kai ircjg (TWi^o/nat ttoQ 
 ov TtXso-Sy. 
 
 " Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall 
 drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that 
 I am baptized with ? They say unto him, we are 
 able. And he saith unto them, ye shall indeed 
 drink of my cup, and be baptized with the bap- 
 tism that I am baptized with," &c. 
 
 " I have a baptism to be baptized with, and 
 how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" 
 
 The cup and the baptism contain, (says Mr. 
 Ewing) one allusion, and the latter expression 
 means, " I have a cup to drink of." As he en- 
 deavours to shew that baptism may be drinking, as 
 " out of the cup of nature," that is, the hollow of 
 the hand, it is obvious that by " one allusion," 
 is meant " one thing," which is surely a most un- 
 solid and sophistical interpretation ; and after all, 
 we are left to conjecture, which of the numerous 
 operations brought under review, is intended by 
 baptism — Is it popping, or staining, or painting, or 
 sprinkling, ov pouring, or drinking ? — The assertion 
 would appear just as tenable, that drinking of a 
 cup, and being immersed in water, are one and the 
 same action ! "I have a baptism to be baptized 
 with" said our divine Redeemer: No, exclaims 
 the critic, it does not mean so ; it signifies, " I 
 
97 
 
 have a cup to drink of!!" The reasoning 
 would be equally legitimate were our author to 
 state, that in one passage Christ affirms, " I am 
 the door;" and in another, " T am the vine ;" but 
 these are one and the same ; there is " one allusion," 
 that is, the allusion is to one person; consequently, 
 the phrase, "I am the door," means "I am 
 the vine !" 
 
 John the Baptist. 
 
 " Poor Joannes de Dooper, John the Dipper, as 
 the Dutch Bible calls him — what an amphibious 
 life must he have lived ! — There went to John 
 " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan, and were baptized" by him 
 alone. This must have been a work of time; and, 
 on the supposition of his immersing them, he could 
 be little out of the water from morning to night, 
 as long as his public ministry lasted. His legs 
 and arms at least, whatever more of him, must 
 have been soon excoriated by the friction of his 
 soaking " camel's hair garment." The leathern 
 girdle about his loins must have become good for 
 nothing before the end of the first day." p. 119. 
 
 Passing over the sarcasm of this passage, I 
 would simply inquire, whether John must not 
 have been as much overwhelmed with fatigue, upon 
 the supposition of his sprinkling, or pouring upon, 
 every person " in Jerusalem and all Judea," as 
 upon that of his immersing them ; nay, his work 
 must have been far more extensive and laborious, 
 for our notions would save him the trouble of all 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 the children, which were, perhaps, two-thirds of 
 the population. 
 
 The incontestible reply, however, to this insi- 
 nuation is, that " Jerusalem and all Judea," re- 
 sembles numberless other hyperbolical modes of 
 speech, which are employed to represent " great 
 multitudes." 
 
 John iii. 23. 
 
 'Hv £e kcu 'Iwwvvtjc fiairTiZiov tv Alvtjbv tyyiig tow 
 SaXetjU, on uSara rroXXa rjv greet. " And John also 
 
 was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because 
 there was much water there/' 
 
 Mr. Ewing insists, that alvwv is the oriental 
 word for a fountain; and that it is the Greek ex- 
 pression of the Syro-Chaldaic plural. " The place 
 there was called fountains, because there were 
 many fountains there." Being courteously dis- 
 posed, we accede to this interpretation. Well 
 then, iEnon was so called, because there were 
 anciently fountains there. Why then did John 
 baptize there — because there were many foun- 
 tains? By no means; " because there were 
 many waters:" for remark, {ioVa iroXXa signifies 
 the latter, not the former : and vSara can never be 
 forced to mean fountains. Whatever then might 
 have occasioned the original designation of that 
 locality, another reason influenced John to select 
 it for the practice of the new rite. From many 
 fountains, many waters flow, either in parallel or 
 confluent streams; and though the original name 
 respected the fountains, the baptism of John was 
 practised, according to the express testimony of 
 
99 
 
 inspiration, " because there was much water; (or 
 many waters) there." Mr. Ewing is quite certain 
 of convincing his reader, from this circumstance, 
 that vSara -rroXXa, signifies " small streams" I 
 should entertain no apprehension of exposing my- 
 self to ridicule, were I to argue that even " small 
 streams," unless they were demonstrably mere 
 rills, might be understood to refer to streams large 
 enough at least for the purpose of immersion: this, 
 however, is not requisite ; and we not only deny 
 that it ever means " small streams," but confront 
 the evasive argument of our opponent by a few 
 references to the current acceptation of the terms. 
 In the often cited verse of Rev. i. 15. the voice of 
 Christ is described as the sound vSarwv -n-oWiov, of 
 many waters." Tn the same apocalytic vision, 
 chap. xvii. 1. the great whore is said to sit 
 e7ri twv iiSarwv rwv 7roAXwv " upon many waters" re- 
 ferring to multitudes of nations. In the Septua- 
 gint translation, we have " Thy way is in the sea, 
 and thy path — lv v$am ttoXXoiq " in many waters." 
 (Eng. Tr. the great waters.) Ps. lxxvii. 18. Again, 
 " They that go down to the sea, that do business 
 lv vSam ttoXXoiq, " in many waters." (Eng. Tr. in 
 great waters.) The phraseology in question is 
 evidently a Hebraism, and synonymous with a 
 great abundance of water. 
 
 Family Baptisms. 
 
 Acts x. 47, 48. They were commanded to be 
 baptized, who had believed, (v. 45.) and who had 
 " received the Holy Ghost." How can this support 
 the paedobaptist cause ? 
 
 h2 
 
100 
 
 Acts xvi. 15. Because the term household is 
 used, our brethren demand of us a demonstration 
 that there were not infants, and in consequence 
 choose to infer that there were. This argument 
 might be valid if there never were any households 
 without children, or if the circumstances compelled 
 us to the conclusion, that they were attached to 
 the family of Lydia. Our brethren will not, for a 
 moment, assert the former, and the whole narrative 
 precludes the supposition of the latter. To say 
 nothing of the preceding verse (v. 13,) in which it 
 is stated, that they went to the river side, be it 
 observed, that the very mention of " Lydia and 
 her household," implies the case of an unmarried 
 head of a family . She was, moreover, not a resi- 
 dent in the place, but on a journey of business, 
 and the natural conclusion is, that her " house- 
 hold" were the servants she hired pro tempore. It 
 is in the highest degree improbable, if she had 
 children, that she would have brought them to 
 Thyatira on such an occasion, unless our friends 
 will adopt the supposition, of its being a journey 
 of pleasure, or for the restoration of health, re- 
 sembling a modern month's excursion to a water- 
 ing-place : in this case, however, there appears no 
 reason for the mention of her business, as " a 
 seller of purple." Besides, if the household of 
 Lydia were baptized on account of her personal 
 faith, that of the jailor was saved for a similar 
 reason ; the latter is thus appealed to by Paul, 
 " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt 
 be saved, and thy house." 
 
 Acts xvi. 33. The jailor, and all his, were bap- 
 
101 
 
 tized ; but, unfortunately for our poedobaptist 
 brethren, both with regard to this instance, and 
 as explanatory of the former, it is recorded, " they 
 spake unto him the word of the Lord, koX tram roig 
 kv tT) oliciq. ai/rov, and to all those who were in his 
 house." It is added, these were the very persons 
 who were all immediately baptized — ol ahrov 
 
 Travreq. 
 
 1 Cor. i. 16. and xvi. 15. In the first passage, 
 
 it is 'Ej3a7TTto-a ge ko\ tov Sre</>aua oIkov, "and I bap- 
 tized also the house of Stephanas ;" in the second, 
 
 otSare ttjv olniav 2r£$ava on l<zlv 07rap^r; t»jc 'A^aiac, 
 kcu elg dtanovlav role; ayioiq era^av iavrovq. " I e KUOW 
 
 the family (or household) of Stephanus, that it is 
 the first- [fruits) of Achaia, and they have devoted 
 themselves to serving the saints." Here the house, 
 household, or family, by whatever term they are 
 designated, who were baptized, were the identical 
 persons who served, or ministered to the saints 
 with affectionate assiduity, and who were the first- 
 f raits, or first converts of Achaia. 
 
 Upon these instances, which our author admits 
 are all that can be adduced (p. 134,) I may remark 
 generally, that there is only one, that of Lydia, 
 which contains even the shadow of a possibility 
 that infants were included ; and with regard to this 
 particular case, not only is every question on the 
 subject settled, as we believe, by the preceding 
 explanations, but even poedobaptist writers them- 
 selves say, " whether infants were in the house 
 is uncertain!" 
 
102 
 
 Direct Arguments. 
 
 The reader is now prepared to appreciate Mr. 
 Ewing's assertion, when introducing the above 
 recited examples: — " Nothing can be more direct 
 and obvious than the argument from Scripture for 
 infant baptism." Allow me to inquire, what is a 
 direct and obvious argument? It is an argument 
 surely founded upon direct and positive evidence, 
 that is, upon a plain, unequivocal statement of a 
 fact. Permit me again to ask, is there in any 
 of these narratives, such a statement of the bap- 
 tism of infants? Are they once named? Nothing, 
 on the contrary, can be more indirect, confused, and 
 illogical, than the deductions from these passages. 
 Were I to assert, that nothing can be more direct 
 and obvious than the argument from Scripture for 
 adult baptism, I should at once be able to produce 
 a proof, and a proof so incontestible, that no pcedo- 
 baptist can deny it ; and the only crevice out of 
 which he can creep from the conclusion is, that 
 infants are not excluded. My assertion he is utterhf 
 unable to deny — his own he is as unable to sub- 
 stantiate. No sophistry can refute the fact, that 
 Christ was of an adult age, that the eunuch was 
 of an adult age, that the Philippian jailor, Lydia, 
 Stephanus, were all of an adult age — Ex his disce 
 omnes. 
 
 Another direct argument is, — " there were 
 always children in attendance during our Saviour's 
 ministry; therefore, it is to be inferred, he baptized 
 
103 
 
 them." Perhaps, however, this will not appear 
 quite so direct upon quoting the words of the evan- 
 gelical historian: — " Jesus himself baptized 
 not, but his disciples." That he noticed them, 
 is frequently mentioned — that he baptized them, 
 or ordered them to be baptized, never! — 
 This is a sufficient reply to the other passages 
 adduced. 
 
 We are requested to remark, with reference to 
 Mat. xix. 13 — 15, that our Saviour's condescen- 
 sion displayed so beautifully both to children 
 and parents, is by no means exclusive of the bap- 
 tism of the former, p. 138. This is the third case 
 of direct and obvious argument : let those who feel 
 its force, be convinced by it. 
 
 Mr. Ewing refers to Acts ii. 38, 39. This ap- 
 pears to be contrary to his wish or thought, a direct 
 and obvious argument for adult persons. " The 
 promise is to you and your children." Not to in- 
 sist, that the meaning is explained by the subse- 
 quent phrase, ** as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call," — not to insist also, that the term 
 children, is continually used for posterity — the in- 
 terpretation, in this instance, is determined by 
 the fact, that the promise relates exclusively to 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit, predicted by Joel, 
 which surely does not belong to infants: with 
 regard to their baptism, there exists no promise 
 whatever. 
 
04 
 
 Atto, iK, tig, tv. 
 
 The criticisms of opposing parties on these pre- 
 positions, are comparatively immaterial, and in 
 whatever manner adjusted, they must be deemed 
 insufficient of themselves to determine the con- 
 troversy. The observations contained in the Ap- 
 pendix upon this subject, and intended as a vin- 
 dication of Mr. E.'s explanations in his Grammar 
 and Lexicon, have an especial reference to some 
 remarks of my aged and ^venerable friend, Dr. 
 Ryland. I shall content myself with inserting 
 an extract of a letter recently received from him, 
 in which he refers to Mr. Ewing's statement. He 
 thus writes : — 
 
 " The great question is, if the New Testament 
 historians had intended to express going down 
 into the water, and coming up out of it, would it 
 have been natural to them to select stronger terms 
 than they have actually used? unless, indeed, 
 they had been aware, that the fact would be dis- 
 puted, and so have used repeated phrases to 
 guard against the possibility of its being denied. 
 If Carey or Ward had sent home an account of 
 their baptisms in the Ganges, or in a tank, 
 would they have used stronger expressions 1 
 If they had employed the word dip, it might be 
 said, dip often means a partial dipping only ; for 
 I dip my pen in ink, and yet dip only the nib 
 of it. 
 
 " P. 185. ' etc Spovuv cannot mean out of a 
 throne.' — 189. ' not worthy to sit on the king's 
 
105 
 
 throne. What would Dr. R. make of to or into 
 here V — I should not think of to, sure enough, 
 which is his favourite ; but I should have no ob- 
 jection to using in. Only substitute chair of state, 
 for throne, and what Englishman would say, she 
 cannot rise out of it unquestionably ! or that it is 
 absurd to talk of sitting in it ? We commonly em- 
 ploy on, with reference to a throne, as being f high 
 and lifted up,' and conveying a stronger idea of 
 dignity; but we speak as often, at this end of the 
 island, of sitting in a chair, especially in an arm- 
 chair, as of sitting on it, and also of rising out of 
 it. However, if it were true, that ek Qpovwv could 
 not mean out of a throne, would it follow, that 
 £k tou vSarog does not imply the idea of having been 
 in the water ? Would not the very same expression 
 have been used, if the person had been in it, and 
 came out of it ? 
 
 " Mr. Ewing says, ■ write upon the water, cer- 
 tainly not in it.' I think the contrary is certain ; 
 that the finger, or style, or stick, is supposed to 
 go into the water, though let it go ever so deep, 
 the impression would be only momentary. But if 
 the writer were supposed to hold the instrument 
 with which he wrote above the water, so as not to 
 penetrate it for one moment, the force of the ex- 
 pression would be lost. A different preposition is 
 
 used, John VI. 19. TrtpiiraTovvra E7ri rr)g OaXaaar}^, 
 
 walking on the sea. 
 
 " 190. I certainly believe our Lord went up 
 into the mountain, that is, not just to the foot of 
 it; but within a line which might have been drawn 
 
106 
 
 round its circumference, though not sinking into 
 the substance of it. Comp. Exod. xix. 12. 
 
 V I also think it exceedingly probable, that Peter 
 went into the sea in a boat, which seems to have 
 been his common practice, instead of casting his 
 hook as he stood on the shore. 
 
 " Quibbles f may be multiplied without end,' 
 till the common people are persuaded, that no- 
 thing can be determinately expressed by the 
 Greek prepositions. But though Mr. Ewing 
 seems to think, that he has popped upon a better 
 mode of settling this controversy, than any of his 
 brethren thought of before him, yet I am as far as 
 ever from being convinced, that we do not follow 
 the directions and example of our Lord and his 
 apostles. Mr. Ewing, however, appears to con- 
 sider it as more difficult reverently to submit to 
 infallible authority, in respect of one man's im- 
 mersing another, than in the rite to which Joshua 
 attended at Gilgal, chap. v. I cannot account for 
 his feelings." 
 
AN EXAMINATION OF DR. DWIGHTS DIS- 
 COURSES OX BAPTISM, IX HIS WORK, 
 ENTITLED, " THEOLOGY EXPLAINED AND 
 DEFEXDED." 
 
 The celebrity of the writer, not the force of his 
 arguments, induces me to notice distinctly, but 
 briefly, the erroneous statements of Dr. D wight, on 
 the subject of baptism. They occur in the vo- 
 lumes, entitled " Theology," which have obtained 
 an extensive circulation in this country ; but, in 
 remarking upon them, so far am I from any desire 
 to detract from the general merits of the publica- 
 tion, that I hail its appearance, and rejoice in its 
 popularity. 
 
 The discourses in question comprehend a view 
 of the reality and intention of baptism — the ob- 
 jections against infant baptism — the direct argu- 
 ments in its favour — the subjects — and the mode of 
 its administration. 
 
 In the first of these Sermons, there are many just 
 and important sentiments, and only one passage 
 that requires particular animadversion. The 
 Doctor states, that " when children die in infancy, 
 and are scripturally dedicated to God in baptism, 
 there is much, and very consoling reason fur- 
 nished, to believe that they arc accepted beyond 
 
103 
 
 the grave." He further says, " there is, I think, 
 reason to hope well concerning other children, 
 dying in infancy ; but there is certainly peculiar 
 reason for christian parents to entertain strong 
 consolation with regard to their offspring." 
 
 Will it be believed, that the only passages Dr. 
 Dwight adduces, in support of his theory, are in 
 direct opposition to it ? Yet such is the fact ; and 
 how so sensible a divine could have been be- 
 trayed into such an inconsistency, seems really 
 inexplicable ; unless it be imputed to the grossest 
 prejudice. He quotes from Matt. xxi. 16. " Out 
 of the mouth of babes and sucklings, thou hast 
 perfected praise;" which is our Saviour's applica- 
 tion of the prophecy in the viiith Psalm, to the 
 circumstance of the children in the temple, crying 
 " Hosannah to the Son of David." What appli- 
 cation have these passages to the baptism of infants, 
 or to their dying in infancy? Dr. Dwight, indeed, 
 has attempted to excite in his readers mind the 
 idea that there is some relevancy, by insinuating 
 that " it is, perhaps, improper to say, that praise 
 is perfected on this side of heaven." How can it 
 be improper to say so when Christ has himself 
 declared, that it was the case — that, in whatever 
 sense the term is to be understood, it was perfected 
 in the celebrations of the children in the temple ? 
 Besides, whether perfected in heaven or on earth, 
 were these exulting children infants, and were they 
 the baptized offspring of believing parents ? Dr. 
 Dwight also adduces — *■* Suffer the little children 
 to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven." Did they come to be 
 
109 
 
 baptized? Surely not, but to be " blessed" Were 
 these little children the offspring of believing pa- 
 rents — and is the language exclusive in its mean- 
 ing, or discriminating in its terms ? "Were they not 
 a promiscuous assemblage ? And admitting that 
 the words are applicable to the state beyond the 
 grave, do they not comprehend all children — 
 children as such — children of every class ? — The 
 only other citation is, " The promise is to you and 
 to your children;" and the comment is sufficiently 
 curious — " If this promise is extended in any 
 sense to those who die in infancy, and conveys to 
 them any blessings, they must be found beyond 
 the grave." Whether any one ever thought of so 
 extending it, or whether the Doctor intended his 
 doubt to be taken for proof, we cannot tell ; in 
 either case, the statement does not merit a formal 
 refutation. W T here then is the "peculiar reason," 
 for the exclusive consolation which christian pa- 
 rents may, it is supposed, entertain ? And why, if 
 baptism is to confer the heavenly glory, is there 
 reason to " hope well" of " other children ?" — 
 Really, the confusion that pervades this whole pa- 
 ragraph, is such, that had it been found in the 
 work of a judicious and sensible divine of a dis- 
 tant age and another language, few critics would 
 have hesitated in pronouncing, from intrinsic evi- 
 dence, upon its spuriousness ! 
 
 The next discourse relates to the proper sub- 
 jects of baptism; these are, it is said, " ail those 
 who believe in Christ, and publicly profess their 
 faith in him," and " the infant children of be- 
 lievers :" the latter doctrine, it is added, has been 
 
110 
 
 extensively disputed and denied ; Dr. D. therefore 
 proposes to state, and answer the objections 
 against it. I shall not now inquire, whether he 
 has omitted to mention any of the objections, but 
 examine his replies to those which he has intro- 
 duced. For the sake both of brevity and per- 
 spicuity, I shall adopt a methodical arrangement 
 of the objections, the Doctor's answer, and my own 
 reply. 
 
 Ohj. 1. "It is stated by the opposers of this 
 doctrine (Infant Baptism,) that it is not enjoined 
 by any express declaration in the Scriptures." 
 
 Dr. D.'s Answer. There are many duties in- 
 cumbent on us which are neither expressly com- 
 manded nor declared in Scripture. The principle 
 on which the objection is founded is, " nothing- 
 is our duty which is not thus commanded or de- 
 clared in the Scriptures." According to this, 
 women are under no obligation to celebrate the 
 Lord's Supper — parents to pray for their children 
 — mankind to observe the Sabbath — rulers to de- 
 fend the country, or to punish crime. It is im- 
 possible the Scriptures should specify all the doc- 
 trines and duties necessary to be believed and 
 practised. 
 
 Reply. Dr. Dwighthas confounded in his argu- 
 ment, the obvious distinction between a positive 
 duty and a moral obligation. A moral duty is 
 commanded, because it is right ; a positive institute 
 is only right, because it is commanded. All moral 
 duties arise out of general principles ; the princi- 
 ples being given, the diversified application of 
 those principles does not require to be stated in 
 
Ill 
 
 detail. For instance; the kind offices of the 
 good Samaritan were not performed from obe- 
 dience to any specific command ; but his sympa- 
 thies being excited by distress, his duty arose out 
 of the principle involved in the general precept, 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." On 
 the other hand, all positive institutions are 
 founded on express Scriptural directions; so 
 that the obligation to observe them can be traced 
 to no other source than simply the expression of 
 the divine will. Consider for a moment the flexi- 
 bility of Dr. Dwights argument, and how a Pro- 
 testant would be annoyed by it were it in the 
 hands of a Papist. The latter would require 
 nothing more of his Protestant antagonist, than 
 the admission of a principle which should con- 
 found this distinction. Once admit the inferential 
 reasoning with regard to positive institutes, which 
 is legitimate as applied to moral duties, and you 
 open a door wide enough to admit all the mum- 
 meries of Popery. 
 
 Obj. 2. " There is no certain example of infant 
 baptism in the Scriptures." 
 
 Dr. D.\s Answer. There is no instance in 
 which it is declared in so many terms that infants 
 were baptized. There are instances in which the 
 fact is involved : — house and household denote 
 children. 
 
 Reply. If, according to the doctors concession, 
 there is no instance in which it is declared in- 
 fants were baptized, the objection is valid ; for of 
 course there could be, by his own shewing, no ex- 
 ample of infant baptism. If it were even involved, 
 
112 
 
 there is still no example; it is only inference, and 
 an inference which has nothing to sustain it ; for 
 that house and household necessarily denote chil- 
 dren we deny, both on critical and historical 
 grounds. 
 
 Obj. 3. " Children cannot be the subjects of 
 faith; and faith is a necessary qualification for 
 baptism." 
 
 Dr. D.'s Answer. John the Baptist was filled 
 with the Holy Ghost from the womb ; and was 
 '■' unquestionably a subject of faith in such a 
 manner, that had he died in infancy he would cer- 
 tainly have been received to heaven." 
 
 Reply. The doctor has confounded the dis- 
 tinction between faith and holiness. An infant 
 may be sanctified from the womb, but cannot be- 
 lieve. The remark, therefore, amounts to nothing, 
 as directed against the principle which requires 
 faith, not holiness, as a prerequisite to baptism. 
 
 Obj. 4. " Infants cannot make a profession of 
 faith; and such a profession is a necessary quali- 
 fication for baptism/' 
 
 Dr. D.s Answer. That a profession of faith is 
 necessary in all instances cannot be proved. 
 Cornelius and they that were with him made no 
 such profession, and none was demanded by 
 Peter, Acts xi. 
 
 Reply. Of the persons in question it is said 
 that they spake with tongues, and magnified God. 
 The Doctor has not informed us how those who 
 spake with tongues, and magnified God, were 
 silent and passive recipients of baptism ! Suppose, 
 however, it were proved that a profession of faith 
 
113 
 
 Was not demanded, did the apostles dispense with 
 the possession of that principle? It is for the pos- 
 session of faith we contend, and for the evidence of 
 that possession. The objection is not fairly 
 stated : we demand either profession or evidence 
 in all cases ; the latter is generally given by 
 means of the former, as well as by the general 
 conduct of the individual. But infants are inca- 
 pable either of professing or giving evidence of 
 that of which they cannot be the subjects. 
 
 Obj. 5. " Persons baptized in infancy prove 
 that they were improper candidates for this ordi- 
 nance by the future degeneracy of their conduct." 
 
 Dr. D.s Answer. The real amount of this ob- 
 jection is, that no persons can be proper subjects 
 of baptism, to the human eye, who, after their re- 
 ception of this sacrament, prove themselves to be 
 unrenewed. The objection fails because it proves 
 too much. If we are required to baptize none 
 but those who are regenerated, it is necessary we 
 should know whether the candidates are rege- 
 nerated or not. 
 
 Reply. It is necessary that we should have 
 satisfactory evidence of the regeneration of the can- 
 didate for baptism prior to the performance of the 
 rite ; to know what is the state of the heart is the 
 exclusive prerogative of Deity. With respect to 
 those who have arrived at the period of personal 
 responsibility evidences may be obtained, ac- 
 cording to our Saviour's declaration, " By their 
 fruits ye shall know them :" they are capacitated 
 to repent, and to " bring forth fruits meet for re- 
 pentance." But what can be said of unconscious 
 
 i 
 
114 
 
 infants, who are altogether incapable of supplying 
 evidence of any kind that they are the proper 
 subjects of baptism, if the sanctiiication of their 
 incipient powers be a prerequisite to the adminis- 
 tration of this ordinance ? They are heirs of a 
 depraved nature ; and what evidence can any one 
 give that he is or ever w r ill be the subject of that 
 grace which alone can sanctify the soul ? That 
 all are not renewed in infancy is lamentably 
 evinced by the subsequent lives of thousands 
 with regard to whom the symbolical representa- 
 tion of their regenerate state is awfully premature. 
 That some may be sanctified from the womb we 
 do not question ; but we possess no means of dis- 
 tinguishing between them and others ; the differ- 
 ence, wide as it is, can only be evident to him 
 in whose purposes of sovereign mercy they are 
 included. This, however, is not the condition of 
 adults, who are both capable of professing their 
 faith in Christ, and of proving the genuineness of 
 their profession by the purity of their conduct. 
 That these signs may,, in some instances, be coun- 
 terfeited is nothing to the purpose. In fact, Dr. 
 D wight has confounded the distinction between 
 being misled by false evidence, and acting without 
 any evidence at all. A jury may be deceived, and 
 often have been, by false and perjured witnesses ; 
 but who would thence infer the safety of con- 
 demning men without evidence ? The application 
 of the principle of Dr. D wight's argument to ju- 
 dicial proceedings will at once illustrate its fallacy. 
 It would be a singular position, indeed, that the 
 absence of all evidence is a sufficient ground of ac- 
 
115 
 
 tion. The question, therefore, returns, — Would 
 the apostles have baptized any one without even 
 the slightest evidence that the candidate was the subject 
 of that moral transformation which the rite of baptism 
 was designed to symbolize? Let our opponents 
 seriously consider and candidly answer this 
 question. 
 
 Obj. 6. " All baptized persons are, by that 
 class of Christians to whom I have attached my- 
 self, considered as members of the Christian 
 church ; yet those who are baptized in infancy 
 are not treated as if they possessed this character. 
 Particularly they are not admitted to the sacra- 
 mental supper, nor made subjects of ecclesiastical 
 discipline." 
 
 Dr. D.'s Answer. The conduct and opinions 
 of those with whom I am connected are, in a 
 greater or less degree, erroneous and indefensible. 
 If baptized infants are members of the Christian 
 church, we are bound to determine and declare 
 the nature and extent of their membership. That 
 they are members of the church I believe. All 
 persons are baptized not in but into the name of 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that 
 is, they are introduced into the family of God, 
 and are called godly, christians, spiritual, sons and 
 daughters of God, and children of God, throughout 
 the Scriptures. All persons baptized, therefore, are 
 members of the Christian church. Still they are 
 not members in the sense commonly intended by 
 the term. The word church has various signifi- 
 cations ; denoting the invisible kingdom of Christ, 
 consisting of all who are sanctified '—the visible 
 
 i 2 
 
116 
 
 kingdom, consisting of all who have publicly pro- 
 fessed religion, and their baptized offspring — any 
 body of christians, holding the same doctrines, and 
 united in the same worship and discipline — and 
 christians who worship together in the same place. 
 Hence, when persons baptized in infancy, are said 
 to be members of the church, the word cannot be 
 used in all these senses, and therefore something 
 beside baptism, or a profession of religion, is ne- 
 cessary to constitute a membership of any parti- 
 cular church. When persons are dismissed from 
 one church to another, they are not members of 
 any particular church till they have united to the 
 other church in form. A minister, by his ordina- 
 tion, is constituted not a minister of a particular 
 church, but of the christian church at large : hence, 
 a person may be a member of the church at large, 
 and not a member of a particular church. When 
 the eunuch was baptized, he became a member 
 of the church general only, not of any particular 
 church. Thus persons baptized in infancy, are mem- 
 bers of the church of Christ, that is, of the church 
 general. Baptism renders any person capable of 
 membership in a particular church, if he is dis- 
 posed and otherwise prepared; but neither this, 
 nor his profession of religion, will constitute him 
 such a member: this is to be done only by means 
 of a covenant between him and the church. Per- 
 sons baptized in infancy, are baptized on the 
 ground of that profession of religion which their 
 parents have made — whenever they themselves 
 make the same profession, they become entitled to 
 communion at the sacramental table. I have there- 
 
117 
 
 fore shewn, that a profession of religion is ne- 
 cessary to constitute us members of the church of 
 Christ, and that what may be called a church 
 covenant is indispensable to constitute us members 
 of particular churches. 
 
 Reply. At the very outset of this statement, 
 our opponent is guilty of the most glaring sophism. 
 He dexterously changes the term, baptized infants, 
 to persons, adding, they are introduced into the 
 family of God, and are called godly, christians, 
 spiritual, sons and daughters of God, and children 
 of God. But who are so introduced, and so called ? 
 Baptized infants, or persons ? Dr. Dwight himself, 
 at the conclusion of the passage, denies that the 
 former are introduced into the family of God, for 
 he declares, that baptism only renders a person 
 capable of membership if he is disposed. Perhaps, 
 it may be said, that he limits the statement here 
 to a particular church : be it so — will our poedo- 
 baptist brethren admit, that baptized infants are 
 introduced into the family of God? Here is, in 
 fact, another sophism, lurking under a change of 
 expression ; for the argument would fail, even 
 upon his own principles, unless the phrases, church 
 general, and family of God, were to be deemed 
 synonymous. But even a profligate may be a 
 member of the church general, if baptized in in- 
 fancy, using the term in the vague sense in which 
 our author employs it ; for, according to him, that 
 is sufficient to constitute such membership; but, 
 is a profligate therefore introduced into the family 
 of God? If not, then baptized infants are not so 
 introduced, although adult persons may, by giving 
 
118 
 
 evidence of their piety: in this case, however, the 
 two phrases have different significations, and yet 
 are applied to the same thing. Besides, are bap- 
 tized infants denominated godly, christians, spiritual, 
 sons and daughters of God, and children of God 1 
 Our opponents will not contend it; consequently, 
 though persons (or individuals in the exercise of 
 their understanding, and under the influence of 
 genuine piety,) may be so designated, the descrip- 
 tion is totally inapplicable to infants. 
 
 We may further demand, what is the church 
 general, as distinct from the collective bodies of 
 particular churches ? In what conceivable sense 
 can it be said, that a person belonging to no one 
 of the churches that constitute the church general, 
 nevertheless is a member of that church general ? 
 And what is the church general, if it be not the 
 family of God? And yet, it is presumed, that an 
 individual may be actually a member of this 
 family, and yet not qualified to be a member of it ! 
 If any thing is here maintained, it is that a person 
 may be a member of the family of God, and not a 
 godly person ; which is certainly not a very intel- 
 ligible statement for so distinguished a divine. 
 
 Dr. Dwight, and many of our pcedobaptist 
 friends, continually assume that an infant is a 
 member of the visible church, or church general : 
 but where do they find the proof? It is assumed, 
 as necessary to the support of pcedobaptism, and 
 of episcopalianism, of which the former is an 
 essential pillar, and without which a national 
 church could not easily be founded. On the other 
 hand, we assume nothing in our argument without 
 
119 
 
 positive demonstration, and demonstration which 
 even our opponents admit to be conclusive in its 
 nature. For instance, we assert and substantiate 
 by an evidence which all parties acknowledge to 
 be valid, that adults were baptized, and that they 
 were baptized upon a declaration, or an evidence of 
 their faith. The narrative of the eunuch, and the 
 rest of the cases in the Acts, are precisely in point, 
 and will be admitted as proofs of this statement ; 
 if our brethren proceed to aver, that infants were 
 also baptized, of course without profession, and 
 when incapable of it, and made members of the 
 visible church, the onus probandi devolves upon 
 them, and it is a burden which they cannot sus- 
 tain. If, in the New Testament, persons of any 
 class, baptized children or adults, are represented 
 as members of the church, either general or indi- 
 vidual, while destitute of faith in Christ, let the 
 paragraph be cited ; for ourselves we distinctly 
 affirm, it is no where to be found; and if it be not, 
 Dr. Dwight's whole statement is sophistical and 
 utterly falacious ! 
 
 Having thus noticed several objections without 
 refuting them, our author proceeds to " direct 
 arguments for infant baptism." Three are specified; 
 of which the first relates to the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant. The reasonings here are similar to those 
 of Dr. Wardlaw and others, hereafter to be exa- 
 mined . 
 
 The second consideration adduced is, that " all 
 the observations made on this subject in the New 
 Testament accord with his view of it, and confirm 
 the doctrine of infant baptism." What are these ? 
 
120 
 
 The expression of Christ, in Mark ix. 31. to 
 *" receive a child in the name of Christ," is, he 
 affirms, " to receive him because he belongs to 
 Christ;" which is " no other than that of receiv- 
 ing infants into the church." His own brethren 
 differ from him in this interpretation; besides, the 
 expression is not as here quoted, but " whosoever 
 shall receive one of such children in my name ;" 
 and the St/riac, Arabic, and Persic versions, agree 
 in rendering it one like to this child. Our Lord also 
 refers afterwards expressly to " one of the little 
 ones who believe in him." Two other passages, 
 (Mat. ix. 13—15; and Actsii. 38, 39.) have been 
 often explained, and seen perfectly plain. How 
 Christ's blessing them in the former case, and 
 speaking of the posterity of the Jews in the latter, 
 implies either baptism in the one instance, or in- 
 fants in the other, is inconceivable ! Mr. M'Lean 
 has most forcibly argued, with regard to the for- 
 mer passage, that so far from countenancing infant 
 baptism, it is a clear example to the contrary. 
 " Here are children brought to Christ, declared of 
 his kingdom and blessed, and thus became visible 
 subjects; yet we read nothing of their baptism. 
 We are sure that Christ did not baptize them, for 
 he baptized none, (John iv. 2.) and it is certain 
 his disciples had not baptized them formerly, else 
 they would not have forbid their being brought to 
 Christ; nor did our Lord command them then to 
 baptize them, though he declares them of his 
 kingdom, and blesses them. Hence we learn, that 
 infants may be acknowledged to be of the kingdom 
 of God without baptizing them." The only re-i 
 
121 
 
 maining example is taken from 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 " The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
 believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the 
 husband, else were your children unclean ; but 
 now are they holy." It denotes, says our author, 
 that the unbelieving parentis so purified, by means 
 of his relation to the believing parent, that their 
 mutual offspring are not unclean, but may be 
 offered to God ; or, as he before explains it, may 
 come into his temple. The children of believing 
 parents may therefore be offered to God in bap- 
 tism. The Doctor has evidently here lost sight of 
 the distinction between the legal and evangelical 
 senses of the term holy. The unbelieving parent 
 is pur[ficd by the believing one ! Is this a doctrine 
 to be found in Scripture ? Does it accord with the 
 universal representation throughout its hallowed 
 pages of the personal nature of religion ? How is 
 an unbeliever purified by a believer ? The apostle 
 moreover, is not writing upon the subject of bap- 
 tism, but obviating the scruples of christians about 
 the continuance of their marriage relation with 
 infidels. The children, he says, would not be holy 
 unless the parents were so; the holiness mentioned 
 therefore must be of the same nature in both cases, 
 and the meaning is, the marriage continued to be 
 lawful, and neither party should be discarded on 
 account of the Christianity of the other, because 
 this would produce endless difficulties and litiga- 
 tions with regard to posterity. The argument is, 
 " You must not put away your unbelieving 
 wives, if they are willing to remain with you, 
 otherwise you must also discard your children, as 
 
122 
 
 the law of separation from the heathen obliged the 
 Israelites to do with regard to the children who 
 were conjoined with the unclean party (Deut. vii. 
 3. Ezra x. 3.) Under the Gospel dispensation, 
 both the unbelieving party and the children are 
 to be retained." 
 
 Dr. Dwight also maintains, as a third direct ar- 
 gument, that infant baptism was uniformly prac- 
 tised by the early christians. The value of this 
 and similar assertions, will be estimated in the 
 reply to Dr. Wardlaw. It is singular enough, that 
 Dr. Dwight, Dr. Wardlaw, and others, who pro- 
 fess to trace infant baptism to the apostles, quote 
 only incidental allusions from one or two writers 
 of at least a century or more afterwards, and from 
 passages of questionable authenticity and doubtful 
 meaning ! 
 
 In the last discourse upon this subject (Sermon 
 159) there is little to require particular animadver- 
 sion ; the former part of it consists, in fact, of a 
 repetition of the sentiments already discussed ; the 
 latter part respects the mode of administration. 
 The point of difference regards the assertion, that 
 " water may be administered indifferently, either 
 by sprinkling, affusion, or immersion." He affirms, 
 tint " the body of learned critics and lexicographers 
 declare, that the original meaning of Ba7m£w and 
 Barrw, is to tinge, stain, dye, or colour, and that 
 whsn immersion is meant, it is only a secondary 
 and occasional sense." This is passing strange, and 
 I confess, that the only way in which, upon the 
 priaciples of christian charity, I can account for 
 so untrue a statement is, by concluding that 
 
123 
 
 Dr. D wight never examined them! Let any one 
 look at Scapula : the first meanings are mergo, seu 
 
 burner go, to dip, to plunge : let him consult Ste- 
 phanies, Hederic, Suicerus, Schleusner — all the au- 
 thorities. I demand only a simple inspection of 
 them, as an answer to this strange and erroneous 
 representation. 
 
 I pass over several citations, which are refuted 
 in the discussion of Mr. Ewings statements, and 
 I omit to comment on the remarks, that it is incre- 
 dible that John should have immersed the people, 
 and impossible that Peter and his companions 
 should have done so on the day of Pentecost, as 
 really unworthy of a serious refutation. 
 
 " Christ has expressly taught us," says the 
 Doctor, " that immersion is unessential to the 
 administration of this ordinance. "' The attempted 
 proof of this assertion is founded on the narra- 
 tive in the thirteenth chapter of John, respect- 
 ing the condescension of Christ in washing the 
 feet of Peter ; particularly the words of our 
 Lord — " He that is washed, needeth not save 
 to wash his feet; but is clean every whit." The 
 argument is, that a symbolical washing, that is, 
 sanctification, of which the act in the present in- 
 stance is considered to have been the sign, is per- 
 fect, although applied only to the feet; as perfect 
 as if applied to the hands and head : but the ex- 
 pression extends to every other symbolical wash- 
 ing, and therefore to baptism. 
 
 A remark or two will suffice to shew the entire 
 fallacy of this statement. 
 
 1. Christ has not expressly taught us any thing, 
 
124 
 
 in this passage, upon the subject of baptism, if by 
 the word expressly, we are to understand " in 
 direct terms," which is its essential signification. 
 If any thing is taught, it is obvious by implication 
 only ; but that the implication is, that " immer- 
 sion is not essential to baptism," cannot be main- 
 tained. 
 
 2. Were it admitted, that any thing is taught 
 by inference respecting baptism, the fair deduc- 
 tion would be in favour of the sentiment which 
 Dr. Dwight opposes. There is an allusion in the 
 narrative to washing the whole body, and to wash- 
 ing the feet ; but, in either case, the washing is of 
 a kind to imply immersion. Bathing, the prac- 
 tice alluded to in the former case, will be allowed 
 to have been performed by immersion : washing 
 the feet is also an act of immersion, as commonly 
 performed, and as specifically represented in this 
 passage. Jesus " poured water," — not upon the 
 feet, but — " into a bason, and began to wash the 
 feet of the disciples." If this action, therefore, 
 be considered as symbolical of baptism, so far as 
 the mode is concerned, it would require im- 
 mersion. 
 
 3. There is a lurking sophism in the use of the 
 expression, " symbolical washing." It may be 
 true, that the washing represented sanctification, 
 or rather sincerity of heart ; but, it is not said, to 
 represent baptism ; it was not therefore baptism. 
 
 If there were any propriety in the phrase, 
 " symbolical washing," or any such significance 
 in the conduct of our Lord as would sustain the 
 poedobaptist objection, this must have been the 
 
performance of an ordinance, not a simple expres 
 sion of humility. 
 
 It was in every sense a common washing of the 
 feet, and not a symbolical rite: intended solely to 
 give a practical exhibition of the spirit which it 
 became the disciples to cultivate — " If I then, 
 your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye 
 also ought to wash one anothers' feet." From the 
 cleansing nature of the water, the Saviour takes 
 occasion to advert to the general purity of his fol- 
 lowers, and to the lamentable exception which 
 existed in the particular case of Judas. But are 
 we justified in denominating this action a " sym- 
 bolical washing," because our Lord availed him- 
 self of the favourable opportunity of allusively 
 communicating some important truths ? And if 
 we were, has this any connection with the rite of 
 baptism ? The argument of Dr. Dwight would 
 amount to this — " because Jesus washed the feet 
 of the disciples, and because washing the feet was 
 as good an emblem of sanctification as washing 
 the whole body, therefore baptism may be admi- 
 nistered by sprinkling or pouring !" Is it possible 
 to conceive of any statement more illogical and 
 inconclusive ? 
 
 If, however, it were even conceded, that there 
 is an allusion to baptism, it might admit of another 
 inference which would not be at all gratifying to 
 our opponents, but which would certainly be much 
 more natural and obvious than that which Dr. 
 Dwight endeavours to establish. The inference 
 would be, not, as he says, that immersion is un- 
 essential to baptism, but that washing the feet is 
 
12G 
 
 essential. We might demand of our opponents, 
 why they pour, and sprinkle, and do not wash 1 And 
 why they pour or sprinkle, or simply touch with 
 a drop of water the face, and not the feet, or the 
 hands? Where is their symbolical washing, when 
 they never attempt to wash at all ? 
 
 The last citation intended to substantiate, the 
 pcedobaptist doctrine of the mode of administer- 
 ing baptism, is from the thirty-sixth chapter of 
 Ezekiel — " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
 you, and ye shall be clean ; and will put my Spi- 
 rit within you, and cause you to walk in my sta- 
 tutes." — " It cannot be denied," says Dr. Dwight, 
 " that this is symbolical language, in which God 
 thought it proper to denote regeneration, by the 
 affusion of the Spirit upon the soul." But it is 
 obvious, that so far from representing the affusion 
 of the Spirit upon the soul, God is declared to put 
 his Spirit within his people. Whatever interpre- 
 tation be given, it must be admitted, that pouring 
 upon, or sprinkling, are very different acts from 
 putting in, or implanting. Instead of this state- 
 ment, being undeniable, one would suppose it to 
 be impossible not to perceive its entire inconclusive- 
 ness and fallacy. 
 
STRICTURES ON DR. WARDLAW'S THREE LECTURES 
 ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 All the poedobaptist writers notice the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, and endeavour to establish the 
 validity of their practice by inferential reasonings 
 from that institution; but as Dr. Wardlaw treats 
 this part of the controversy in a more elaborate 
 manner than either Mr. Ewing or Dr. D wight, or 
 than most others on their side of the question, and 
 as it is exciting an increasing degree of attention 
 almost every day, I have thought it suitable to 
 incorporate with my present plan, an investigation 
 of the principal statements contained in these 
 Lectures. 
 
 I perceive that there are two general conside- 
 rations, which evidently influence all the reason- 
 ings of our poedobaptist friends, and the propriety 
 of which they find it necessary always to pre- 
 suppose. As these are often implied, and not 
 plainly expressed, they have the effect of produc- 
 ing confusion, without enforcing conviction — of 
 perplexing by their subtlety, without vanquish- 
 ing by their strength; their detection, conse- 
 quently, becomes of primary importance in the 
 present discussion. The first of these relates to 
 the basis of the argument from the covenant of 
 
128 
 
 Abraham ; the second, to the identity of the other 
 divine engagements and promises recorded in the 
 book of Genesis, with that particular covenant, the 
 nature of which is now contested. 
 
 The general basis of the pcedobaptist argument 
 from the Abrahamic covenant is, that the ancient 
 law of circumcision may be applied to the more 
 recent appointment of baptism, and that to argue 
 from the one to the other is a sound and legitimate 
 principle of reasoning. This, however, we must 
 deem altogether exceptionable. Each institution 
 is of the nature of an independent law, a law of 
 that economy under which it was appointed. 
 Circumcision was a law or institute of the Mosaic 
 economy, enacted for particular purposes expli- 
 citly stated at the time by the Divine Legislator; 
 baptism is a law or institute of the christian dis- 
 pensation, enjoined in a similar manner, and by 
 the same indisputable authority. But neither the 
 one nor the other originated in the fitness of things, 
 or in any consideration of a moral nature ; the 
 propriety of each is traceable solely to the will of 
 the institutor, and the obligation to practise either 
 rite arises out of the revelation of that will. This 
 is no new principle, but one universally admitted 
 and constantly applied to all the institutions of 
 worship. Hence the necessity of circumcision, or 
 the necessity of baptism, is to be ascertained by the 
 declared law of the case — by the terms in which 
 either is promulgated, and the sanction which gives 
 them validity. Here are two divine institutions, 
 appointed at the distance of many centuries, and 
 under two distinct economies of Providence. To 
 
12') 
 
 know what circumcision was, and by whom to be 
 observed, we must repair to the recorded enact- 
 ments ; to know what baptism is, it was requi- 
 site to make a similar appeal. Having proceeded 
 thus far, and having found that the command for 
 the observance of the one contains no allusion to 
 the other — that there is in the appointment of cir- 
 cumcision, no anticipating reference to baptism, 
 and in the institution of baptism, no retrospective 
 glance at circumcision — we arrive at the discovery 
 of another fact, namely, that the one has ceased — 
 that it ceased with the economy to which it was 
 primarily attached — and that in the newly insti- 
 tuted rite there is no mention of the former, no 
 reference to its existence, or to its termination ; no 
 one term, either direct or allusive, calculated to 
 excite the idea, that any connection subsisted 
 between them. If the whole, or any part of the 
 previous institution, were intended to furnish a 
 ground for the observance of the subsequently 
 established rite, if there were any such intended 
 analogy or relation between the two, as to con- 
 stitute the ground or reason of the enactment in 
 either case, or any such analogy as was meant to 
 afford an example for the due observance of either, 
 it must have been stated : whereas both the one 
 and the other rest on the simple statutory principle 
 of the command. Circumcision then, being a po- 
 sitive institution, cannot furnish a rule for another 
 positive institution, since each stands upon its own 
 independent basis, is never recognized as in any 
 way connected with the other, and is perfectly 
 different in the mode and reasons of its observance; 
 
 K 
 
130 
 
 much less can circumcision furnish any sanction 
 to the practice of infant baptism, since that is 
 never once mentioned either in the Old Testament 
 or the New. 
 
 The second source of perplexity in this part of 
 the controversy, arises from the pcedobaptist at- 
 tempt to identify all the ancient promises and 
 covenants with the law of circumcision. It is, we 
 admit, essential to give even plausibility to their 
 argument, to view them as one ; but truth requires 
 them to be considered as altogether distinct. To 
 judge the more accurately upon this subject, and 
 to come to the very point of disagreement between 
 the two classes of disputants, and thus to be en- 
 abled to dispose of Dr. Wardlaw's reasonings, it will 
 now be necessary to advert to the covenant in 
 question, called the Covenant of Circumcision ; and 
 the better to comprehend its purport, and to prove 
 its peculiarity, it shall be cited at length from the 
 sacred record. " I will make my covenant between 
 me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. Be- 
 hold, my covenant is ivith thee, and thou shall be a 
 father of many nations — a father of many nations 
 have J made thee — / will establish my covenant be- 
 tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their 
 generations, for an everlasting covenant ; to be a 
 God unto thee, and thy seed after thee. And I will 
 give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land 
 irJicrein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, 
 for an everlasting possession; and I will be their 
 God. This is my covenant which ye shall keep be- 
 tween me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every 
 man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye 
 
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it 
 shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. 
 And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised 
 among you, every man-child in your generations ; he 
 that is born in the house, or bought with money of any 
 stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is bom 
 in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, 
 must needs be circumcised : and my covenant shall be 
 in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the 
 uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin 
 is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his 
 people ; he hath broken my covenant." Gen. xvii. 2, 
 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 — 14. In Romans iv. 11. the Apostle 
 speaks of Abraham having received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision. Let a person, unbiassed by any pre- 
 vious system, put into ordinary language the 
 covenanted blessings in the above recited para- 
 graph ; let him impartially state its entire import. 
 Would he not inevitably give the following inter- 
 pretation ? Circumcision was a sign of the esta- 
 blishment of a covenant with Abraham and his 
 posterity, denoting that it was the divine purpose 
 to increase his family to a remarkable degree, so 
 that they should become a great nation, and 
 even be diffused afar over the surface of the earth 
 — to manifest a peculiar and unalterable regard to 
 his family as their God, by the ample fulfilment 
 of the agreement which he now condescended to 
 form with their illustrious ancestor, and which sti- 
 pulated their extraordinary multiplication — and to 
 give them Canaan for an inheritance. All per- 
 sons, however attached to the family, whether 
 as children or servants, were to undergo the pre- 
 
 k 2 
 
122 
 
 scribed rite, in order to distinguish them from the 
 surrounding nations, and to evince that they be- 
 longed to the people whom God had especially 
 chosen. This token of association with Abraham, 
 and participation of his privileges, was, it appears, 
 bestowed irrespectively of personal character, 
 conduct, or faith; for the purchased slave received 
 it as well as the home-born child, whether a be- 
 liever in the God of Abraham or not, and simply 
 as a part of his domestic establishment. But 
 though they were to undergo the painful rite, the 
 promise of inheritance was restricted to the pos- 
 terity of the individual who stood as their federal 
 representative, and who, by this ordinance, were 
 separated and distinguished from all the Gentile 
 nations. 
 
 Dr. W. commences the argument of his dis- 
 courses by affirming that circumcision " was a 
 sign of the blessings bestowed in justification. It 
 represented the taking away of sin ; both in its 
 guilt and its pollution, that is, it represented the 
 two great blessings of justification and sanctifica- 
 tion." It was also, he adds, " a sign that the 
 seed, in whom all nations were to be blessed, 
 should come from the loins of Abraham." 
 
 Will Dr. W. or any of his brethren, have the 
 goodness to point out the phrases which represent 
 the two great blessings of justification and sanctifi- 
 cation ? Here is not only a general statement of the 
 existence of a covenant between God and Abra- 
 ham, but a specification of the design of that co- 
 venant, and the blessings of which it gave assur- 
 ance to that eminent servant of God. Is justifi- 
 
133 
 
 cation mentioned? Is sanctification intimated ? Is 
 the removal of sin promised ? Were the infants 
 of eight days old, were the born servants, or the 
 purchased slaves, spiritually renewed by being 
 externally circumcised, or was the token of their 
 belonging to Abrahams family, a proof of their 
 actually possessing, or being the predestined par- 
 takers of Abraham s faith ? 
 
 " But it is urged," says Mr. Kinghorn,* " the 
 Lord declared to Abraham, ' I will establish my 
 covenant to be a God to thee, and thy seed after 
 thee.' Gen. xvii. 7. True; but in what sense? 
 Surely none will maintain, that God engaged to 
 bestow special spiritual blessings on all the natural 
 seed of Abraham ; for this was not the fact in any 
 age ; and we cannot imagine the covenant intended 
 to point out what was not fulfilled. In a great 
 variety or respects God was the God of Abraham's 
 posterity, and still is their God : when they obeyed 
 him, he blessed them ; when they rebelled, he 
 punished them in an awful and marked manner. 
 But, in neither case, do we see any evidence that 
 spiritual grace was bestowed through the means of 
 circumcision; and unless this could be established, 
 the end for which the present argument is urged 
 is not obtained ; for every thing else extends no 
 farther than to national blessings, and the enjoy- 
 ment of external means of improvement" 
 
 That Dr. Wardlaw errs at the very comraence- 
 
 *The Argument, in support of Infant Baptism, from the Co- 
 venant of Circumcision, examined, and shewn to be invalid. 
 p. 10. 
 
134 
 
 ment, in common with his brethren, is further 
 obvious from the considerations, that neither he 
 nor they can ever rind the passage in which the 
 covenant of circumcision is called the covenant of 
 grace — nor can they point out the text wherein 
 the temporal blessings given to Abraham are men- 
 tioned in the covenant of grace — nor can they 
 shew, if the term were identical, how Melchizedek, 
 Lot, and others, should be included in the cove- 
 nant of grace, which none will deny, yet were not 
 in the covenant of circumcision; or how Ishmael 
 and Esau should be in the covenant of circumci- 
 sion, yet had no portion of the covenant of grace — 
 nor is it possible for them to obviate the difficulty, 
 that if Abraham were the federal head of his 
 natural and spiritual seed, or of the covenant of 
 grace, and Christ is confessedly the head of the 
 same covenant, there must be two heads of that 
 covenant, having, in fact, as such, a conflict- 
 ing title of superiority. It is the first and great 
 mistake respecting the covenant itself, that per- 
 plexes the whole subject, pollutes all the subse- 
 quent reasonings, and confounds together things 
 which essentially differ. 
 
 Circumcision is also denominated " a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith, which he (Abraham) 
 had, yet being uncircumcised." Our author con- 
 siders the meaning to be, that it was a seal or 
 pledge of righteousness or justification, being by 
 the faith which he had in uncircumcision. It was 
 not, he thinks, a seal of his personal faith or ac- 
 ceptance, but of justification, being by " the faith 
 of Abraham." It is declared, however, with re- 
 
135 
 
 ference to a period long previous to his circumci- 
 sion, that " he believed in the Lord, and he 
 accounted it to him for righteousness," and the 
 Apostle pleads for justification by faith, from the 
 fact of Abraham's being so justified before the co- 
 venant of circumcision was promulgated. It is 
 termed " a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 which he had, yet being uncircumcised." This 
 language surely represents it as a token of his ac- 
 ceptance as a believer — a seal of his justification 
 before he was circumcised —a public pledge that 
 his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, or 
 that God accepted his faith, and an exhibition of 
 the doctrine, that their faith should be imputed in 
 a similar manner to all subsequent believers. Thus 
 it involved essentially a personal reference, while 
 it represented a general truth. It could in no 
 other sense be a seal or pledge — neither the infant 
 children of Abraham, nor the strangers in his fa- 
 mily, could receive or comprehend the significance 
 uf any such attestation. Besides, no language 
 can be more express : "If Abraham were justified 
 by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before 
 God. For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham 
 believed God, and it was counted unto him for 
 righteousness." Dr. Wardlaw's objection, that a 
 direct and positive assurance of his being a be- 
 liever, seems quite incompatible with the idea of 
 the propriety of further trials of his faith, can have 
 no force in its application to our sentiment ; be- 
 cause it would, if it possessed any weight, equally 
 invalidate his own statement, inasmuch as the 
 reason why his faith should be tried would be 
 
130 
 
 equally available whether he were assured of 
 acceptance on the ground of his personal faith, or 
 of its identity, in point of character, with the faith 
 of all other genuine believers. 
 
 This representation is, however, altogether un- 
 founded ; because the very persons who are de- 
 scribed in the apostolical epistles as being sealed 
 by the Spirit to the day of redemption, and re- 
 joicing with unspeakable joy in Christ, were, ne- 
 vertheless, severely exercised with manifold tri- 
 bulations. 
 
 It is further argued, — "The promises made to 
 Abraham were expressly repeated by God to 
 Isaac and Jacob : to the former, Gen. xxvi. 1 — 5. 
 and to the latter, Gen. xxviii. 10 — 15. Now I 
 hardly think any one will say, that while circum- 
 cision was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith, it was to Isaac and Jacob, these heirs 
 with him of the same promise, a mere mark of 
 their carnal descent from Abraham, and of their 
 heirship of temporal blessings. Was it not to 
 them a seal or pledge of the faithfulness of God to 
 that promise of which they were fellow-heirs 
 with their father? that is, a seal of .spiritual 
 blessings, which is the same thing, in effect, as a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith. I cannot think 
 it was less. Yet if it was so, we have here a seal 
 of spiritual blessings administered, by divine com- 
 mand, to infants of eight days old. And this 
 shews there is no absurdity in the thing itself, 
 and no absurdity in the idea of circumcision 
 being a seal, to all who should afterwards believe, 
 of the righteousness of faith, or of the same 
 
137 
 
 blessings which it sealed originally; for what 
 may be in one case may be in ten thousand." 
 p. 14. 
 
 The promises made to Abraham, and renewed 
 to Isaac and Jacob, were partly temporal, and 
 partly spiritual : this will be at once obvious by 
 simply perusing the above-mentioned passages in 
 Genesis. These passages do not recite the cove- 
 nant of circumcision only, but in a brief form that 
 and the preceding engagements with Abraham, 
 comprehensive of spiritual blessings. I have al- 
 ready shewn that the covenant of circumcision 
 included solely temporal blessings ; and that the 
 rite was instituted to distinguish the Jews from 
 other nations, and to shew their title to the land 
 of Canaan. The single promise of another kind 
 here quoted, — " In thy seed shall all the nations 
 of the earth be blessed," — refers to another cove- 
 nant, previously made, and not peculiar to Abra- 
 ham, but a renewal and ratification of the promise 
 to our first parents. Abraham, therefore, sus- 
 tained the twofold relation of the representative 
 of those who should believe the original promise, 
 and were therefore his spiritual descendants, and 
 the political head of the Jewish nation, and 
 trustee, if I may so express it, of their temporal 
 possessions, the assurance of which was connected 
 with the rite of circumcision. 
 
 Circumcision was, I allow, " a seal to Abraham 
 of the righteousness of faith." Dr. Wardlaw says 
 he can " hardly think any one will say, that while 
 this was the case with him, it was to Isaac and 
 Jacob, heirs of the same promise, a mere mark of 
 
138 
 
 carnal descent, and of heirship to temporal 
 blessings." Undoubtedly Isaac and Jacob were 
 co-heirs with Abraham, and circumcision indi- 
 cated to them what it did to all his posterity; for 
 in fact there is no reason for this discrimination 
 in favour of those eminent patriarchs ; that is, it 
 indicated to them their heirship by birth of the 
 temporal promises, and their equal participation 
 by faith of the spiritual blessings. The indiscri- 
 minate administration of circumcision to all the 
 seed of Abraham was the mark of their separation 
 from other nations, and possession of certain tem- 
 poral blessings peculiarly appropriated to them ; 
 their enjoyment of the spiritual mercies of the 
 covenant was expressly suspended upon their 
 faith ; for in all the apostolic reasonings upon the 
 subject, the distinction is constantly, and with 
 the utmost care preserved; — " They which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham." 
 
 It is not only obvious that our author is wrong 
 in stating that we have here "a seal of spiritual 
 blessings administered to infants of eight days 
 old," but the idea is manifestly inadmissible. A 
 seal, our opponents argue, is a pledge. It was a 
 pledge to Abraham —of what ? of the righteous- 
 ness of faith, or of his justification through faith? 
 Dr. W. before states it represented the two great 
 blessings of justification and sanctification. Was 
 it then a pledge of justification to infants of eight 
 days old ? This must be conceded upon the prin- 
 ciples of our author and his friends. But here 
 there is only one alternative; either they were 
 justified and sanctified at the time, or they were 
 
139 
 
 to be in future. It will not be affirmed they were 
 so at the time ; though even this ought in all con- 
 sistency to be maintained, as this was the essen- 
 tial purport of the seal to Abraham. Were they 
 then afterwards partakers of these spiritual 
 blessings ? Were the descendants of Abraham 
 universally believers? Did all the infant off- 
 spring of the Jews partake of redemption ? Were 
 they indeed chosen to eternal life because they 
 were circumcised ? Will any one affirm this ? or 
 aim to vindicate for one moment such an opinion, 
 in defiance of fact, and of apostolic authority, — 
 " Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor 
 uncircumcision, but faith, which worketh by 
 love?" Gal. v. 6. To say it was a seal of righte- 
 ousness to those who should afterwards believe, 
 is to affirm that it had two different meanings in 
 its administration to the different classes of in- 
 fants, which it required an omniscient wisdom to 
 discriminate. Unless the believing children were 
 pointed out, it could be no seal of righteousness 
 when administered to them ; for how could it seal 
 that which they might never possess ? And in 
 what passage is circumcision restricted to the 
 believing infant posterity of Abraham ? 
 
 Abraham is described, (Rom. iv. 12,) "The 
 father of circumcision, to them who are not of the 
 circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps 
 of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had, 
 b e i li 2^ yet uncircumcised." It is previously stated 
 that he received this sign and seal " that he might 
 be the father of all them that believe." Dr. W. 
 argues, that if circumcision was only a mark of 
 
140 
 
 carnal descent, and a title to temporal blessings, 
 Abraham was the father of circumcision, in the 
 only true and proper sense of the appellation, to 
 all his fleshly seed ; yet he is here declared to 
 have been the father of circumcision, not to those 
 only who were circumcised in the flesh, but to 
 those also who walked in the steps of his faith. 
 Circumcision was therefore a seal of spiritual 
 blessings. 
 
 But what is the apostle's representation ? Is 
 it not that by faith both Jews and Gentiles are 
 interested in the blessings of salvation ? Abraham 
 was not constituted a believer by circumcision ; it 
 was a token only of the acceptance of his faith 
 which previously existed. As circumcision, then, 
 had a twofold aspect ; the one relating to the 
 temporal blessings promised to his posterity, the 
 other to his faith, a faith essentially the same with 
 the faith of all believers to the end of time; so he 
 was the father of a numerous posterity, who should 
 inherit temporal blessings, as their head and re- 
 presentative ; and the father of a spiritual race, as 
 having a faith the acceptance of which was sealed 
 to him in circumcision ; by which, in a spiritual 
 sense, he became the father, or head and repre- 
 sentative of all believers in future times. Hence 
 he is termed, not only "the father of them that 
 believe,'' but the father also of circumcision to them 
 that believe ; that is, the father of circumcision 
 to them of his natural seed, not only who are cir- 
 cumcised, but who walk in the steps of his faith. 
 It was in the act of circumcision, or by the per- 
 formance of this rite, that he received the divine 
 
141 
 
 and public recognition of his faith. His faith, 
 attested by circumcision, rendered him a fit repre- 
 sentative of future believers, whether Jews or Gen- 
 tiles ; but this, surely, is no kind of evidence that 
 circumcision sealed spiritual blessings. "If Abra- 
 ham," as Mr. M'Lean judiciously remarks, in his 
 Letters to Mr. Glas, "was not a father to his 
 natural seed, as such, in that respect wherein cir- 
 cumcision sealed or confirmed to him the righte- 
 ousness of his faith, then circumcision was not 
 such a seal to his natural seed ; nor could it be 
 such a seal to infants at eight days old, who had 
 not that faith before circumcision ; but respected 
 only the temporal promise and relation, which 
 promise and relation had a typical reference to 
 the eternal promise, and the spiritual relation 
 arising from it." 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw interprets Rom. iv. 13. thus; — 
 The promise that Abraham should be " heir of the 
 world" must be understood to refer also to his 
 seed, and to include the possession of Canaan — 
 the possession of the whole earth — and the final 
 possession of the heavenly country itself. Hence, 
 he maintains, that " the promises contained in 
 the Abrahamic covenant, both the temporal pro- 
 mise and the spiritual, were made to the same 
 seed, on the same footing ." He affirms, there is no 
 hint that the temporal promise was made to the 
 fleshly seed as such, and the spiritual promise to 
 the spiritual seed as such ; and that the covenant 
 with Abraham does not contain two distinct cove- 
 nants,, the one temporal, and the other spiritual, 
 
142 
 
 but is one covenant, though it includes different 
 promises to the whole seed. 
 
 This really appears a most perplexed, incon- 
 clusive, and unscriptural statement. I demand of 
 Dr. Wardlaw, whether the covenant made with 
 Abraham many years before the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, namely, that of which the apostle 
 speaks as " confirmed of God in Christ" four hun- 
 dred and thirty years before the law, (Gal. iii. 17.) 
 and which expressly secured spiritual blessings, 
 was the same with the covenant of circumcision, 
 which expressly limited its stipulations to tem- 
 poral blessings? It would be a most extraor- 
 dinary — a most unparalleled circumstance, if one 
 covenant should be deemed identical with another, 
 which omits the most desirable and important of 
 all its promises ! The constant insinuation, and 
 indeed direct averment of our brethren, that the 
 communications to Abraham were substantially 
 identical, is contradictory to Scripture ; for the 
 apostle does not speak of them as the covenant, 
 but, using the plural number, as the covenants, 
 and the covenants of promise. Rom. ix. 4. Eph. 
 ii. 12. Let the reader re-peruse the covenant of 
 circumcision, which has been already quoted at 
 length, and let him discover, if he can, the clause, 
 " In thee shall all the families of the earth be 
 blessed." This was included only in the first 
 promise to Abraham, which was a republication 
 of the prediction given to Adam, and of the cove- 
 nant with Noah, whose names were henceforth 
 merged in that of Abraham as the spiritual repre- 
 
143 
 
 sentative of future believers, through his " be- 
 lieving God, and it was counted to him for righte- 
 ousness," — a description applied to him with re- 
 ference to a period long prior to the command re- 
 specting circumcision. To employ the phrase, 
 Abrahamic covenant, then, as expressive of two dis- 
 tinct covenants, given at two different and distant 
 periods, and for different purposes, is a manifest 
 confusion of language, and misinterpretation of 
 Scripture ; and to affirm that the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision includes both the temporal and spiritual 
 promises, when the spiritual promise is entirely 
 omitted in its stipulations, is a direct contradiction 
 of the inspired record. Our opponents might be 
 asked, by what covenant are believers justified? 
 Is it not by the covenant of grace, through the 
 blood of Christ, by which it was ratified ? And 
 by what covenant was Abraham justified? Was 
 it not by faith in the same covenant ; the Gospel 
 being, as the apostle represents, preached to him, 
 so that he " saw the day of Christ," through the 
 glorious prediction that " all nations should be 
 blessed in him," and "was glad?" If so, then 
 the covenant of grace, and the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision were not the same ; for none will pre- 
 sume to say that he was justified by circumcision. 
 The statement that both promises are bestowed 
 on the same seed, and on the same footing, is 
 equally erroneous. Dr. Wardlaw will never, 
 surelv, attempt to prove that all the seed of 
 Abraham according to the flesh were partakers of 
 salvation — that they were all justified and sanc- 
 tified ! If the promises of circumcision were tern- 
 
144 
 
 poral, they were fulfilled ; if they are supposed 
 to have been spiritual, they were not accom- 
 plished. His seed possessed Canaan ; but this 
 seed, collectively considered, do not possess the 
 heavenly blessedness. And what will Dr. Ward- 
 law's affirmation, that no hint of this kind is given, 
 avail against the perspicuous and pointed language 
 of the epistle to the Galatians? — "Know ye, 
 therefore, that they which are of faith, the same 
 are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, 
 foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the Gospel unto 
 Abraham, (saying,) In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed. So then they which be of faith are 
 blessed with faithful Abraham." Were they who 
 are described of faith the natural desendants of 
 Abraham ? Are the heathen, the Gentiles who are 
 justified through faith, the posterity of Abraham 
 according to the flesh ? Are the circumcised 
 children of eight days old, and the spiritual chil- 
 dren by faith the same seed? Are the children of 
 eight days old promised heaven ? Are the gener- 
 ations of believers promised the earthly land of 
 Canaan ? If not, what becomes of the assertion, 
 the attempt to prove which is so elaborated ; — 
 " The promises contained in the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, both the temporal promise, and the spiritual, 
 were made to the same seed, on the same footing ?" 
 The language of Venema, (Select Works, 
 Let. I.) a celebrated pcedobaptist commentator, is 
 very important and express on this subject. 
 " Celestial prerogatives cannot be transmitted 
 from, parents to children ; nor can that idea be 
 
145 
 
 rendered consistent, either with the economy of 
 grace, or the justice of God. No one is sanctified 
 to the Lord for the sake of another man : not in- 
 fants in virtue of their descent from believers ; for 
 this the Scripture nowhere affirms, nor is it con- 
 sistent with reason." Dr. Owen, also, (on Epist. 
 to Hebrews,) is very explicit. — " Two privileges 
 did God grant unto Abraham, upon his separation 
 to a special interest in the old promise and cove- 
 nant. First, That according to the flesh he should 
 be the father of the Messiah, the promised seed, 
 who was the very life of the covenant, the fountain 
 and cause of all the blessings contained in it. 
 That this privilege was temporary the thing itself 
 doth demonstrate. Secondly; Together with this 
 he had also another privilege granted unto him : 
 namely, that his faith, whereby he was personally 
 interested in the covenant, should be the pattern 
 of the faith of the church in all generations ; and 
 that none should ever come to be a member of it, 
 or a sharer in its blessings, but by the same faith 
 that he had fixed on the seed that was in the pro- 
 mise, to be brought forth from him in the world. 
 On the account of this privilege he became the 
 father of all them that do believe. For they that 
 are of the faith, the same are the children of Abra- 
 ham, Gal iii. 17. Rom. iv. 11; as also heirs of the 
 world, Rom. iv. 13; in that all that should be- 
 lieve throughout the world, being thereby im- 
 planted into the covenant made with him, should 
 become his spiritual children. Answerable unto 
 this twofold end of the separation of Abraham, 
 there was a double seed allotted unto him. A seed 
 
146 
 
 according to the flesh, separated to the bringing 
 forth of the Messiah according to the flesh ; and a 
 seed according to the promise, that is, such as by- 
 faith should have an interest in the promise, or all 
 the elect of God." Dr. Wardlaw, however, it 
 appears, in common with his brethren, can see in 
 the fleshly seed of Abraham, and in his spiritual 
 seed — in those who were circumcised as his na- 
 tural descendants, and those who, being believers, 
 are spiritual children — but one seed; and they can- 
 not see it, though the apostle declares it repeat- 
 edly; though the children of the flesh, and the chil- 
 dren of God, or the children of the 'promise are, in 
 Rom. ix. 8. plainly, and in so many words dis- 
 tinguished ! ! 
 
 The deductions of Dr. Wardlaw's third Lecture 
 being founded entirely upon his preceding state- 
 ments, their validity must necessarily depend 
 upon those statements ; but as we have shewn 
 these premises to be erroneous, it follows, of 
 course, that the inferences attempted to be esta- 
 blished must be inconclusive. If the argument in 
 support of infant baptism be taken from a parti- 
 cular interpretation of the doctrine of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, and if it have been shewn, (as 
 we believe it has successfully,) that the interpre- 
 tation in question is incorrect, this alleged proof, 
 by inference, entirely fails. Here, without further 
 trouble, we might take our stand, and close the 
 inquiry; but the nature of the subject, and the 
 respectability of the reasoner require a few addi- 
 tional remarks. " On the supposition," says Dr. 
 W. " that the truth of any doctrine, or the pro- 
 
147 
 
 priety of any practice should be established from 
 the book of Genesis, it would be as firmly esta- 
 blished as if the proof had been taken from the 
 epistle to the Romans ; inasmuch as the book of 
 Genesis is the word of God as well as the epistle to 
 the Romans.'' This is a very favourite maxim 
 with our brethren, and strongly insisted upon, 
 for this obvious reason, — it is necessary to their 
 system : it contains, however, a sophism, and 
 cannot be substantiated. The truth of a doctrine, 
 and the propriety of a practice are two different 
 considerations. Truth must be truth, under every 
 dispensation, and in every period of the world. 
 The truth that God created the world, or that 
 " all have sinned, and come short of the glory of 
 God," can never be invalidated by any vicissitude 
 of circumstance, or lapse of time ; but a precept 
 enjoining a particular practice, may continue in 
 force or not, according to the nature and design 
 of that precept. If the practice enjoined were 
 obligatory, by the very terms of it, or by the cir- 
 cumstances of time and place, only on an indi- 
 vidual, or a family, or one nation, or one nation at 
 a particular period of their history; if it were po- 
 sitive and not moral ; if it constituted the nature 
 of a sign, intended to cease when the significant 
 purpose was answered, — in either of these cases, 
 and in many other supposable instances, the truth 
 of a doctrine might be ineontestible, while the 
 propriety of a practice might be negatived ; and 
 while it was established in Genesis, it might be 
 far from being as firmly established in the epistle 
 to the Romans. In the present instance, how- 
 
 l 2 
 
148 
 
 ever, the propriety of the practice of circumcision, 
 which is established in Genesis, is not only not re- 
 established, but absolutely abolished (our opponents 
 themselves being judges,) in every part of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 The only plea left is, that baptism comes in the 
 •place of circumcision : and this is affirmed by all 
 poedobaptist writers, and by our author in the 
 following manner: " Circumcision and baptism 
 signify or represent the same things, with this 
 difference, that the former seems to have contained 
 in its import, a notification of Messiah, as to come, 
 which of course, at his coming, ceased to be ne- 
 cessary. And this, as I formerly observed, fur- 
 nishes a good reason for the substitution of another 
 rite in its place. What circumcision denoted by 
 the cutting off of the flesh, baptism represents by 
 the cleansing virtue of water — the taking away of 
 sin, in its guilt and in its pollution, by the blood 
 and spirit of Christ." p. 73. 
 
 Do baptism and circumcision signify the same 
 things ? Let us inquire. Dr. W. states, as we 
 have seen, that circumcision was a sign of the 
 blessings bestowed in justification. It was in- 
 tended also, he says, as a sign, that the seed in 
 whom all nations were to be blessed, should come 
 from the loins of Abraham. In the very passage, 
 however, now under consideration, he concedes, 
 that in this latter respect they did not signify the 
 same thing, for the coming of Christ abolished the 
 sign, as a notification of his approach. We have 
 shewn too, that circumcision signified certain tem- 
 poral blessings, which were thus, as by promise. 
 
149 
 
 ensured to the Jews : whether our brethren admit 
 these to be exclusively signified or not, they do not 
 pretend to deny, that they are represented. Butdoes 
 baptism signify the same thing ? Certainly not. Mr. 
 Ewing is very strenuous in maintaining that bap- 
 tism was significant of the pouring down of the 
 Holy Spirit. In conformity with the same idea 
 Dr. Williams had long since stated, that "in bap- 
 tism is eminently exhibited the down-pouring of 
 the Holy Spirit," and that " there is no object 
 whatever in all the New Testament, so frequently 
 and so explicitly signified by baptism, as these divine 
 influences J" Did circumcision signify the same 
 thing ? Our brethren will admit, because they 
 frequently assert, that by baptism we have com- 
 munion with Christ in his death; we enjoy a par- 
 ticipation of the benefits which result from his 
 death and resurrection, and are made conformable 
 to the design of his death and resurrection. Has 
 circumcision a similar significance ? Does it repre- 
 sent the same things? The analogy, in whatever 
 manner explained, is of the same slender descrip- 
 tion ; and, in fact, the two institutions, though 
 applied in one or two instances metaphorically 
 and allusively to similar considerations of a spi- 
 ritual nature, really on the whole, were very dif- 
 ferent in their significations. 
 
 If, in one word, Dr. Wardlaw will point out any 
 individual passage in the Scriptures, in Genesis, 
 or in Romans — in Moses, or in Paul — wherein 
 baptism is represented as substituted for circum- 
 cision, ive will believe it ! 
 
 It is somewhat triumphantly asked, " if theAbra- 
 
150 
 
 hamic covenant is the everlasting covenant under 
 which we at present are — if circumcision was ad- 
 ministered to the children of those who professed 
 the faith of this covenant — where is any change 
 in its constitution, in this respect, pointed out? 
 When were children excluded, and by what law ?" 
 I answer, it has been demonstrated (and must ever 
 be considered so in all reason, till the preceding* 
 arguments are refuted,) that the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant was not the everlasting covenant under which 
 we live — that even circumcision, which was not a 
 sign of Abraham being the federal head of the dis- 
 pensation of grace, was not administered to the 
 children of those only who professed his faith, for 
 it was administered to servants and slaves, and 
 captives, nor was it administered to all believers, 
 but to Abraham, his family, and descendants only 
 — and consequently, though it be true, that chil- 
 dren were never excluded from the covenant of 
 grace, the reason is, they were never, as children, 
 included ! 
 
 The covenants made with Abraham, so far as they 
 were analogous in any of their stipulations with the 
 covenant of grace, could not be made with his natu- 
 ral seed ; for the mocking Ishmael, and the profane 
 Esau, were excluded; and none will pretend that the 
 covenant of grace embraced, which upon this hy- 
 pothesis it must have done, the unbelievers who 
 fell in the wilderness, the ten tribes who revolted 
 from the God of Israel, and worshipped calves at 
 Dan and Bethel; and the Scribes, Pharisees, and 
 enemies of Christ, in the days of his humanity. 
 
 Besides, if baptism assumes the place of circum- 
 
151 
 
 cision, it is requisite, not only that they should 
 have the same general signification, but that the 
 former should be practised on the same persons, 
 or that a sufficient reason for any difference should 
 be produced. If Abraham, his male children and 
 servants, as well as those of every Jew and prose- 
 lyte, were to be circumcised, a believer under the 
 christian dispensation, should not only himself be 
 baptized, but enforce the observance of the same 
 rite upon all his domestics ; if not, upon what 
 principle is the distinction to be observed ? There 
 is, in fact, a curious discrepancy in the analogical 
 argument ; for while, on the one hand, baptism, 
 according to our opponents, is to be administered 
 exclusively to the children of believers, but indiscri- 
 minately as to sex ; on the other, circumcision, 
 they admit, was practised indiscriminately with 
 regard to the Jew and the proselyte, and their 
 whole domestic establishment irrespectively of 
 faith, and exclusively on the male descendants : so 
 that, instead of the analogy, which should render 
 the one a proper substitute for the other, it is 
 traceable in neither point of requisite similarity 
 Instead of agreeing, they differ in both respects ! 
 We should be glad to know, in what manner our 
 pcedobaptist friends can possibly obviate this dif- 
 ficulty. 
 
 The argument from the baptism of households, 
 and other considerations, has been already dis- 
 posed of in the former part of this volume; I have 
 only now to advert to the complete failure of the 
 doctrine of analogy, upon which our brethren 
 place their great dependence. Dr. W. has occu- 
 
152 
 
 pied many pages in his second lecture, in shew- 
 ing that the nation of Israel was the church of 
 God —the visible church — and that, though very- 
 much corrupted, during many ages, it was, ne- 
 vertheless, the church, and resembled the condi- 
 tion of the church of Christ, in many periods after 
 his coming. He appeals to the language of the 
 prophecies, in which he says, Zion, or the church, 
 is represented as mourning for her children, or the 
 expulsion of a multitude of the ancient people of 
 God, and in which the Gentiles are described as 
 being brought into the church of God. This is 
 designed as explanatory of the expression, " I 
 will be their God." The people of Israel then 
 constituted the church — the families of Israel con- 
 stituted the people — men, women, and children, 
 constituted the families ; therefore, men, women, 
 and children — infants without understanding, and 
 adults without piety, constituted the church of 
 God. Children especially, it is to be noticed (and 
 Dr. W. has repeatedly marked the term in italics) 
 were members of the visible church — and they 
 became so by circumcision, as a part of the family 
 of the great patriarch, the nation of Israel, and 
 participators of the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 Were this analogy admitted, it would follow 
 that the children of Christian parents are by bap- 
 tism members of the visible church of Christ, and 
 consequently may and must be allowed to partake 
 of its privileges. Neither repentance nor faith 
 can be requisite ; because neither the one nor the 
 other was necessary to constitute Israelites mem- 
 bers of the visible church, of the nation. They 
 
153 
 
 belonged to it by virtue of their circumcision, and 
 as they grew up, partook of the passover, and 
 other religious enjoyments, as the children of the 
 circumcision; consequently, the baptized children 
 of christian parents, being members of the visible 
 church by baptism, have a right to the christian 
 passover, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and 
 to all the privileges of the church. Nor is this 
 all ; a Jew, whether pious or immoral, could de- 
 mand circumcision for his male offspring, as a sign 
 of the covenant ; therefore, whoever believes in 
 Christianity, may demand baptism for his children. 
 This, indeed, would be a corrupt church; but, 
 according to Dr. W.'s reasoning, it would be the 
 church of Christ, and its imperfection would not 
 militate against the fact of its existence. If the 
 analogy does not prove this, it proves nothing ; 
 and there is, in fact, no analogy. If the premises 
 were good, the conclusion would not be deducible, 
 and Dr. W. would be sorry that it should ; but the 
 premises are wholly untenable ; and Dr. W. has 
 not adduced a single passage in all his citations, 
 and never can produce one, in which his sense of the 
 term church, as a protestant dissenter, is applied 
 to the nation of Israel. If then the ancient church 
 were national, and the christian church is congre- 
 gational, and "an assembly of faithful men," the 
 whole of his statement is fallacious. 
 
 In addition to these considerations, the doctrine 
 of analogy on this point fails in every way. In- 
 fants under the law were expressly commanded to be 
 circumcised ; infants under the Gospel are not ex- 
 pressly commanded to be baptized — it is only that 
 
154 
 
 the continuance of the same state of things is to be 
 mf erred from the general strain of expression occa- 
 sionally employed, (Lect. iii. p. 84. n.) Infants 
 under the law were members of the Jewish visible 
 church, infants under the Gospel are not (by the 
 admission of our brethren,) members of the visible 
 church of Christ. Circumcision was practised on 
 Jews only ; baptism is dispensed to both Jews 
 and Gentiles. Circumcision was administered 
 only on the eighth day, even in the case of extreme 
 danger ; baptism may be administered at any pe- 
 riod. Circumcision was performed only on males; 
 baptism is applied to male and female. Circum- 
 cision was administered to infants as the de- 
 scendants of Abraham, the head of the Jewish 
 nation; baptism is not administered to descendants 
 of Christ as the head of the christian church — not 
 to them as natural descendants — not to them as 
 spiritual descendants, for confessedly, their even 
 being children of pious parents, does not con- 
 stitute them believers, on which account only they 
 could be called the spiritual seed either of Abra- 
 ham or of Christ. It is surely a very impressive 
 consideration, that while the whole argument of 
 our paedobaptist brethren from the Abrahamic 
 covenant is founded upon analogy, in every impor- 
 tant respect the analogy fails I 
 
 Were this method of inferential reasoning from 
 the ancient institutions to the christian economy ad- 
 missible, it would go far beyond what our brethren 
 could desire, and fully justify the representations 
 of the papists. They plead for the worship of 
 relics, from the care of Moses for the bones of 
 
155 
 
 Joseph (Exod. xiii. 19 ;) for the use of the sign of 
 the cross, from the striking and sprinkling of the 
 lintel and two side-posts of the door with blood 
 (Exod. xii. 22, 23,) though episcopalians prefer 
 the fact of Jacob's crossing his hands to bless 
 Ephraim and Manasseh, (Gen. lxviii. 14;) for 
 the Pope's infallibility from the malediction pro- 
 nounced against the man that will not hearken 
 unto the priest (Deut. xvii. 12;) and for many 
 other absurdities, from equally available premises! 
 It is really surprising, that towards the close of his 
 lectures, Dr. W. should reiterate the often-repeated 
 and often-answered statement, that baptism was 
 from the earliest times of the christian eera, adminis- 
 tered to infants. " It is," he adds, " alluded to, and 
 directly spoken of, by the earliest writers, never 
 as a thing that was, or had been questioned ; but 
 uniformly as a matter, the existence of which from 
 the beginning was undisputed." p. 91. To give 
 the direct negative to this assertion, and in the 
 plainest language, might seem uncourteous ; and 
 yet what ought to be done, when aware and able 
 to prove, that the contrary is the undoubted fact ? 
 The writers of the first century, who will be 
 allowed to have been the earliest next the Apostles, 
 are Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Igna- 
 tius, and Polycarp ; and not one of these speaks of 
 baptism being administered to infants. Barnabas 
 mentions the persons baptized as " putting their 
 trust in the cross ;" and as "going down into the 
 waterfall of sins and pollutions, but coming up again 
 bringing forth fruit, having in their hearts the fear 
 and hope which is in Jesus by the Spirit" (Epist. ix.) 
 
156 
 
 Hermas represents them as " having heard the 
 word, and being willing to be baptized in the name 
 of the Lord (Past. lib. i. v. 3 ;) Clemens and Poly- 
 carp make no allusion to infant baptism ; the same 
 may be said of Ignatius — he only mentions bap- 
 tism in connection with faith, love, and patience. 
 Will any peedobaptist writer after this venture to 
 reassert that infant baptism is spoken of by the 
 earliest writers in direct terms, and as a thing not 
 questioned? If any one does, he will surely merit 
 a stronger epithet than ignorant, or rash, or pre- 
 judiced; the assertion must be made in defiance of 
 ascertained fact ! 
 
 The representation of Dr. Wardlaw cannot be sub- 
 stantiated by any reference even to writers of the 
 next age, and of less remote aniquity. Justin 
 Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, 
 Tatian, Minutius Felix, Irenaeus and Clemens of 
 Alexandria, constitute the christian writers of the 
 second century; who, so far from directly speaking 
 of infant baptism as an unquestioned practice, never 
 once utter a syllable upon the subject. Not one 
 of them names infant baptism ; and whenever 
 baptism is mentioned it is wholly in our favour. 
 The only passage which is referred to out of them 
 all, is a sentence in Irenaeus, the whole evidence 
 of which depends upon the translation of a single 
 word, (renascuntur,) the most literal sense of 
 which is, bom again, but which some would 
 render baptized. But, as Dr. Gale proves, the 
 chapter whence it is taken is spurious, since it 
 contains a statement contrary to the Scripture, 
 
157 
 
 and the known sentiment of the writer himself; 
 namely, that Christ lived to more than fifty years 
 of age. 
 
 Curcell/eus remarks, " The baptism of infants 
 in the first two centuries after Christ was alto- 
 gether unknown:" and Suicerus, with equal 
 truth and candour, states that " no one received 
 baptism during the first two centuries, except he 
 who was instructed in the faith, initiated into the 
 doctrines of Christ, and able to testify that he 
 believed ; because it is written, ' he that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved ;' therefore it was 
 necessary in the first place to believe: hence arose 
 the order of catechumens in the church. At 
 that time, also, the custom was universally and 
 constantly observed, to give the eucharist to cate- 
 chumens immediately after their baptism." 
 
 To all these facts with regard to the two ear- 
 liest centuries, let it be added, that the very first 
 writer who speaks of infant baptism in the third 
 century, Tertullian, in fact condemns it! 
 
 FI n is. 
 
 J. liaddon. Printer, Tabernacle H'ali.