^ PRINCETON. N. J. Vm PREFACE. to aifect to .despi*'an argument which I found myself unable to answer. This is a resource in many controversialists, that is both disingenuous and mean. I have not used one argument to con- vince others, that has not with myself all the weight which I wish it to have with them. I am not conscious of forcing one line in the word of God. I have no temporal interest to serve, by estab- lishing my views of baptism. Interest and reputation are both on the other side. False first principles, and false canons of interpretation, lie at the bottom of most false reasoning and false criticism. This is remarkably verified in the reasonings and criticisms of my oppo- nents, which I have examined. The reader will find innumerable instances in which I substantiate this charge. Criticism can never be a science until it founds on canons that are self-evident. When controversy is conducted on both sides in this way, truth will soon be established. My dissertation on the import of the word baptiso, I submit with confidence to the judgment of the really learned. If I have not settled that controversy, there is not truth in axioms. I earnestly entreat my brethren to consider the subject with patience and impartiality. Though it may injure the temporal interest of many of them, yet there is a hundred-fold advantage in following the Lord. It would give me the greatest pleasure in being the means of leading others to correct views on this subject. But I know human nature too well to be sanguine. Something more than the strength of argument is necessary to bring even Christians to understand the will of their Lord. However, should I not make a single convert, I shall not be disappointed. My first desire is to approve myself to my Lord. If I please him, I hope I shall be enabled to bear not only the enmity of the world, but the disapprobation of Christian brethren. I expect my reward at his appearing. The motto I wish to be engraven on my heart is, " Occupy till I come." INTRODUCTIOK As in the baptismal controversy I have taken the side opposed to interest and popularity, I could have no temptation to become a Baptist. Knowing the strength of prejudice on the other side, and the odium attached to truth on this question, I have, from the commencement of the examination of the subject, acted with the utmost caution and deliberation. I have no pleasure in reproach or persecution. To me, it was a very serious sacrifice to change my views on this question. All the other points in which I differ from the dominant sects of this country, do not give so much offence to the world, as does the difference on the subject of Baptism. I anticipated the end, I counted the cost, and I am daily paying the instalments. In the present work, I have, at great length, laid the evidence before my readers, both in proof and refutation. In both I have acted with integrity and candour. I have, in every line, written as in the sight of God, and with the full impression that I shall give account. It is no light matter to attempt to influence the views and conduct of the Lord^s people as to any part of his will. Nothing I wish more to avoid than, in the day of God, to be found to have led his people away from his truth and ordinances. I have not used an argument which has not the weight on my own mind, which I wish it to have on my reader^s. I have not over- looked a single objection from a conviction of its difficulty, nor given it an evasive or sophistical answer. If truth is my client, I shall not affront her by an unworthy defence. I despise sophistry on all subjects : when employed on the work of God, I loathe and abhor it. I am not indifferent to the approbation of honest and INTRODUCTION. sound-minded men ; to these I confidently appeal. But my ambi- tion is, to be recognised by Jesus as tbe defender of his truth, "when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe/^ I have thought it necessary to premise some observations on the nature of the burden of proof. If they are sound, they will be of immense importance on any subject. It is a thing on which con- ' troversialists appear to be universally mistaken. As it is essential to the manifestation of truth, it is not possible that it can be either optional or conventional. The nature of the testimony of the Fathers, with respect to the meaning of the word which designates the ordinance, I have pointed out. It is only as they testify as to the meaning of the word in the time of the Apostles, that they can be called in as witnesses. The word might have received any number of secondary meanings after this period, without afi'ecting the question at issue. To speak of meaning conferred by progress of ideas after the institution of the ordinance, as being applicable for proof on this subject, is at the utmost verge of absurdity. In order to make the work more agreeable and useful to the English reader, I have not printed a single Greek word : and there is hardly a criticism which men of a sound mind without learning may not understand and estimate. My canons and my criticisms generally apply to all languages, and require nothing in the reader but patience and a sound judgment. The only thing which I regret in following this plan is, that it prevents me from using much valuable evidence supplied to me by my friends from the testimony of modern Greek, &c. To a highly respectable individual who sent me his views against the perpetuity of Baptism, I reply, that I had originally intended to treat on this point, but, on consideration, I found that it did not lie before me, and would require to be treated in a separate work. I give a similar answer to many other friends who have sug- gested points which they wished to be handled. I wish to INTRODUCTION. Xl avoid anything but what is essential to my main object. A writer who attempts to do every thing at once, will do nothing well. Some of my antagonists speak as if I were a most bigoted and intolerant Baptist. In replying to them, I have taken no notice of this. I despise misrepresentation ; in the end it can do no injury. So far from fostering a sectarian spirit, no one can more thoroughly abhor it than I do. It mars the progress of the truth, which with every Christian ought to be paramount to all things; it dis- honours Christ and his people; and it does injury even to the cause which it is designed to favour. While I defend what I consider truth, with respect to this ordinance, I cordially embrace every lover of the Lord Jesus, and concede to him the same privilege that I take to myself. In my mind it is a heinous sin to despise the very weakest of all the children of God; and if ever Christian union was important, it is so in the present time, when all the machinations of the Prince of darkness are employed in combination to destroy the truth. I am as warm an advocate for Christian union as I am for Baptism. I am fully convinced that, if Christian union were fully understood and acted on by Christians in general, right views of Baptism would soon prevail. Among all the causes that prevent Christians from impartial and earnest inquiry, a sectarian spirit is the chief: it shuts them out from confidential intercourse with one another, and disinchnes them to think of the subject. Many seem to think that zeal for any of the things in which Christians differ, is inconsistent with zeal for Christian union. Accordingly, while some, on the one hand, from zeal for their peculiarities, are unfriendly to Christian union, others, on the other hand, from zeal for Christian union, think themselves bound to undervalue and neglect the things in which Christians differ. Nothing can be more unfounded and dishonoui-able to truth than this. On the contrary, the greatest zeal for a particular opinion is quite consistent with the utmost regard for Christian union. Christian union is not founded on perfect agreement with respect to all the will of God, but agreement about the truth that unites them all Xll INTRODUCTION. in one body in Christ. No difference consistent with this^ can really sepava^^theia:^ '.- 1 press my views on my brethren : if I succeed^ I do them serjace-j-^ I f ail^ I discharge my duty, but have no cause of complaint against them. They are not accountable to me, and it is the essence of popery to assume any authority bat that of argument. In the field of battle, I strike in earnest, but even then it is the arguments, or the talents, or the harmony of my opponent, at which I aim. I never judge the heart ! I am united in heart with all who are united to Christ. CONTENTS. CHAPTEE I. THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Importance of ascertaining on which side the necessity of proof lies : Archbishop Whately's opinion on this subject : use of the term Presumption, 1. — Caution necessary in using lexicons : The affii'mer bound to advance proof, 2. — Lord Chancellor King's opinion as to the burden of proof, 4. — Archbishop Whately's opinion of Presumption, and his illustrations from procedures at law, &c., 5. — Pernicious principle of relieving the prevailing faith from the burden of proof, 8. — Authors of the Reformation, 11. — Episcopacy: Infant baptism, 12. — Arch- bishop Whately's paradox, 15. — Change in itself neither good nor evU, 16. CHAPTEE II. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. MEANING OF THE WORD B^PyO; — DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BAPTO AND BAPTIZO Section I. — The word bapto, from which is formed baptizo, signifies primarily to dip ; and as a secondary meaning, derived from the primary, it denotes to dye. Difference between Jaj9^o and baptizo, 18. — Dr. Gale's opinion on this subject: Bapto never used to denote the ordinance : Baptizo never signifies to dye, 19. — The force of the termination zo : Meaning of baptizo in classical authors, 20. — Baptizo applied to an object lying under water, 21. — Interpretation of baptizo by Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge, 22. — Professor Person's interpretation of the word, 23.— Proper method of ascertaining the meaning of a word, 23. Section II. — Examples from Greek authors to show that the word bapto signifies mode, and that the idea of water is not in the word at aU. Examples from Theocritus, 24. — Aristotle, Moschus, iElian, 25. — Jamblichus, Suidas, 26. — Aristophanes, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Matt. xxvi. 23. — Lycophron, Sophocles, 27. Section III. — Examples to illustrate the mode : From Theocritus, 27. — Euripides, Aristophanes, Harpocratian, Aristotle, 28. — Herodotus, Aratus, Aristotle, Homer, the book of Ecclesiasticus, 29. — Anacreon, Herodotus, from the Old and New Testament, 30 — 33. XIV CONTENTS. Section IV. — Examples in which lapto has been supposed to signify to wash ; hut in all of which it retains its own peculiar meaning. Examples from Aristophanes, 33. — Herodotus, Hymns of Callimachus, 34. — Dan. iv. 30, and vi. 21. — Dr. Gale's remarks on this passage, 35. — Dr. Cox's reply to Mr. Ewing respecting this passage, 36. — Quotations from Virgil, 38, 39, Section V. — Examples from Hippocrates to show that bapto means to dip .- in one case only signifying to dye, 39. Odd view of a passage in Hippocrates given in the Appendix to Ewing's Essay on Baptism, 40. Section VI. — Examples where bapto means to dye. From iElian, Nicolas of Damascus, jEschylus, 45. — Dr. Gale's observations on this subject, 46. — The occurrence of the word in the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, 48. Section VII. — The derivatives of bapto, both in the primary and secondary mean- ing, prove that it denotes immersion. Examples from Sophocles, Lucian, Pindar, 49. The compounds of bapto and the prepositions with which it is construed, 50. — Examples from Hippocrates, Dioscorides, 51. Section VIII. — Instances in which bapto is used figuratively. Examples from Aristophanes, 51. — Quotation from Marcus Antoninus Pius, 52. Section IX. — That bapto signifies to dip, is strongly confirmed by the circumstance, that dyeing, which it also imports, was usually performed among the Greeks and Romans by immersion. Quotations from Seneca, Plato, 53. — Pliny, Septuagint, Hebrew and Chaldee versions : Remarks on tingo in the Latin, 54. Section X. — Examples of the occurrence of baptizo, to show that the word always signifies to dip ; never expressing anything but mode. The authority of Lexicons, 56. — Important canon: Examples of baptizo fi'om Polybius, 57. — Strabo, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Lucian, Porphyry, 58. — Homer, Heraclides Ponticus, Themistius, Septuagint, 59. — Remarks on Naaman's dipping in the Jordan, 60. — Vossius and Turretine on a passage in Plutarch, 61. — Remarks of Mr. Ewing's learned friend: Quotations from ^sop, Josephus, 62. — Hippocrates, 64. — Polybius, Dio, Porphyry, Diodorus Siculus, 65. Section XI. — Baptizo never signifies to wash, except by dipping ; and is never used to denote purification by sprinkling. Quotations from Ecclesiasticus, 66. — Luke xi. 38, Mark vii. 4, p. 67. — Dr. Camp- bell's opinion with regard to nipto and baptizo, 68. — Mr. Ewing's translation of Mark vii. 4, p. 69. — Washing of beds, 71. — Important canon, 72. — Difference of opinion between Dr. Campbell and Mr. Ewing respecting Mark vii. 4, p. 74. — Abyssinian custom, 76. — Judith xii. 7, p. 77. Section XII. — The determination of the literal meaning of baptizo from its figura- tive applications. Baptizo never alludes to pouring, 78. — Baptizo applied in its figurative sense to drunkenness, sleep, &c., 80. — To debt, 83. — Quotations from Josephus, &c., 84. — The figurative baptism of our Lord, Matt. xx. 22. — The baptism of the Spirit, 87. Section XIII. — Examination of Mr. Ewing's System. Mr. Ewing derives the Enghsh word^ojt? from the Greek bapto : The meaning of a word to be determined by its use in the language, and not by its origin, 87 — 89. CONTENTS. XV — Mr. Ewing's theory assigns to hapto, as a primary meaning, a signification which it in no case possesses : Canon of criticism, 89. — A word that applies to two modes can designate neither, 90. — The construction of the words in con- nexion with lapto opposed to Mr. E.'s theory, 94. — Mr. Ewing's mistake with regard to the effect prepositions have in composition with verbs, 96. — Mr. E.'s rules of interpretation unreasonable, 99. Section XIV. — The baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit a figurative expression, having a reference to immersion : The pouring out of the Spirit : The literal sense of a word a guide to its figurative applications, 104. — Pouring out of the Spirit not Uteral, 105. — Things that are different confounded, 108. — The falling of the Spirit on the disciples in the house of Cornelius, 118. — Authority of Milton, 114. — Mr. Ewing's explanation of the figurative baptism that was fulfilled in the suflferiugs of Christ, 115. — Passage through the Red Sea figuratively called a baptism, 119. — Dr. Wardlaw's remarks upon this passage, 120. Section XV. — The syntax of Baptizo, and the circumstances in which the word is found. Matt. iii. 11 examined: Meaning of the Greek preposition en, 121. — John bap- tizing in the Jordan, 124. — Going down into and coming up out q/'the water, 126. — Rebekah going down to the well, 127. — Baptism of the Eunuch, 128. — Mr. Ewing's explanation of Acts viii. 38, &c., 129. — Meaning of eis and e/c, 131. — Dr. Wardlaw's remarks on en, eis, and ek, 132. — Appeal to common sense, 133. — Examination of the examples in Mr. Ewing's AppendLx of ek and apo, 134. — Canon of criticism, 141. — John baptizing inEnon, 141. Section XVI. — Evidencefrom the Scripture explanations of the ordinance. Rom. vi. 3 : — Mr. Ewing's explanation of this passage, 142 — 144. — Mr. Ewing's assertion that preparatory rites are called "burial," 148. — Quotations from Josephus, Moschus, Homer, and Herodotus on the subject, 149. — Meaning of sumphutoi, planted together, 154. — Dr. Wardlaw's explanation of Rom. vi. 3, contradictory to Mr. Ewing's, 155. — The Apostle's figure, 158. — 1 Cor. xv. 29 favourable to the Baptists, 163. — Born of water and the Spirit, 164. Section XVII. — Strictures on Mr. Ewing's Miscellaneous Remarks on the Hypo- thesis of Immersion. Immersion not indecent or indelicate, 165. — Argument from the scarcity of water at Jerusalem answered, 166. — Baptism of Paul and of the Phihppian jailor, 168. CHAPTER III. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Section I. — The subjects of Baptism obvious from the apostolical commission, Matt, xxviii. 19, p. 169. Believers only to be baptized : Infants necessarily excluded by the terms of the commission: Dr. Wardlaw's reply to this, 170 — 173. — Remarks on Mark xvi. 16. — That beUevers only are to be baptized clear from that into which they are said to be baptized, 173. — Clear also from the command to teach the baptized, 174. — The baptism of John perfectly coincident with the apostohc XVI CONTENTS. commission as to mode and subjects, 175. — Mr. Ewing's observation on John's baptism, 178. — Peter's preaching baptism on the day of Pentecost, 179. — The baptism of Simon proceeded on the supposition of his faith, 180. — The baptism of households, 181. — Baptism of Lydia's household, 183. — Baptism alleged to take the place of circumcision, 185. — Children addressed in the apostolic epistles, 187. — Dr. Wardlaw's statement that Baptists never baptize house- holds, 189. — Reply to Mr. Ewing on the baptism of households, 190. — The house of Stephanas, 193. — Reply to Mr. Ewing's question vphy Baptists do not practise family baptism, 194. — Mr. Evring's appeal to the feelings, 195. — " Salvation is come to this house," 196. — Little children brought to Jesus, 198. — Mr. Hallet's remarks on "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," 198. — " The promise is unto you and your children," 203. — The promise of the Spirit, 205. — 1 Cor. vii. 12—14, p. 207. Section II. — Evidence as to the subjects derived from allusions to baptism, 211. Section III. — Abrahamic covenant, 214. Infants not saved by the new covenant, 215. — Infants not saved by the covenant with Abraham, 217. — The promises of the covenant of Abraham not exactly the same to his seed as to himself, 220. — Circumcision not intended to seal anything personally to those who received it, 225. — To all infants circumcision equally unsuitable as a seal, 227. — Baptism not come in the room of circum- cision, 228. — The right of children to baptism founded on the faith of their parents, erroneous, 230. — Argument for circumcision being inapplicable to females, 231. — Reply to the assertion that there is no direct evidence that women partook of the Lord's supper, 231. — All the ordinances of the Jewish church aboUshed, 233. — Baptism not the seal of the new covenant, 234. CHAPTER IV. REPLY TO MR. BICKERSTETH. Section I. — False inference from the order in which Dr. Carson has treated of the mode and subjects of baptism, 238. Section II. — Mr. B. denies that the word baptizo means to dip only, 242. Section III. — The creed of the Churchman with respect to baptism, 244. Section IV. — Mr. B.'s remarks on Dr. Carson's opinion of the meaning of bapto and baptizo, 249. Section V. — Remarks on Dr. Carson's views with respect to the subjects of baptism, 253. — The meaning of the term disciple, 257. — Our Lord's commission to teach (disciple) all nations, 259. CHAPTER V. REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. Section I. — Dr. Henderson's false principles of interpretation, 262. Section II. — Mr. Ewing's " admirable classification 1" of the meanings of baptizo, 266. Section III. — The Syriac translation, 276. CONTENTS, XVll CHAPTER VI. REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. Section I. — Examination of the statement that baptizo signifies to purify, and that the word has other meanings besides immerse, 280. Section II. — The context of the word baptizo in the New Testament, 290. — Mul- titude of meanings given by the writer to bapto and baptizo, 295. — The force of the prepositions used with baptizo, 297. Section III. — Baptizo alleged to have a sacred meaning, 304. — Important admis- sion, 305. Section IV, — Baptizo applied to the minds of men : their spirits are said to be baptized, 309. Section V. — The writer's exposition of the meaning of baptizo in the passages in which it occurs, 313. Section VI. — The writer's interpretation of the word in the Septuagint, 317. — Remarks on Matt. vii. 3, &c., 321. — Baptism at the Red Sea, 328, — John's Baptism, 331. — Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, 333. — DiflSculty started as to the number baptized by John, 335. Section VII. — Prepositions construed with the verb, 337. — The meaning of en and fljoo, with examples, 337. — Ek, 340. — Argument from John iii. 23, 344. — Argument from baptism taking place at rivers, 346. Section VIII. — Diffei-ence alleged between Sajo^isma and baptismos, 346. — Baptism and repentance alleged to coincide, 348. Section IX. — The writer's explanation of the passages which refer to baptism, 349. — Difficulty started as to the baptism of the three thousand, 354, CPIAPTER VII. REPLY TO DR. MILLER. Section I. — Dr. M.'s assertion that baptizo does not necessarily signify immerse, 364. Section II, — Dr, M.'s substitution of his solemn assertions for proof, 365. — The washings of the scribes and Pharisees, 366. — Baptism of the Holy Ghost : The Israelites at the Red Sea, 366. — Judas dipping his hand into the dish : dipping of couches, &c., 367. Section III. — Alleged facility iu accommodating their belief to their wishes on the part of the Baptists, 371. Section IV. — John's baptism, 372. Section V,— The baptism of Christ, 373. Section VI.— The baptism of Paul, 373. Section VII. — The baptism of the eunuch, 375. Section VIII. — The baptism of Cornelius, 375. Section IX. — The baptism of the jailor, 376. XVUl CONTENTS. Section X. — Dr. M.'s complaint of the Baptists making immersion essential to the ordinance, 378. Section XI. — The clearest proof of the original mode would not change the practice of some psedo-baptists, 379. Section XII. — Dr. M.'s assertion that it was the practice to baptize naked, 380. Section XIII.— Rom. vi. 1, p. 383. Section XIV. — Dr. M.'s second allusion to the Red Sea, 387. Section XV. — Dr. M. dismisses the argument from 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, on the ground that there was no immersion of Noah and his family, 388. Section XVI. — Dr. M.'s opinion, that to lay stress on rites is superstitious and dangerous, 389. Section XVII. — Conduct of Peter on Christ's washing his disciples' feet, 391. Section XVIII. — Dr. M.'s assertion that the tendency of the Baptists insisting on immersion is to superstition and abuse, 391. Section XIX. — Dr. M.'s assertion that it is plain from the history of the ordinance, that immersion is not essential to valid baptism, 392. CHAPTER Vm. REPLY TO MR. HALL. Section I. — Mr. H.'s opinion that the mode is a matter of indifference, 395. Section II. — Observations on the laws of interpretation, 395. Section III. — Mr. H.'s assertion that the Scriptures represent the baptism of the Spirit under the mode of pouring, &c., 401. Section IV. — Mr. H. disputes Dr. Carson's interpretation of some examples from the classics, 403. Section V. — Mr. H. proposes three inquiries, 404. — Divers baptisms, 404. — Bap- tism after market, 406. Section VI. — Mr. H. thinks it strange that Baptists dwell so particularly on " much water" at Enon, while they find enough in Jerusalem to baptize three thousand converts in a part of one day, 408. Section VII. — Our Lord's baptism, 409. Section VIII. — The absurdity of Mr. H.'s opinion that Jesus was baptized as a priest, 410. Section IX. — Difficulty started by Mr. H. in connexion with the baptism of the Eunuch, 410. Section X. — Rom. vi. 1, and Col. ii. 12, p. 411. — Baptism of the three thousand, 414. — Baptism of the jailor, 414. — Baptism of Paul, 415. — Of Cornelius, 416. — Immersion alleged not to be essential to vaUd baptism, 416. Section XL — Mr. Hall's argument from Justin Martyr, 417. Section XII. — Mr. H. demands proof that the early Christians considered immer- sion essential to baptism, 417. Section XIII. — Mr. H.'s assertion that the thing and not the mode is commanded, 418. CONTENTS. XlX CHAPTER IX. REPLY TO MR. MUNRO. Section I. — Mr. M.'s remarks on Dr. Carson's interpretation of Heb. ix. 10, p. 421. Section II. — Mr. M.'s exploits at the Red Sea — his reference to Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8, &c., A2\. — Pouring out of the Spirit, 422. — On Col, ii. 12, p. 423. — Baptism at Enon, 424. — Baptism of the Eunuch, 425, CHAPTER X. REPLY TO MR. THORN. Character of Mr. T.'s work. — Splendid criticisms ! 427. CHAPTER XI; FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. Section I. — President Beecher attempts to prove that the word haptismos does not refer at all to mode, but signifies purification in general : Argument from John iii. 25, &c., 429. Section II. — Argument from Malachi, 434. — loannes o Baptistes alleged to signify John the Purifier, 435. Section III. — The contrast made by John between his own baptism and that of Christ, alleged by President B. to establish his doctrine that haptismos means purification, 436. Section IV. — Argument from 1 Cor. xii. 13, p. 437. — Mr. B.'s argument from the relation which the words baptize and purify have to forgiveness of sins, 438. — Argument from Josephus, 440. Section V. — Argument from Heb. ix, 10, p. 442. Section VI. — Argument from Tobit vi. 2, p. 444. — Mr. B.'s remarks on the word kluzo, 445. — Immersion of vessels, 446. Section VII. — Mr. B, presents the usual objection from Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi, 38, p. 448. — Appeal to Mr. Bloomfield, 449. — Rosenmiiller on these pas- sages, 450. — Possible sense of a word, 451. Section VIII. — Argument from Ecclesiasticus, 454. — The case of Judith, 456. Section IX. — President B.'s explanation of Acts xxii. 16, p. 461. — President B.'s views on 1 Pet. iii. 21, p. 462. — Reference to Josephus, 463. — False axiom of interpretation, 464, — Argument from the usage of the writers of Alexandrine Greek, 465, Section X. — Appeal to the Fathers to prove that purify is the meaning of baptizo, 466. — Justin Martyr's view of John iii. 3, p. 469. — The ground on which the Fathers considered baptism to be the means of regeneration, 469. — Argument from Chrysostom, 471. — Argument derived from Alexandrine Greek, 473. XX *T\ ■ ' CONTENTS. Section 'XL — Facts which disprove Mr. Beecher's theory, 475. — Passages of Scrip- ture which explain baptism as immersion, 475. — Passages which imply that immersion was the mode of baptism, 476. — Passages which allude to baptism as immersion, 476. Section XII. — Dissertation on louo. — Dr. Campbell's distinction between louo and nipio, 480. — Examples from Hesiod, 481. — From Herodotus, Heraclides, Ctesias, Hippocrates, 482. — Homer, 483. — Simonides, iElian, Nicolas of Damascus, Arrian, 485. — Josephus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Lucian, 486. CHAPTER XII. SECOND REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. President B. complains of the severity of Dr. Carson's attack on his theory with respect to the meaning of baptizo : Grounds on which the charge of want of discrimination on the part of President B. is founded, 487. — President B. makes bapiismos and katharismos synonymous, 487. — The testimony of the Fathers, 488. — The three immersions practised by the ancients in the performance of the rite, 491. — Canon as to impossibility, 492. — Meaning of the preposition ek, 493. — Meaning of louo, 493. — Meaning of Mzo, 494. — President B.'s complaint wdth regard to the manifestation of a bad spirit by Dr. Carson, 494. — Six special advantages brought forward by President B. as recom- mendations of the Pfedobaptists' mode of attending to the ordinance, 495. Erratum.. — Page 4, line 36, for Archbishop, read Arian. ON BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ARCHBISHOP WHATELY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WITH A VIEW TO ITS BEARING ON INFANT BAPTISM, EPISCOPACY, AND RELIGIOUS RITES. I ENTIRELY agree with the present distinguished Archbishop of Dubhn, that, in the discussion of any question, it is of immense importance to ascertain with precision on which side Ues the necessity of proof. But I utterly disagree with his Grace, in his doctrine on this subject. I shall, therefore, as the question of infant baptism is concerned in the decision, devote a few pages to the examination of what has been advanced by this learned writer. " It is a point of great importance," says the A'chbishop, " to decide in each case, at the outset, in your own mind, and clearly point out to the hearer, as occasion may serve, on which side the presumption lies, and to which belongs the \_onus prohandi'] burden of proof . For though it may often be expedient to bring forward more proofs than can fairly be demanded of you, it is always desirable, when this is the case, that it should be known, and that the strength of the cause should be estimated accordingly." This passage expresses the siibstance of what I have often advanced, and what I have always practised. Controversy cannot be skilfully conducted Avithout a perfect acquaintance mth the laws which regulate this matter. But in what follows this quotation, I differ from his Grace in almost every step. " According to the most correct use of the term," says the author, " a presumption in favour of any sup- position means, not (as has sometimes been erroneously imagined,) a pre- ponderance of probability in its favoiu", but such a pre-occupation of the ground as implies that it must stand good tiU some sufficient reason is adduced against it; in short, that the burden of proof lies on the side of him who wotild dispute it." Now I do not think that this account of the most correct use of tlie word presumption, in the phrase to which he refers, is at all a just one. B 2 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. And lie has given no examples from use to justify what he approves, or to condemn what he censures. Mere assertion is no proof; and nothing but instances from the language can have a right to a hearing on this question. In opposition to his Grace, I contend that the phrase " a pre- sumption in favour of any supposition," always implies that there is something which renders such supposition probable, previously to the examination of the proof, or independently of it. In proof of this, I might allege innumerable examples. " K one opinion is universally pre- valent," says Zimmerman on Solitude, " it amounts to a presumption that no one has a sentiment of his own." Does this imply no degree of antecedent probability ? Dr. Johnson assigns as the strict meaning of this word, " an argument strong, but not demonstrative, — a strong probability." As an example he quotes the following passage from Hooker : " The error and \insuflQ.cience of their arguments doth make it, on the contrary, a strong presumption, that God hath not moved their hearts to think such things as he hath not enabled them to prove." Here the word imports probabihty. I may here observe, incidentally, with respect to the strict meaning assigned to this word by Dr. Johnson, that it is an instance of what I have asserted with respect to the caution necessary in taking secondary meanings from lexicons and dictionaries. This greatest of lexicographers alleges the passage from Hooker as using the word pi^esumption for a strong probabihty. But the idea of strength is not in the word presump- tion ; the epithet strong is added to it, — " a strong presumption." But where does this writer find any passages in which the word presumption signifies pre-occupation of the groundf? I can think of none either in vulgar or in correct use. I appeal to the universal practice of the language. Wlien we say that there is " a presumption in favour of any supposition," we always mean that there is something which makes it probable antecedently to the consideration of the direct conclusion, — never that it has such a pre-occupation of the ground, as casts the burden of proof on the side of him who would dispute it. With respect to the burden of proof, I shall submit the following observations : First, — ^If the hurden of proof hes on one side of every question, it is self-evident that there must be a self-evident princij)le to determine, in every case, on which side it hes. It is often said, that controversy has no end ; but if there is not in every case a self-evident principle to deter- _ mine on which side hes the hurden of proof, controversy could have neither beginning nor end. Discretionary laws can have no place, because they have no authority. Second, — ^Is it self-evident that pre-occupation, which may be acci- dental, necessarily casts the hurden of proof on the other side? It is not self-evident. It is a mere arbitrary figment, totally destitute of self- evident authority. Third, — ^It is self-evident that pre-occupation of ground does not cast the burden of proof on the opposite side, for this might estabhsh eiTor rather than truth. Fourth, — IS proof XB a hurden, it is stiU more clearly self-evident that THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 3 there must be a self-evident principle, in all cases, to determine the bearing of this biu'den. Nothing can be more absurd, than to suppose that a p7'e-occu2Mtion, implying no probability, could confer such a prerogative. Fifth, — Even the highest antecedent probability affects not the burden of proof. Sixth, — It is self-evident that in every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the afiirmative. An aJQSrmation is of no authority without proof. It is as if it had not been affirmed. He vrho denies has nothing to do till proof is advanced on the other side. Can he refute evidence till it is advanced ? Does not his Grace himself not only admit bxit assert this, when, in his censure of those who do not avail themselves of the privilege of casting the burden of proof on the opposite side, declares that in such a case there is " absolutely nothing in the other scale ?" If, then, there is absolutely nothing in the opposite scale, can it be necessary to fill the other scale to outweigh nothing ? This may be brought to the most decisive test. Let the combatants disagree as to the side on which lies the burden of proofs and both per- versely refuse to commence the encounter; the person who affirms, in every instance, loses his cause. If he submits no arguments in proof, there is no evidence of its truth, and it cannot rationally be received. The negative, without speaking a word, has all it needs : if nothing is alleged in proof, there can be no necessity to disprove. This law of controversy has always appeared to me perfectly self-e\ddent ; and it is one of great importance. For nothing can be more true than what is asserted by the Archbishop, on the importance of kno-vAnng and respecting the law Avith respect to the burden of proof. When a man engages to prove, in a case in which proof lies on his antagonist, he always injui'es his cause, and in some cases he may bring it imjustly into suspicion, or even destroy it. For sometimes the negative may be capable of no other proof, tlian that the affirmative is not proved; and this is perfectly sufficient. The burden of proof must necessarily He on the side that needs the proof. This, siurely, is the side that cannot subsist without an exhibition of its evidence. If one side remains safe as long as the other proves nothing, it cannot be necessary for that side to undertake proof. For if neither attempts proof, the negative is proved. If I assert a doctrine, I must prove it ; for imtU it is proved it can have no claim to reception. Strictly spealdng, it exists only on its proof, and a mere affirmation of it is only an existence on affirmation. If I obstinately refuse proof, I leave my doctrine -without foiuidation, and a simple denial of it is sufficient. No man can be called on to disprove that which alleges no proof. What is disproof, but the refu.tation of proof ? And what has no proof needs no reiutation. It must be observ^ed, that though the burden of proof always lies on him who holds the affimiative, yet when he has alleged his proof, the objector is bomid to proof. That is, the objection must be proved before it can be admitted against the evidence. An objection can have no force till it is proved. In fact, till it is proved it does not properly p2 4 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. exist as an objection. He who objects, must afl^'m something to be inconsistent with that to which he objects. If he refuses to prove, his objection ceases to exist. It is perfectly the same thing as if he did not object. If a man must prove his doctrine, an objector must prove his objection. Every man must bear his own burden. He who aiSrms must bear the burden of proving his affirmation: he who objects must bear the burden of proving his objection. This is a rational, clear, and self-evident law. Indeed, the very phrase, burden of proof, or if the Latin is more edifying, the onus probandi, necessarily refers to proof, and not to refutation. It is absurd to suppose that the burden of proof should lie on him whose only business is to disprove. The burden of proof, as to different tilings, hes on both sides of any question. The holder of the doctrine is bound to submit the evidence on which his doctrine is fotmded: the objector to the doctrine must prove anything that he alleges as an objection. Every man mu^t prove that which his cause requires. If I do not prove my doctrine, it falls : if my opponent does not prove his objections, they fall. Here each of us must affirm, and each must prove what belongs to himself, but neither of us is to prove that which belongs to the other. How different is this law from the erroneous principle employed by this great logician, to regulate the matter in question. I proceed not a step but with the torch of self- evidence in my hand ! My view of this subject is, I find, similar to that taken by the learned Lord Chancellor King, in the following passage from his " Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church," p. 41. Part H. 1691: " Now this beiag a negative in matter of fact, the bare assertion of it is sufficient proof, except its affirmative can be evinced. Suppose it was disputed whether ever St. Paul writ an epistle to the church of Rome, the bare negation thereof would be proof enough that he did not, except it could be clearly evidenced on the contrary that he did. So unless it can be proved that the ancients had fixed liturgies and prayer-books, we may very rationally conclude in the negative, that they had none at aU." I will admit the law which I here lay doAvn, to be equally binding in aU inquiries after truth. When I contend with the Archbishop, I am bound to proof: my opponent has nothing to do but to refute my proof. He is bound to prove all his objections ; and a merely possible solution of a difficulty is sufficient to refute the objection. So also with respect to every doctrine, and every institution that pretends authority from the word of God. There is another observation of great importance on this subject. The procedure is the same with respect to every indivi- dual, were there no one in the world to dispute with him. I beheve it is veiy generally supposed that a man may safely retain such institu- tions as he beheves to have the privilege of casting the burden of proof on the side of those who dispute them, till he is forced by his opponents. This is a monstrous mistake. Were there no one to dispute with us about any of our doctrines or ordinances, we are equally bound to the proof of what we receive. And in considering objections, we are to THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 5 admit none that are not proved. We are fairly to act the part of both parties. In this way only can we legitimately expect to arrive at truth. The Archbishop refers to the procedure at law for a confirmation of his doctrine. " Thus," says he, " it is a well-known principle of the law, that every man (including a prisoner brought up for trial,) is to be pve- sumed innocent till his guilt is estabhshed. This does not, of course, mean that we are to take for granted he is innocent ; for if that were the case, he would be entitled to immediate Hberation : nor does it mean that it is antecedently more likely than not that he is innocent." Upon this I observe ; First, though his Grace is the first logician of the age, he here confounds two distinct meanings of the word in question, and considers them as one. Wlien it is said that a prisoner is to be presumed innocent till he is proved guilty, the word presumed signifies supposed, considered, treated in law : that is, he is not to be legally judged as guilty, till his guilt is established. In fact, neither guilt nor innocence is properly presumed. If innocence is presumed, it must be on account of something that makes guilt unlikely: if guilt is presumed, it must be fi-om something that makes guilt more likely than innocence. The law anticipates nothing as to his guilt or innocence ; it pronoimces no judgment till it hears the proof. But the word presumption in the phrase, " a presumption in favour of any supposition," has a very different meaning, both in common use, and according to his Grace's definition of it. Accordingly, while the prisoner is to be legally considered innocent, there may be the strongest presumption that he is guilty. He cannot, then, in the same sense, be presumed both innocent and guilty. Besides, the prisoner's being legally considered as innocent, tiQ he is proved g^^ilty, is never designated as " a presumption in favour of the innocence of the prisoner." There is not, then, even a legal use of the phrase, in his Grace's sense. In any case in which it is said that there is " a presumption in favoiu* of the prisoner," it mU be imderstood by both learned and unlearned, both by the court and by the crowd, that there is something that renders innocence probable. Second, — His Grace here confounds a law regulating those who judge in civil matters for others, with a law that respects every individual in regulating himself, as to his views of divine things. A jury, whatever may be their opinion, are not to find a man guilty, but on evidence submitted in court ; but the prisoner himself is not to form his judg- ment by this standard. Third, — The prisoner is to be legally considered innocent, till he is proved guilty, but this is not from a pre-occupation of the ground. There is nothing here that can be hke pre-occupation. Fourth, — The treatment of the prisoner is grounded on self-evident truths. If he did not commit the crime, he is actually innocent of it; and if it is not proved that he committed it, he is legally innocent of it. If there is no proof of guilt, why should he be accounted guilty ? Here the burden of proof is regulated by the same self-evident principle. The accuser must affirm and prove his affirmation. If he refuses, the charge faUs. It is the accuser who needs the proof The want of proof of 6 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. guilt, is legal proof of innocence. If there is no affirmation of guilt, tliere is no pretence for trial : if the affiimation of guilt is not proved, there can be no legal conviction. All this is in perfect harmony with my doctrine. The author next gives an example from possession as to property. " Thus agam," says he, " there is a presumption in favour of the right of any individuals or bodies corporate to the property of which they are in actual possession. This does not mean that they are, or are not, likely to be the rightful owners ; but merely that no man is to be dis- turbed in his possessions till some claim agaiast him shall be estabhshed." On this I observe, First, — ^It is true that the burden of proof lies on him. who disputes the right of the present possessor ; but it is not true that this is called a " presumption in his favoiu'." It is tnie, also, generally speaking, that there is a presumption in favour of the possessor ; but the sense iu which this assertion will be generally admitted, is not the sense in which it is defined by the Avriter, but the sense which he disclauns. It will universally be understood to mean some degree of probabihty that the possessoj* is the rightful owner of the property. It is never employed to designate merely that the burden of proof lies on the side of him who disputes the right of the possessor. Second, — The principle on which the law proving possession as to property, must undoubtedly be founded on an opinion of previous pro- babihty, otherwise it would be most imjust and absurd. Third, — There is actually an antecedent probabihty on the side of possession as to property. There are a million of cases against one, in which the possessor is the legal owner. The law, then, is foxmded on self-evident truth. There is the soimdest reason directing the procedure of the law in this instance. FoTirth, — To put the proof on the possessor would unhinge property, and be most evidently rmjust. Many rightful possessors might not be able to give any other evidence of their right than possession. But with respect to rehgious doctrines and institutions, there is no antecedent pro- bability that those in existence at any time are actually in Scripture. The vast majority of rehgious rites used under the Christian name are the mere invention of men ; and not a single institution of the Lord Jesus, as it is recorded in the New Testament, has been left unchanged ; and it is no injustice to put each of them to the proof, because, if they are in Scripture, proof is at all times accessible. There is no similarity between religious ordinances and property. As to a man's right to retain his faith and practice, it not only continues till his doctrine and rites are dis- proved by Scripture, but equally after this as before it. He is to be left in the undisturbed possession of his rehgion after the clearest demon- stration of its falsehood and its absurdity. Fifth, — The civil law actually estabhshes the procedure as to posses- sion in property : the Scriptui'es nowhere recognise the claims of posses- sion as to doctrines or institutions. . His Grace, after some very just and aj)propriate observations on the importance of deciding on which side hes the burden of proof , and hav- ing illustrated them mth suitable examples, speaks of him who neglects THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 7 it as leaving out " one, perliaps, of his strongest arguments.^'' Now how does this consist with the assertion, that the presumption referred to implies not a previous probability ? Can anything be an argument which has no evidence ? K there is no evidence in this presumption, what gives it so much weight ? " The foUowhig," says the author, " are a few of the cases in which it is important, though very easy, to point out where the presumption hes. " There is a presumption in favour of any existing institution. Many of these (we wiU suppose the majority) may be susceptible of alteration for the better; but still the 'biuxlen of proof hes with him who pro- poses an alteration; simply on the ground that, since a change is not a good in itself, he who demands a change should show cause for it." With respect to civil institutions, there is, in the common sense of the term, a presumption that they were agreeable to the wisdom of the legislature when they were enacted. There can be no reason to alter them, except they can be improved. But even with respect to a civil law, the moment that the legislature consents to bring it into discussion, it must prove its utihty, or perish : proof of this Hes on its fiiends. It is self-evident that the advocates of a law must show the arguments that support it. K these are refated, it perishes without fiuther assault. K it is a useless law, why should it be law ? But with respect to existing rehgious uistitutions, there is no presimip- tion in their favour, in any sense of the term. Their present existence is a presumption that they were agreeable to the wisdom of the institutor, but not that they are of Divine origin. He who holds them must prove them. He who assails them has only to refute what is alleged from Scripttu"e in their support. The question is not whether the insti- tution is useful or injurious, but whether it is fotmded in Scripture. Had an institution existed from the time of Noah, it has not the smallest authority from its age. It must prove its origin to be from God. " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not accoi'ding to this word, it is because there is no Hght in them." " Every book agaia, as well as person," says the author, " ought to be presumed harmless (and, consequently, the copyi'ight protected by oxnr courts,) till somethmg is proved against it. It is a hardship to reqiiire a man to prove, either of his book or of his private Hfe, that there is no ground for any accusation ; or else to be denied the protection of his country. The burden of proof ha each case, Ues fairly on the accuser." The burden of proof , in the cases referred to, certainly rests justly, as his Grace determines ; but not from a jjresumjytioii of innocence, nor from B, pre-occupation of the ground, but from self-evident truth. Nothing coidd be more self-evidently imjust than to obhge a man to prove his own innocence. He might be innocent, yet quite imable to prove it. What other proof could he justly be called on to give of his innocence of a crime, but that there is no evidence he did it ? In some cases he is able to do more, as when he proves an alibi; but more is not necessary. If he is not proved guilty, he is innocent of course. His accuser, then, must affirm guilt, and prove it. And how could he prove that his book is innocent, but by^lenying 8 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. that it is gtiilty, and challenging his opponent to proof? Instead of going over every sentence, and showing that it is innocent, he challenges his adversary to prove guilt in any sentence. If all this proceeds on the fotindation of self-evident truth, why lodge it on the sKppery ground of presumption of innocence, and pre-occupation ? It is an abuse of terms. " There is a presumption," says his Grace, " against every thing para- doxical, i. e., contrary to the prevailing opinion: it may be true; but the burden of proof Hes with him who maintains it ; since men are not to be expected to abandon the prevaUing belief till some reason is shown." The burden of proof Ues indeed with him who holds anything contrary to the prevailing opinion; but not more so than with him who holds what is in accordance with the prevailing opinion. Every opinion is to be supported by the holders of it, with the arguments on which it rests ; and the business of him who rejects it is to disprove these arguments. If a man is not to be expected to abandon the prevailing behef till some reason is shown, neither is he rationally to be expected to adopt or retain the prevailing belief till he has a reason that convinces himself, though he is not bound to convince others. As to the burden of proof, there is not the shghtest difference between the wildest singularity and the most prevailing faith. Every thing that claims behef must submit its evidence, else it cannot be rationally received. Every thing beHeved must rest on evidence, else it cannot be rationally retained. The burden of proof Hes necessarily on the side of the opinion beheved : the burden of disproof, or of showing that the arguments alleged in proof do not prove, Hes on the other side. Each side has its own pectdiar proof. It is not only a fantastic, but an absurd and pernicious principle, that reHeves the prevailing faith of the burden of proof. If it is the prevail- ing opinion that the Man of the Moon has a beard down to his knees, am I obHged to make an expedition to that planet to determine the ques- tion by actual measurement ? Proof Hes on the opinion, not on its opposers. Besides, the very fact that his Grace gives a reason why men shoxdd not be expected to abandon the prevaUing behef tiU some reason is shown, destroys his doctrine : for, if he gives a reason, then he rests not on a mere pre-occupation without evidence. Again, if mere pre-occupation determines the burden of proof, then the holder of the most singular opinion shoiild not give it up, tiU some reason is shown ; that is, he may cast the burden of proof on the side of the prevailing opinion, for the singular opinion has pre-occupation in regard to him. StiH further, if the prevailing opinion enjoys this prerogative, it wiH, in many cases, be a contest which is the prevailing opinion. The doctrine of his Grace, on the biu-den of proof, is perfectly absurd. I have another observation. His Grace says : " There is a presumption against every thing paradoxical." Now I ask every reader, what is the sense that the EngHsh language naturally assigns to the word presumption in this sentence ? Is it not a degree of antecedent probabiHty ? But this is not his Grace's meaning. He means merely that the burden of proof Hes with him who holds the paradox, without expressing any THE BUllDEN 01' PllOOF. 9 opinion of probability. If my observation is just, his Grace has unneces- sarily chosen to express himself in a phraseology that is not Enghsh in the sense in which he uses it. . The expression is paradoxical. If it were not foreign to the present controversy, I would dispute his Grace's apphcation of the word paradoxical. He says, " Correct use is in favour of the etymological sense." It is my opinion, that correct English never uses the word for what is merely contrary to the prevaihng belief. Indeed in this respect there is no difference between vulgar and classical usage. The word is never used, either by scholars or the exact, in the sense in which it is explained by this writer. In its best sense, it always impUes something at first sight incredible, or apparently false, or contradictory, — never simply that a thing is contrary to the prevailing behef. It is said, that his Grace has an opinion on the sabbath, contrary to the prevaihng beUef ; but I shotdd consider it calum- nious, to assert that he holds a paradoxical opinion with regard to the sabbath. The most singidar opinions are not paradoxical^ simply fi'om their singularity; I know, indeed, that one of the meanings assigned to this word by Dr. Johnson, coincides with that given by his Grace ; but he has given no example for proof; and he gives the others which this writer denies. Paradox, Dr. Johnson explains as " a tenet contrary to received opinion; an assertion contrary to appearance; a position in appearance absurd." From correct use, he exemplifies all but the first : that he does not exemphfy, and I cannot think of an example ui the Enghsh language. It is given merely on the authority of etymology, which is no authority at aU. Mere contrariety to the prevaihng opinion, is not a paradox in the sense of the Enghsh lang-uage. This is another proof of the necessity of caution in using the authority of lexicons. If Dr. Johnson is guilty of such an inaccuracy in the accoimt of the mean- ing of an Enghsh word, what may we not fear from lexicographers in dead or foreign languages ? Nothing but examples from a language can be ultimate proof of the meaning of words. The authority of lexico- graphers and critics is only secondary. " Accordingly," says his Grace, " there was a presimiption against the Gospel in its first annoiincement." In the English sense of the term, there was no presumption agauist the Gospel on its fii'st annoimcement. But I admit that proof lay on that side. This, however, is not from any pre-occupation of groruid on the other side : it was on the common, self- evident principle, that every doctrine or opinion must show its proof, else it must cease to have a rational existence. He who denies it has nothing to do but refute what is alleged in its favour. This holds universally. Indeed, his Grace himself rests his assertion on the nature of the thing, and the self-evidence of the case, not on pre-occupation. " A Jewish peasant," says he, " claimed to be the promised Dehverer, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. The burden of proof lay with Him. No one could be fairly called on to admit his pretensions till He showed cause for beheving in hun." Here the author does not rest on the authority of an arbitrary principle, but gives a reason for his assertion. And if it is true that " no one could Ijc fairly called on to admit his pretensions till He showed cause for beheving on him," it is on 10 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. the same ground, then, that no one can be fairly called on to believe any- thing till evidence is presented, " Now,'''' continues the writer, " the case is reversed. Christianity exists : and those who deny the Divine origin attributed to it, are bound to show some reasons for assigning to it a human origin." This indeed is a most chimerical principle. The same doctrine is at one time bound to proof, at another it has the privilege of casting the bui'den of proof on the other side ; from the mere circumstance oi existence. Nothing can be more absurd. If at first it is bound to proof, but as soon as it is received, it can cast the burden of proof on the other side, its reception must be evidence of its truth, or the ground of its reception is irrational and insufficient. Now the presumption for which his Grace contends, is not of the nature of evidence at all. This doctrine is utterly without foundation. Christianity is as much bomid to proof this day, as it was the first day of its publication. Its opponents are not " boimd to show some reasons for assigning to it a human origin." If they refute the argiunents on which Christianity rests, they have done their business. The estabhshment of Christianity considered in connexion with its nature and means of propagation, is indeed evidence of its truth, but no reason to cast the burden of proof on its enemies. On what does such an arbitrary principle rest ? Do the Scriptures teach that as soon as any doctrine or position is estabhshed, or received, proof hes on the side of those who dispute it? No such thing is pre- tended. Is it a self-evident truth? Instead of this, the author himself denies this presumption to be even a previous probability. Every ulti- mate reason must be self-evident. But here we have an ultimate reason that has not even the nature of evidence. His Grace rests on the simple existence of Christianity. But did not Christianity exist from the first day of its reception by the first indi- vidual who received it? According to this doctrine, then, with respect to aU who from the first moment received it, proof lay on the other side. Besides, with respect to infidels and aU who have not received Christianity, proof must still he on it. They must not give up their old systems till proof is submitted. There is nothing but concessions on this principle of setthng the burden of proof. Christianity on the ground of its existence rests the burden of proof on those who dispute it ; yet aU who dispute it have the same reason to cast the burden of proof upon it. Their behef had, with respect to themselves, a previous existence. If each has a right to cast the burden of proof upon the other, they never can contend. The author himself forsakes his own principle, and in the following passage, gives a reason why the burden of proof should now He on the opposers of Christianity. " The burden of proof," says he, " now Hes plainly on him who rejects the Gospel; which, if it were not estabhshed by miracles, demands an explanation of the greater miracle, its having been estabhshed in defiance of all opposition, by human contrivance." Here instead of relying on simple existence, he rehes on miraculous propagation, in defiance of aU opposition. This indeed is an argument in proof of the truth of Christianity — ^not a reason to reheve it from the burden of proof. THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 11 " The burden of proof, again," says the Archbishop, " lay on the authors of the Eeformation : they were bound to show cause for every change they advocated; and they admitted the fairness of this requisi- tion, and accepted the challenge. But they were not botuid to shoAv cause for retaining what they left tmaltered. The presiunption was, in these points, on their side; and they had only to reply to objections. This important distinction is often lost sight of, by those who look at the ' doctrines, &c. of the Church of England as constituted at the Eeformation,' in the mass, without distinguishing the altered fi'om the tmaltered parts. The framers of the Articles kept this in mind in their expression respect- ing infant baptism, that it ought by all means to be retained. They did not introduce the practice, but left it as they fomid it ; considering the burden to lie on those who denied its existence in the primitive chiu"ch, to show when it did arise." The bmxlen of proof did not He on the Eeformers. They who held the estabhshed doctrine and rites at that time, were bomid to shoAv that they are the doctrines and rites of the New Testament. The business of the Eeformers was to refate any arguments from Scripture alleged in sup- port by their opponents. Wliat is the thing controverted ? Is it not whether certain doctrines and rites are instituted in Scripture ? K this protestant Archbishop receive the common protestant maxim, the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, he cannot controvert this. And if this is the controversy, is it not necessarily the business of those who hold them to be in Scripture, to produce the proof that they are in Scripture ? The business of the other is to reftite the alleged evidence. This is a self-evident truth. If any doctrine, or rite, decHnes to show its proof, from the admitted standard, it necessarily faUs to the groruid for want of proof. To deny it is to disprove it. If it wiU not bear the burden of proof, it is unproved. The opposers of it have nothing to do. They cannot refute proof that is not submitted to them. If pre-occupa- tion is rested on, that pre-occupation must either be evidence, or the thing is believed without evidence. But pre-occupation is not proof, and the Archbishop himself does not make it even probabiHty. Besides, as soon as the Eeformers had received their new system, that system, with respect to themselves, had pre-occupation. It was in posses- sion, and according to the Archbishop's doctrine, they had a right to cast the burden of proof on the other side. There is a conftision in the Archbishop's doctrine, which I am surprised to find in the views of so great a logician. Pre-occupation he at one time appUes -with reference to the date of the doctrine or institution ; at another -svith reference to the reception of the doctrine or rite by individuals. He grants the privilege of pre-occupation to every man with respect to his OAvn system, or the system of his party. There is nothing akin in these two pre- occupations. The distinction on which the Archbishop rests aU the rites retained by the Eeformation, is indeed a very important one, but it is a distinction that has not the shadow of a support either in Scriptiu'e or in self-evident truth. If a man is bovind to show caiise for every change, he is equally bound to do so, with respect to every thing which he retains. He must 12 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. submit evidence for every thing whicli he holds, or be charged with the absm-dity of beheving without evidence. K the Eeformers renounced extreme unction because it was not instituted in Scripture, why did they retain infant baptism, or any other human invention ? How could the Reformers disprove what they rejected ? Was it not by proving that the rejected doctrines and rites were not taught in Scripture ? And was not this as easily to be done with respect to many things which they retained, as it was with respect to those which they rejected ? And how was this to be done with respect to either, but by denying that they are in Scripture, and challenging their oppo- nents to proof? Were they to quote the whole Scriptiu-es, sentence by sentence, showing as they proceeded that the rejected doctrines and rites were not there ? This absurdity is imported in the doctrine that proof lay with the Reformers. It is a truth clear as the Hght of the stui, that, in every instance, proof lies with the affirmative, or with the holders of the doctrine or rite. But even if proof of the rites and institutions retained by the Eeformers, lay with their opponents, what is it they have to prove ? Is it not merely that the things objected to, are not instituted in Scripttu'e ? But the Archbishop unjustly calls for the proof of a very different thing, a thing that in no case can be demanded. He demands of the opponents of the rejected rite, or institution, " to show when it did arise." I care not when it arose. It is perfectly sufficient for my cause, that it is not in Scriptiu*e. Let its fiiends trace its genealogy. This demand is arbitrary, unscriptui'al, irrational. You might as well demand the author of the rite as the time of the introduction of the rite. Do the Scriptures teach that every rite in existence is to be continued, unless the time of its introduction shall be ascertained ? Is it a self-evident truth that every thing oiight to be retained as divine, which cannot be traced to its origin ? Here is a forged bank note that has passed over half the kingdom, impos- ing on the best judges, but is at last rejected by the bank ; will the Arch- bishop think himself boimd to receive it in payment, unless he can trace it to its origin ? This bank note has 2^}"6-occupatio7ij yet I will engage that his Grace will shift the burden of proof from his own shoulders. His demand is not foimded on any self-e"vddent principle of evidence, but has been first invented for the very purpose of giving a sanction to the cir- culation of human forgeries in the kingdom of God. " The case of Episcopacy," says his Grace, "is exactly parallel; but Hooker seems to have overlooked this advantage : he sets himself to prove the apostoUc origin of the institution, as if his task was to introduce it. Whatever force there may be in arguments so adduced, it is plain they must have far more force if the important presumption be kept in view, that the institution had notoriously existed many ages, and that con- sequently, even if there had been no direct evidence of its beiag coeval with Christianity, it might fairly be at least supposed to be so, tiU. some other period should be pointed out at which it had been introduced as an innovation." The case of episcopacy is, indeed, exactly parallel with that of infant baptism ; and equally groundless. Hooker showed his judgment in THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 13 declining a mode of defence which is so completely irrational. Episco- pacy, and every doctrine and institution, must submit their proof, or be charged as being without proof. To prove an existing institution to be scriptiu'al, and to introduce, as scriptural, one which has been neglected, demand the same process. The question to be discussed is, whether the institution is in Scriptiu-e, not whether it is in practice among any denomination. What is the ground on which this dis- tinction rests ? Do the Scriptures teach, that an institution in practical existence, has a pre-occupation that entitles it to be received as Divine, until it is convicted of hiunan origin ? Is it a self-evident truth ? No such thing : it is a figment forged to sanction the doctrines and tradi- tions of men. But even if proof did He on the opposer of episcopacy, what is he to prove ? Surely nothing more than that it is not in Scripture. Yet the Archbishop puts him to another proof. He obHges him to point out a period at ivhich it arose as an innovation. I resist such a demand, as unscriptiu"al, irrational, and without coiintenance from self-evident truth. No man, in order to disprove error, is obliged to hunt after its origin. If I knew the pedigree and the birth of episcopacy to a moment, I would not make use of my knowledge, without a caution that the thing is not necessary to my case. What is presumption in the explained sense of his Grace ? It is a pre-occupation of the ground., that does not take the thing for granted, or mean that it is more likely than not. But what is this presumption about episcopacy ? It is a presumption by which " it might fairly, at least, be supposed to be so, till," &c. Does not this take the thing for granted., till contrary proof is submitted ? In the foregoing extract it is assumed that if episcopacy existed at a certain period, it must be of Divine origin. This I deny. Were I ^vriting against episcopacy, I would trample on the evidence mth regard to its date. I care not if it was coeval with Adam, if it is not appointed in the Scriptures. It is also insinuated that there is some degree of direct evidence for episcopacy. Does this mean Scriptm-e evidence ? Will the very learned and liberal Archbishop of Dubhn ventiu'e to assert, that the Scriptures make the bishop an officer superior to the presbyter ? It is here supposed that the fact that episcopacy notoriously existed many ages, is ground to believe that it is coeval vnth Christianity, imless the period can be pointed out at which it had been introduced. The writer is universally acknowledged as the fii'st logician in Europe ; yet this is not logic. It might be coeval with Christianity, and not be Christian : it might have existed many ages, and not be coeval with Clmstianity, even although the period of its introduction could not be pointed otit. Freemasonry has existed for many ages. Are we to beUeve the brother- hood that it is of Divine origin, or that it was instituted by Hiram the great architect of Solomon, unless we are able to trace its origin ? " In the case of any doctrines., again," says the writer, " professing to ])e essential parts of the Gospel revelation, the fair presumption is, that we shall find all such distinctly declared in Scripture." 14 THE BURDEN OP PROOF. Here, it seems, his Grace abandons his defined sense of the word presumption^ and uses it in the sense which he condemns — the common EngHsh sense, importing a degree of probabihty. I ask every i-eader whether this is not the sense in which he tmderstands the words last quoted. Does he not mean that the thing referred to, is more probable, or more likely than the contrary ? It respects not the burden of proof, nor pre-occupation of the ground ; but the antecedent probabihty of the thing asserted. Why is the thing to be presumed ? Is it not because of its probabihty? With respect to the assertion itself, while it is not only probable, but self-evidently true, that every thing revealed by God, will be revealed with a sufficient degree of clearness, and that every thing is revealed which he commands to be beheved or practised, yet as to the manner and degree of clearness of the revelation, there can be no just anticipation. Here the anticipations of human wisdom have always failed. How a thing is to be revealed, we learn from the revelation, not from our own anticipations. It is sufficient if a truth, or duty, is revealed in any manner. Has the Archbishop a design of protecting, by his presumption, disbehef of certain doctrines, as not being essential parts of revelation, because their opponents may allege that they are not distinctly declared in Scripture? " And again, in respect of commands or prohibitions, or to any point," says the author, " dehvered by our Lord or his apostles, there is a pre- sumption that Christians are boimd to obey." Why speak of this as a presumi^tion ? Can anything be more certain than that all the com- mands and prohibitions dehvered by our Lord and his apostles, are to be obeyed by those who profess subjection to him ? " If any one," continues the writer, " maintain on the ground of tradi- tion the necessity of some additional articles of faith (as for instance that of purgatory) or the propriety of a departiu-e from the New Testament precepts (as for instance in the denial of the cup to the laity in the Eucharist) the burden of proof hes with him." In such cases, instead of calling for proof, I would assert that the tilings supposed are incapable of proof. It is asstuned that the things referred to are not in Scripture; but are additional articles of faith. Now, if the Scriptiues are the only standard, how can anything not in the Scriptiu-es, be proved from the Scriptures ? K any man adds tradition to his standard, we have not a common standard, and cannot reason as to the conformity or nonconformity of certain doctrines to our standard. We must dispute, not about doctrines, but about the standard of our doctrines. If any one, professing to be guided by the New Testament, asserts the propriety of a departure from New Testament precepts, I would not caU on him for proof; I would assert that the thing is absurd. How can a standard teach that it is not a standard? " It should be also remarked, mider this head," says the author, " that in any one question the presumption will often be found to he on differ- ent sides, in respect of different parties — e. g., In the question between a member of the Chiu'ch of England and a Presbyterian, or member of any other church, on which side does the presumption he ? Evidently, to each, THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 15 in favour of the religious community to which he at present belongs. He is not to separate from the church of which he is a member, -without having some sufficient reason to allege." In the Archbishop's sense of the word jjresiimptio7i, this appears to me a paradox in the worst sense of the word. It is impossible that two parties can have previous possession of the same thing. One may have pre-occupation of one part of the disputed property, and another of another ; but unless they are as clever as St. Dennis, who kissed his own head, they cannot be both put in possession of the same thing. And the paradox is obviously founded on a confounding of things that are different. The presumption of the episcopahan is not the presumption of him who holds the bishop and the presbyter to be the same officer. The pre-occupation of the episcopahan, as the Archbishop formerly stated, is a present occupation preceded by a previous occupa- tion of notoriously many ages' duration. But here the pre-occupation respects present possession, that is, to have authority with none but them- selves respectively. In this kind of pre-occupation, the episcopahan is only on a footing ivith his opponent. And this is a most useless pre- occupation that equally belongs to all opinions, and is to have influence only on those who hold them. This carmot affect the burden of proof. The pre-occupation in which episcopacy glories, is not the pre-occupation here recognised. If this is i^Tf^sumption, and if presumption has the privilege of casting the burden of proof on the other side, then every man has a right to dechne defending his own opinions, and to cast the biu'den of proof upon those who dispute them. Can anything be more monstrous ? " It is worth remarking," says the author, " that a presiunption may be rebutted by an opposite presumption, so as to shift the bvirden of proof to the other- side: e. g.., Suppose you had advised the removal of some existing restriction : you might be, in the first instance, called on to take the burden of proof, and allege your reasons for the change, on the ground that there is a presumption against every change. Bxit you might fairly reply. True, but there is another presumption which rebuts the former : every restriction is in itself an e^dl ; and therefore there is a presiunption in favour of its removal, vmless it can be shown necessary for prevention of some greater evil ; I am not bomid to allege any specific inconvenience ; if the restriction is unnecessary ^ that is reason enough for its abohtion : its defenders therefore are fairly called on to prove its necessity." It is true that a presumption may be rebutted by an opposite presump- tion, if the word is taken in its common Enghsh sense. But I cannot see how this is true according to the sense in wliich the word is explained by the Archbishop. If one thing pretends pre-occupation, how can it be rebutted, as to pre-occupation, but by proving that its pretensions to pre-occupation are false? If by pre-occupation it has the privilege of casting the burden of proof on its opponent, how can this biu'den be cast upon it, except it is proved not to have the pre-occupation which it pretended? One of them only can have pre-occupation, and consequently that one only can have presumption. Can each of them be before the 16 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. other ? This would be Uke the seven ladies, who were each of them handsomer than another. A change is m itself neither good nor evil ; it is good or evil according to the nature of the thing changed : consequently it cannot be a sound, just principle that " there is a presumption against every change." A presumption, in the Enghsh sense of the word, that lies against a change, must be founded on the supposition that the thing sought to be changed, was at first the result of wisdom, or at least of dehberation. This is the case with respect to all laws. But mere pre-occupation has not the smallest authority. And though when a legislator calls for the change of a law, it is imphed that he considers it either bad or useless, yet in all cases the defender of the law is botmd to prove the utiUty or inno- cence of the law: his opponents have nothing to do but to disprove his arguments and show that he has faUed to prove its innocence, or its utility. If they succeed, the law is justly dead. What does the learned author mean by presumption when he says that " there is a presumption in favour of the removal of every restriction, unless it can be shown necessary for the prevention of some greater evil T^ If every restriction is in itself an evil, can certainty be more cer- tain than that it should be removed, if unnecessary? Here presumption turns out to be self -evidence, and the restriction being unnecessary, is never enough for its removal. Here presumption is more than probability, and rests on self-evident truth. But does not the Archbishop here abandon his own doctrine ? Has not the restriction pre-occupation? According to the author, then, the burden of proof falls on those who dispute it. Yet he puts the burden of proof on those who defend the restriction, on the ground of self-evident truth. "Its defenders," he asserts, "are fairly called on to prove its necessity." If so, pre-occupation has no authority. The following passage, quoted by the writer from Dr. Hawkins, is entirely in harmony mth my doctrine. "In no other instance perhaps besides that of rehgion, do men commit the very illogical mistake of first canvassing all the objections against any partictdar system whose pre- tensions to truth they would examine, before they consider the dixect arguments in its favour." Now if the arguments in favour of a doctrine, or system, are first to be considered, who is it that is obliged to state these arguments ? Must it not be the person who holds the doctrine or system? How can the objector reply to arguments that are not laid before him? And it is perfectly the same thing with a man examining his own system, or doctrine: he must first consider the arguments in proof, and afterwards the objections : for it is an important truth that is stated by Dr. Hawkins, that "there may be truth, and truth supported by irrefragable arguments ; and yet at the same time obnoxious to objec- tions, numerous, plausible, and by no means easy of solution." I go farther ; there may be truth liable to objections that to us may be unanswerable, wliile the proof is irrefragable. But the next qtiotation is not in accordance with this. He adds, " that sensible men, really desirous of discovering the truth, vnU perceive that reason directs them to examine first the arguments in favour of that side THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 17 of the question where the first presumption of truth appears. And the presumption is manifestly in favour of that religious creed already adopted by the country." Reason directs to begin the inquiry as to the truth of any religion, by examining the evidences alleged in its favour, whether antecedent probabihty be favourable or unfavourable. But it is monstrous to suppose that there is a " presumption of truth" in favour of the religion of a man's coiuitry. What relation to truth has the relation of a man to his coimtry ? According to this doctrine there is a presumption of the truth of every religion in the world. What is the value of that pre- sumption in favour of any rehgion, which is equally a presumption in favour of every other religion ? Upon the whole, the doctrine of the learned and scientific Archbishop, on the subject of the burden of proof, is neither scriptural nor philo- sophical : it is self-evidently false. Presumption is not pre-oecupation of the ground, and pre-occupation decides not the privilege. The burden of proof cannot be directed by any arbitrary principle, but must be determined by self-evidence from the nature of the theory. The side that afiirms needs the proof; and the side that needs the proof must produce it. Infant baptism, then, and episcopacy^ and all religious rites, must show their authority in Scripture, or perish with the other human inventions discontinued at the Eeformation. " Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be plucked up." I will close my observations on his Grace's doctrine, with stating a presumption. I appeal to every man of candour, is there not a vehement presumption against the supposition that infant baptism is in Scripture, when so eminent a scholar as the Archbishop of Dublin labours so hard to find it a slippery foundation in pre-occupation? Were it in Scripture, Dr. Wliately is the man who could defend its title against every opponent. CHAPTER 11. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Meaning of the word bapto — Difference between bapto and baptizo. Section I.— The word BAPTO, from which is formed BAPTIZO-, signifies primarily, to dip; and, as a secondary meaning obviously derived from the primary, it denotes to dye. Every occurrence of the word may be reduced to one or other of these acceptations. It has been said, that it signifies also to wash ; but, though this is given by the lexicographers as one of its meanings, and is admitted by many Baptist writers, it is not warranted by a single decisive example, either in the Scriptures, or in classical authors. It has also been said that it is a generic word, and, without respect to mode, or inclusive of all modes, denotes any appHca- tion of water. So far from this, the idea of water is not at aU in the word. It is as applicable to every fluid as to water. Nay, it is not con- fined to liquids, but is applied to every thing that is penetrated. The substance in which the action of the verb is performed, may be oil, or wax, or mire, or any other soft matter, as well as water. Except when it signifies to dye, it denotes mode, and nothing but mode. Bapto and baptizo are considered by most writers as perfectly iden- tical in their signification. On the other hand, there are writers on this subject, on both sides of the great question, who have assigned a difference of meaning, which is merely fanciftd. Some have alleged, that the termination zo makes baptizo a diminutive ; but utterly without coun- tenance fi'om the practice of the language. Others have erred as far on the other side, and equally without authority make baptizo a frequentative. The termination zo has no such effect as either class of these writers suppose ; and the history of the word, both in sacred and classical use, justifies no such notion. It is true, indeed, that early church history shows that Baptism was performed by three immersions ; but it is equally true, that this is neither scriptural, nor indicated by the termination of the verb. Even had Christ appointed trine immersion, the frequency covdd not have been expressed by this word. We should recoUect that the word was not formed for this rehgious orduiance ; but, being taken fi'om the language, must be used in the common sense. The termination zo does not make a frequentative according to the practice of the language in other words; and the verb baptizo is not used as a frequentative by THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 19 Greek writers. It could not become such, then, in an ordinance of Christ. When Tertulhan translates it by mergitare^ he might wish to countenance the trine immersion ; but it is strange that he should be followed by Vossius and Stephens. It is strange, also, to find some Baptists still speaking of bcqjtizo as a frequentative verb, since they cannot suppose that it is such in the ordinance of baptism. It is a sufficient induction from the actual history of a language, and not speculations from theory, that can settle a question of this kind. The learned Dr. Gale, in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, after giving us a copious list of qiiotations, in which bapto and baptizo are used, says: "I think it is plain, from the instances already mentioned, that they are exactly the same as to signification." As far as respects an increase or diminution of the action of the verb, I perfectly agree with the writer. That the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or frequency, is a perfectly groundless conceit. Yet there is a very obvious difference in the use of the words, and a difference that naturally affects the point at issue. This difference is, bapto is NEVER USED TO DENOTE THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, AND BAPTIZO NEVER SIGNIFIES TO DYE. The primitive word bapto has two significations, the primary to dip, the secondary to dye. But the derivative is formed to modify the primary only ; and in all the Greek language, I assert that an instance is not to be found in which it has the secondary meaning of the primitive word. If this assertion is not correct, it will be easy for learned men to produce an example in contradiction. That bapto is never appHed to the ordinance of baptism, any one can verify, who is able to look into the passages of the Greek Testament, where the ordinance is spoken of. Now, if this observation is just, it overturns all those specula- tions that explain the word, as apphed to baptism, by an allusion to dyeing ; for the primitive word that has this secondary meaning is not applied to the ordinance ; and the derivative word, wliich is appointed to express it, has not the secondary signification of dyeing. Bapto has two meanings ; BAPTIZO in the whole history of the Greek language has but one. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other meaning. Each of these words has its specific province, into which the other camiot enter; while there is a common province in which either of them may serve. Either of them may signify to dip generally ; but the primitive cannot specifically express that ordinance to which the derivative has been appropriated; and the derivative cannot signify to dye, which is a part of the province of the primitive. The difference is precise and im- portant. Most of the confusion of ideas on both sides of the question, with respect to the definite meaning of the word baptism, has arisen fi'om overlooking this difference. Writers, in general, have argued from the one word to the other, as if they perfectly corresponded in meaning. To show that derivatives in zo are equivalent to their primitives, Dr. Gale gives us a number of examples. Now, in every thing essential to his piu'pose, this is perfectly true ; and in innumerable instances, no variation may be capable of being traced. Yet I apprehend that such derivatives were not introduced merely to vary the soimd, but that they c2 20 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. were originally designed to modify the action of the primitive verbs. The termination zo, when employed to form a derivative, appears to me to have served some such purpose, as the Hebrew causal form, and to denote the making of the action of the verb to be performed. Mere speculation is of no value. The most ingenious theory, not confirmed by the use. of the language, ought to have no authority. To ground any- thing on conjectures, with respect to a subject that concerns the faith or obedience of the people of God, would be not only unphUosophical but impious. But that my observation is just, may be folly verified by examples. There cannot be the smallest doubt, that the G-reeks did form derivatives on this plan. Could I produce no other instance, the following, from -Elian's Varia Historia, woidd be sufficient to estabHsh my doctrine. It occurs in the anecdote he relates -with respect to the beneficence of Ptolemy Lagides. " They say that Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, took great delight in enriching his friends. He said that it is better to enrich others than to be rich," 197.* Here ^^w^eo is to be rich, and ploutizo, to make rich, "We have another instance in HeracHdes, " of whom he provided many with a supper." Deipneo is to sup ; deipnizo signifies to give a supper. Such, then, indubitably was originally the use of derivatives with this termination, though in many cases they and their primitives may be interchangeable ; and although in some the distinction cannot at all be* traced. In this view haptizo would signify originally to make an object dip. Its use then, would be to apply to the dipping of things too heavy to be sustained by the dipper. Its use in classical occurrence, I think, will accord with this. Compared with its primitive, its occurrence in profane writers is very rare, and it generally applies to objects that are too heavy to be Ufted or borne by the dipper. It applies to ships which are made to dip by the weight of the lading. As to the general idea of dip- ping, the primitive and the derivative are interchangeable. The primi- tive may be used with respect to the largest body that can be immersed ; but it ^vill not express the modification denoted by the derivative. The derivative may be appHed to the smallest object that is dipped ; for it is evident, that if we dip an object in any way, we cause it to dip or sink. I shaU illustrate this observation further when examples actually come before us. In the mean time I observe, that whatever may originally have been the modification of the termination in question, the difference in the use of bapto and baptizo is clearly established. To ascertain a difierence, and to account for that difierence, are two very different things. In the former our siiccess camiot be doubted, whatever may be thought with respect to the latter. From some instances in the apphcation of this word. Dr. Gale was induced to suppose that it does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as that the object is in that state. But this is evidently inconsistent with the essential meaning of the word ; and not at * See my former edition for the original of all my translations. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 21 all demanded by tlie examples on which he founds it. " The word haptizo,^'' says he, " perhaps does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the Avater, or the water comes over it." Now, were this obsei-v^ation just, every thing lying under water might have this literally appHcd to it. But every one acquainted with the Greek language must acknowledge that the word has not literally such an application. In any particular instance when this word is applied to an object lying under water, but not actually dipped, the mode essentially denoted by it is as tndy expressed as in any other instance of its occurrence. Indeed, the whole beauty of such expressions consists in the expression of a mode not really belonging to the thing expressed. The imagination, for its own gratification, invests the object with a mode that docs not truly belong to it; and if that mode were not suggested to the mind, the expression would lose its peculiar beauty. Common conversation exemplifies this mode of expression every day; and mere children miderstand its import. When a person has been drenched -with rain, he will say that he has got a dipping. Here dipping does not lose its modal import, but immediately suggests it to the mind, and intends to suggest it. But were the English language one of the dead languages, and this expression subjected to learned criticism, it would be alleged that the word dipping does not denote mode, but wetting, without reference to mode. The very example alleged by Dr. Gale is formed on this principle. It is brought from the works of Aristotle. " The Phenicians who inliabit Cadiz relate, that, sailing beyond Hercides' Pillars, in four days, with the Avind at east, they came to a land rminhabited, whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and is not laid under water at ebb; but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered and overwhelmed." Now, though the water comes over the land, and there is no actual exemplification of the mode expressed by this word, yet it stiU expresses that mode ; and the word has been employed for the very purjDose of expressing it. The pecidiar beauty of the expression consists in figtuing the object, which is successively bare and buried under water, as being dijiped when it is covered, and as emerging when it is bai'e. In the same style we might say that, at the flood, God immersed the moimtains in the waters, though the waters came over them. No example can more clearly disprove the notion, that this word denotes to pour or sprinkle a Httle water on an object. The thing here supposed to be baptized was wholly buried under water. The beach is said to be baptized Avhen the tide comes over it. Can any child, then, be at a loss to learn from this, that baptism means to lay under Avater ? Should we say that God baptized the earth at the flood, we should use an expression exactly like the above. Who, then, can be at a loss to know the meaning of the word baptism ? This example tends to confirm my observation A\dth respect to the peculiar import of derivatives in zo. This was a large object, tliat was not supposed to be taken \x]) and dipped, but to be caused to dip, as it were by sinking. 33 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. The distinction wliicli I have observed between the use of hapto and baptizo, will enable us to refute the interpretation of the word baptism by Mr. Robinson of Cambridge. " The Enghsh translators," says he, " did not translate the word baptize, and they acted wisely ; for there is no one word in the EngUsh language which is an exact counterpart of the Greek word, as the New Testament uses it, containing the precise ideas of the evangehsts, neither less nor more. The difficulty, or rather the excellence of the word, is, that it contains two ideas, inclusive of the whole doctrine of baptism. Baptize is a dyer's word, and signifies to dip, so as to colour. Such as render the word dip, give one true idea ; but the word stood for two, and one is wanting in this rendering. This defect is in the German Testament, Matt. iii. 1 : ' In those days came John don Tauffer, John the Dipper;' and the Dutch: 'In those days came John cer Dooper, John the Dipper.' This is the truth, but it is not the whole truth. The Saxon Testament adds another idea, by naming the administrator, John le FulluhterCj John the Fuller. The Icelandic language translates baptism skim, scourmg. These convey two ideas, cleansing by washing, biit neither do these accurately express the tAvo ideas of the Greek baptize; for though repentance, in some cases accompanies baptism, as it does prayer, yet not in every case. Jesus was baptized in Jordan, but he was not cleansed from any moral or ceremonial turpitude by it, nor was any repentance mixed with his baptism. Purification by baptism is an accident; it may be, it may not be, — ^it is not essential to baptism. The word, then, conveys two ideas, the one hteral, dipping, the other figiu-ative, colouring ; a figure, how- ever, expressive of a real fact, meaning that John, by bathing persons in the Eiver Jordan, conferred a character, a moral hue, as dyers, by dipping in a dyeing vat, set a tinct or colour ; John, by baptism, discri- minating the disciples of Christ from other men, as dyers, by colouring, distinguish stuffs. Hence John is called, by early Latins, John Tinctor, the exact Latin of Joannes Baptistes, John the Baptist." Mr. Robinson was a man of talents and of extensive reading: but whatever other accomphshment he might possess, the above specimen shows that he was no critic. Such a combination of the primary and secondary meaning of a word, is unphilosophical ; and, I am bold to say, that in no language was it ever really exemplified. It is a naere speculation, and a speculation that no man at all acquainted with the phi- losophy of language could indulge. Did Mi\ Robinson suppose that baptizo had this double import in coromon and classical use ? If he did, he must have paid no attention to the various occurrences of the word ; for in no instance is his observation verified. Did he suppose that the word, in its appropriation to the ordinance of baptism, received this new meaning ? If he did, he supposes what is absui'd, and what cannot be exemphfied in any Avord in the Bible. If words could receive such an arbitrary appropriation in Scripture, the Book of God would not be a revelation. Words must be used in Scriptui^e in the sense in which they are imderstood by those who speak the language, otherwise the Bible would be a barbarian both to the learned and to the unlearned. " Baptize," he says, " is a dyer's word." Baptize is not a dyer's word. Bapto, in a THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 23 secondary sense, signifies to dye ; but haptizo never does. It is strictly UNivoCAL. Wliat a ridiculous thing to suppose that, by immersion in pure water. Christians received a discriminating hue, like cloth dipped in the dyer's vat ! What mark does it impress ? Are Ave to take the explanation of the import of an ordinance of Christ from the creations of genius, rather than from the expHcit declaration of the Apostles ? Such a meaning the word in question never has. Such a combination of primary and secondary meaning no word in any lan- guage coiild have. Such a meaning has nothing in the ordinance to verify it. It is infinitely more important to resist such explanations of baptism, even though their authors should agree with us with respect both to the mode and subjects of that ordinance, than to combat the opinion of oiu" brethi'en who on these points differ from us. It is the truth itself, and not any ritual ordinance, that our Lord has appointed to be the bond of union among his people. A disproportionate zeal for baptism may sometimes lead to danger of seduction from the Gospel, by fraternizing mth its corrupters, from agreement Avith them in a favourite ordinance. " Not long before the death of Professor Porson," says Dr. Newman, " I went, in company with a much respected friend, to see that celebrated Greek scholar at the London Institution. I was ciu'ious 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 word hapto occui-red. I said, ' Sir, you know there is a controversy among Christians respecting the meaning of that word.' He smiled and replied, ' 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, Avhether, in his opinion, haptizo must be considered equal to hapto., which, he said, was to tinge, as dyers. He replied to this effect; that if there be a differ- ence, 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." I should hke to know in what respects this eminent scholar considered haptizo to be a stronger term to denote immersion, than its primitive hapto. I wish we had his opuiion more in detail on this subject. As expressive of mode, the derivative cannot go beyond its primitive. As to totality of immersion, the one is perfectly equivalent to the other. But, as I observed before, hapto has two senses, and haptizo but one ; and therefore, in this respect, the word used, with respect to the ordinance of baptism, is stronger in support of immersion, as being univocal. Perhaps this was the meaning of the professor. The additional modify- ing meaning, which I pointed out in the derivative, adds nothing to the strength of signification as to mode, though it sufficiently accounts for the use of the derivative to the exclusion of the primitive, in every instance, with respect to the ordinance of baptism. The just and most obvious method of ascertaining the meaning of a word, is to examine its origin and use in the language. It may wandiT far from its root, but if that root is knoAvn \xit\\ certainty, the conucxiiMi 24 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. may still be traced. The derivative, however, may reject ideas con- taiaed ia the primitive, or it may receive additional ideas, which can be learned only by being acquainted with its history. That baptizo is formed from bapto is a thing beyond dispute. But as I have sliOAvn that they are not perfectly coincident in their application, I shall examine them separately, contrary to the general practice of Avriters on both sides of the question. I shall give a copious list of examples, as it is from this that my readers will be enabled independently to form their own judgment. This method will, doubtless, appear tedious and unin- teresting to many ; but it is the only method entitled to authority. For a "writer on controverted subjects, to give merely his ovm opinion of the import of his docmnents, accompanied with a few examples as a speci- men of proof, would be the same as if an advocate should present a jtidge and jury with his OAvn views of evidence, instead of giving them aU his facts and circiimstances in detail, to enable them to decide with knowledge. A work of this kind is not for amusement, but requires patience and industry in the reader, as well as in the writer. If the one has ransacked documents to most readers inaccessible, to coUect evi- dence, the other should not grudge the toil of examining the evidence, seeing it is only by such an examination that he can have the fullest conviction of the truth. Is the meaning of this word to be eternally disputed ? If one party says that it has this meaning, and another that, while a third differs from both, and a foiurth is confident that all three are wrong, what method can legitimately settle the controversy, but an actual appeal to the passages in which it is to be found ? These are the witnesses, whose testimony must decide this question ; and consequently the more numerous and defijiite the examples, the more authoritative will be the decision. And as it is possible to tamper Avith evidence, the Avitnesses must be questioned and cross-questioned, that the truth may be ascertained without a doubt. Instead, therefore, of making an apology for the number of my examples, and the length of the observations that ascertain their meaning, the only thing I regret is, that I have not every passage in which the word occiu-s in the Greek language. Never was the meaning of a word so much disputed : no word was ever disputed with less real groimds of difficulty. Section II. — As it has been supposed by some to be a generic word, signifying every appHcation of water withoiit any respect to mode, I shall first give a specimen of examples, showing that it not only signifies mode, but that the idea of water is not in the word at all. The nature of the fluid is not expressed in the verb, but is expressed or imderstood in its regimen. Near the end of the Sixth Idyl of Theocritus, the word is applied to the dipping of a vessel in honey. " Instead of water, let my maid dij) her pitcher into honey-combs." Here such abundance of honey is supposed, that in the morning, the maid-servant, instead of going to draw water, "will dip her pitcher into honey-combs. Not water, then, but honey, is the substance, with respect to which the verb in question is here appHed. And that dipping THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 25 is the mode there can be no question. It ^vould be absm-d to speak of pouring, or sprinkling, or washing, or wetting an urn into honey-combs. Aristotle also applies it to the dipping of hay into honey for the curing the flux in elephants. " Dijjping hay into honey, they give it them to eat." — Hist. Animal, hb. viii. 26. Though it would be possible to sprinkle hay with honey, yet it worJd be absui'd to speak of sprinkhng or pouring hay into honey. The preposition e/s, with which the verb is connected, forbids it to be translated by any other word but clip, even Avere it possessed of different significations. The same author, in his Treatise on the Soul, appUes the word to wax. " If one dip anything uato wax, it is moved as far as he dips." — Lib. iii. 12. This surely is not an appHcation of water. Nor can the mode be any other than dipping. Neither pouring nor sprinlding, washing nor Avettmg, can be imported here. In the last hne of the First Idyl of Moschus, the word is applied to immersion in fire. Speaking of the gifts of Cupid, it is said, " For they are aU dipped in fire." This is a baptism in fire, and, beyond dispute, dipping was the mode. ^lian appHes the word to ointment : Stephanon eis mitron hapsas. — Lib. xiv. cap. xxxix. " Having dipped a crown into ointment." The learned friend who -writes the Appendix to Mr. Ewng's Essay on Baptism, translates this example thus : " Having tinged (imbued or impregnated) with precious ointment a crown (or garland), — the crown was woven of roses." This translation, however, is not made on sound principles of interpretation. It rests on no basis. The author has not produced one instance in which the word hapto incontestably and con- fessedly must signify to imbue, except in the sense of dyeing. To tinge a crown of flowers, is not to imbue it with additional fragrance, but to colom- it. The author violates both the Greek and the English. Wlien we speak of the tinge of a flower, we refer to its colour, not to its per- jfume. To tinge with ointment to give a fragrant smell, is not an English expression. The translation laboius tmder another disease. Eis muron cannot be translated with ointment., but must be rendered into ointment. To tinge into ointment is a solecism. The verb then cannot here be translated tinge, or imbue, or impregnate, even though it had these significations in other places. The expression camiot bear any other translation than — " He dipped the crown into ointment." The learned writer thinks it improbable that a crown of roses would be dipped in viscid oil in order to improve its fragrance. I admit that it would not be to my taste. But does the gentleman forget that it was the oddity of the thing that induced the historian to mention it ? Had it been a common thing, it would not have had a place in Chan's anecdotes. The person to whom it was presented, observed that he accepted it as a token of the good-will of the giver, but that the natural fragrance of tlie flower was corrupted by art. It is no improvement to gild a statue of exquisite workmanship. Shall we, therefore, force the words of the historians, that assert this of a certain Koman emperor, to assume another sense ? Shall we say, that, as it was no improvement to the statue to be gilded, the language must signify merely that it was washed ? To 26 THE MOBE or BAPTISM. proceed on such principles of interpretation, would render the precise meaning of language utterly unattainable. It is absurd and chimerical in the highest degree i In some points of view, I respect this writer very much. But he reasons "without first principles, and therefore, has no basis for his conclusions. He is extensively acquainted with Greek hterattire ; but had he all the writings of the ancients in his memory, he cannot be a critic, so long as he multiphes the meanings of words in an arbitrary manner, according to his view of particular exigencies. In his very next example, he makes the word hapto signify to purify, from a different exigency. Jambhchus, in his Life of Pythagoras, rela,tes, as one of the directions of the philosopher to his disciples, — oude eis perir- ranterion embapteiri, which the -writer of the Appendix translates, " not to purify in the perirranterion." Here, again, he proceeds without fii'st principles. He has not alleged one instance in Avhich the verb must signify to purify. He has, then, no groimd-work on which to rest this assumption. And the preposition eis, occurring here both sepa- rately and in conjunction with the verb, determines that the action of the verb was directed mto the perirranterion, or basin. Besides, as a matter of fact, they did not piuify in it, but out of it. Persons sprinkled at the door of a Eoman Cathohc church are not said to be purified in the vessel that contains the holy water. But the writer alleges that the perirranterion was too small for dipping. Very true, if it is meant that it was too small to dip the body in; but it was not too small to dip the thing that is here understood to be dipped, that is, the sprinkling instrument. Had the writer considered that the phrase is elliptical, as referring to a thing so well known that the regimen of the verb is understood without being expressed, he would have had no necessity for giving a new and an unauthorised meaning to the word bap to. In the next direction given by Jambhchus, we have a similar elhpsis. " Nor to bathe in a bath," that is, nor to bathe the body in a bath. We ourselves use the same ellipsis. Pythagoras prohibited these things to his disciples, because it was not certain that all who had fellowship with them in the perirranterion and bath were pure. Do not dip in the perirranterion ; do not use the perirranterion ; do not dip the sprinkling instrument in order to purify. Nothing can be more unphUosophical than the conduct of this writer. As often as he meets a difficulty, he gives a new meaning to suit the situation. Now, though I could make no sense of the passage at all, I Avordd resolutely refuse to adopt any meaning but one that the word confessedly has in some other place. It is not enough to say that such a translation will make sense ; it must be the sense that the word is known to express. Another difficulty with respect to a passage in Suidas de Hierocle, induces this writer to translate hapto, to wet. He might as well trans- late it, to dry. A person was scourged before the tribunal, " and, flowing "with blood, having wetted the hollow of his hand, he sprinkles it on the judgment seat." The word, however, never signifies to wet ; and even this translation does not suit the writer's own commentary. He explains it as referring to the catching of the blood flowing from his woroids, or letting the pouring blood fill the hollow of his hand. To THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 27 wet is far enough from representing such a process. There can be no doubt that the word hapsas is here to be translated in its usual sense. "And having dipped the hollow of liis hand, he sprinkles the tribunal." It may be difficult to conceive the process, but of the meaning of the expression there can be no doubt. K the blood was flomng down his body, he might strike the palm of his hand on his skin, and gather up the blood in the hollow of his hand. Whatever was the way in which the operation was performed, the writer calls it a dipping of the hollow of his hand. In the Nubes, Aristophanes represents Socrates as ludicrously dipping the feet of a flea into wax, as an ingenious expedient to measiue its leap. " Having melted the wax, he took the flea and dipped its feet into the wax." Here the Hquid is wax, and the mode can be nothing but dipping. Such an instance determines the meaning of the word beyond all reasonable controversy. But, though the word is most usually and properly appHed to fluids, it is often apphed even to soKds that are penetrated. Dionysius of Hah- carnassus apphes it to the thrusting of a spear, hapsas, betAveen the ribs of a man. In hke manner, we might say that a soldier plunged his sword into the bowels of his enemy. In Matt. xxvi. 23, the action of putting down the hand into a dish is expressed by this word, when the hand was not actually immersed in the fluid at the bottom. " Who dippeth his hand in the dish." Now, it is true that, according to ancient manners, the fingers were actually dipped in taking up food from the dish ; yet it is quite proper to speak thus of the action of putting down the hand in the inside of a bowl or dish. An excise officer might be said to dip a vessel even when empty ; and we speak oi plunging into a wood. Miners also speak of the dip of a rock as being north or south, by referring to the direction of its sinking or slope. Lycophron represents Cassandra, foreteUing the death of Clytemnestra by the hand of her own son, as saying, " with liis OAvn hand he shall dip his SAvord into the viper's bowels." Here the word is appHed to the penetrating of sohds, in the sense of thrusting or piercing. In like manner, we speak of burying a weapon in the bowels. Pouring, sprinkling, washing, have no coimtenance here, but are entirely excluded. Ajax is represented by Sophocles as dipping his sword into the army of the Greeks. In all such instances, there is a figurative stretch of the word with a fine effect on composition ; but the whole beauty of the expression consists in the reference to the proper and modal meaning of the term. Section III. — Having proved the application of the word to mode, without respect to the nature of the fluid, I shall now at random produce examples. In the Thirteenth Idyl of Theocritus we have an example of it, in the account of the drowning of the boy Hylas, who went to a fountain to draw water for the supper of Hercules and Telamon. "The youth held the capacious urn over the water, hasting to dip it," &c. Can auytliing )iO THE MODE OF BAPTISM. be more definite tlian this ? Can any one be at a loss to know how a pitcher is filled Avith water at a fountain ? Can an nnprejudiced reader demand a clearer example than this, to show the modal meaning of bapto ? Even the rmlearned reader may judge for himself in this matter. Indeed, fi'om the connexion in which the word is foimd, he may, in almost all the examples, judge whether the translation of the term is natural or forced. I hope, then, the unlearned reader will not pass over even this part of the subject as altogether beyond him. The word occurs in the Hecuba of Eiu-ipides. " Take a vessel, ancient servant, and having dipped it in the sea, bring it hither." Dr. Gale informs us, that the explanation of the word in this place, by one of the Greek schohasts, is — '■'■ Baptein signifies to let dowai anything into water, or any other hquid." Can we wish for better authority for the meaning of a Greek word ? Aidstophanes, in the play entitled Eirene, affords us an example of the word: " Bring the torch, that I may take and dip it." Dr. Gale observes, that the Greek SchoHast and Florent. Christianus, preceptor to Henry IV. of France, refer this to the maiuier of pimfying among the Greeks, by dipping a hghted torch in water, and so sprinkHng the persons or things to be pimfied. This explains the Pythagorean precept, quoted in Mr. Emng's Appendix. Dr. Gale has given us some fragments of this author, preserved by Harpocratian, Avhere the general mearung is more obscure, biit in which the pecrdiar meaning of this word is not at all doubtftd. " When I have dipped^ I AviU cite the strangers before the judges." " This passage would have been very obscui^e," says he, " and I do not know whether anything woidd have given hght to it, if Suidas had not attempted it ; for I take this to be the passage he refers to, when he says, ' when I have dijyped the oar,' &c., which helps us to the sense of the word hapsas, in this place, though it does not clear up the whole. Or, perhaps," says he, " it may be a metaphor taken from the dyers, who say, for instance, I AviU dip it, and make it a black." Athenaeus has preserved two other fragments of the same author, in which the word occiu's ; one is, " what a wretch am I, to be thus dipped over head and ears in brine, Hke a pickled herring ! " "We have, therefore, the authority of Suidas, that baptein appHes to the dipping of an oar in the water. Aristotle, speaking of a kind of fish, says : " They cannot bear great changes, as the immersion of them into cold Avater, even in summer." Can anything be more decisive ? "We coidd not speak of sprinkling, or pouring, or wetting a fish into water. Speaking of the remedy for the bite of a certain kind of snake in Africa, he says : "Of which the remedy is said to be a certain stone, which they take from the sepulchre of a king of ancient times, and, having immersed it in wine, drink." Here the virtue of the stone is supposed to be extracted by the Avine in Avhich it is dipped. They do not sprinkle the stone with wine, nor ponr Avine upon it, but they dipped the stone, and then drank the Avine in which it was dip>ped. Even the unlearned reader can be at no loss with respect to the mode imported by the Avord in this process. THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 29 The same author applies the word to the immersion of animals in a pool of Sicily, which had the property of resuscitating them when put into it after suffocation. What can be more satisfactory than this ? If anything can be more decisive, it is an example from the same author, in which he tells us, that it is the custom of some nations to clip their children into cold water, soon after birth, in order to harden them. Herodotus decisively fixes the meaning of this word, when he applies it to the Scythian ceremony of dipping certain things in a mixture of blood and water, in concluding an aUiance. " The Scythians, in con- cluding a league with any one, make it in the foUo^ving manner. Hav- ing poured wine into an earthen vessel, they mingle with it the blood of the parties, making a slight incision in the body by a knife or a sword. After this, they dip into the vessel a scimitar and arrows, a hatchet and a javeHn. "When they have done this, they utter many imprecations ; and they Avho make the league, with the most distinguished of the com- pany, drink the mixtiu-e." The phrase apohajjsantes es ten kulika, can mean nothing but dipping in the bowl. Pouring, sprinkling, washing, wetting, and all other fancies, are entirely excluded. The setting of a constellation is termed, by Aratus, dipping into the sea. Is there any doubt with respect to mode in this example ? When the sun, moon, and stars descend below our horizon, when we stand on the shore, they appear to dip in the sea. All nations speak in phrase- ology that imports this. We have some beautiful examples in Virgil. The same author applies the word, just in our manner, to the setting sun : " If the sun dips himself, without a cloud, into the western sea." Again he says : " If the crow dips his head into the river." Can any one need a commentary to point out the mode imported by the word here ? " Constantme," says Dr. Gale, " observes, from an epigram of Her- molaus,- He dipped his pitcher in the water. The mysterious Lycophron affords us an instance parallel to this in CalHmachxis: dipping -with strange and foreign buckets." And again, to this may be added what Aristotle says in his Mechanical Questions : " The bucket must be first let down, or dipped, and then be draivn up again, when it is full." Can anything be supposed more specifically to express dipping, than bapto, in these instances ? Homer employs the word in the Odyssey, in a situation where the meaning cannot be doubted. He compares the hissing of the eye of Polyphemus, when bored by a red-hot stake, to the hissing of the water Avhen a smith dips his iron in order to temper it. " As when the smith, an hatchet or large axe, Tempering with skill, plunges the hissing blade Deep in cold water. (Whence the strength of steel.)" COWPER. No one who has seen a horse shod will be at a loss to know the mode of the appHcation of water in this instance. The immersion of the newly formed shoe in Avater, in order to harden the metal, is expressed by the word baptein. An instance of the same kind we have in the Apocry- phal Book of Ecclesiasticus, where iron heated in the furnace is said to 30 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. be tempered by immersion in water. The note of Didymus on the place is : " The dipping of red-hot iron in cold water hardens it." Anacreon, in his Ode on the Arrows of Cnpid, represents them as forged by Yulcan, and dipped by Venus in honey, into which Cnpid put a mixture of gall. The mamier of poisoning arrows by dipping their points in the poisonous matter, sufficiently explains this. Here we see, also, that this word applies to honey, and even to gall — ^to poisoning as well as to washing. Herodotus, speaking of a custom of the Egyptians, employs this word in a sense entirely analogous to the use of haptizein, in the ordinance of baptism. He appUes it to a ceremonial or rehgious purification of the person and garments, by immersion in a river after defilement. " The Egyptians consider the swine so polluted a beast, that if any one in passing touch a swine, he will go away and dip himself with his very garments, going into the river." Here is a rehgious baptism, for the purpose of cleansing from defilement ; and it is by immersion, expressed by baptein. Can any one require a more definite example ? The per- son dips himself; therefore it is bapto, to dip, and not baptizo, to cause to dip. All the occurrences of the word in the Septuagint are confirm- atory of this view of its meaning. Ex. xii. 22. "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dipping it in the blood which is at the door," &c. The efiect of the thing done is not washing: it is smearing. The mode is not pouring or sprinkling, but dipping. Lev. iv. 6. "And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood," &c. Here we have the action both of dipping and sprinkling ; and bapto applies to the former, while raino applies to the latter. Can anything be more decisive than this ? Lev. iv. 17. " And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it," &c. Lev. ix, 9. "And he dipped his finger into the blood." He could not sprinkle or pour his finger into the blood. Lev. xi. 32. " It must be put into water." Literally, " It shaU be dipped into water." This cannot admit even of plausible evasion. Lev. xiv. 6. " Ajid shall dip them and the living bird in the blood," &c. Dr. Wall has asserted that the word ba2Jsei here, cannot be imderstood dipping all over; for the blood of the bird in the basin could not be enough to receive the living bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, all into it. To this the answer of Dr. Gale is perfectly satisfactory. The blood of the slain bird was received in a vessel of rimning water, in which mixture, as appears from verse 51, the things were to be dipped. It may be added, that this makes the figure have a beautiful allusion to the double efiicacy of the blood of Jesus Christ. It washes as well as atones ; and though this might be exhibited by sepa- rate dippings, yet the xuiion is seen more clearly in the combination of blood and water. But that the word bajjtei^i is employed when only a part of an object is dipped, is most freely admitted; and the same thing may be said of the very word dip) itself. Thus we speak of dipping a pen in ink, THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 51 when only the point of the pen is dipped. What should Ave say of the foreigner who should allege that the Enghsh word dip, when apphed in the expression, They dipped the man in the rivei% does not necessarily imply that they dipped him aU over, because he finds from the expression, dip a pen in ink, it is appUed sometimes when only a part is dipped ? Yet grave doctors, when they criticise in a dead language, make them- selves such fools! and their folly is concealed only by the circumstance, that the language is dead with respect to which they make their siUy observations. Every person at all accustomed to philosophise on language, knows that such a figure is quite common; but that it never alters or affects the proper meaning of the word. The figure, in fact, is not in the verb, but in its regimen. In aU such expressions, both bapto and dip have their proper and entii'e significations, and express mode, as fully as when there is no figure. The expression, dzj^ a pen, determines mode as clearly as when the object is sunk to the bottom of the sea, never to arise. A Avriter must be perverse indeed, who indulges himself in such quibbles ; yet some of the gravest and most learned writers have urged this objec- tion. It must be observed, that Dr. WaU, though he is a friend to infant baptism, is decidedly in favour of immersion. With respect to all such elliptical phrases, I observe, that they are used only about common opera- tions, when the part to be dipped is so well knovfn as to prevent obscurity. But granting to the authors of this objection all their demands, I hope we shall find them dipping at least a part of the body of the person baptized. It is strange to find Christians arguing that the word, though it signifies to immerse, may be appHed when only a part is dipped ; yet in their own practice, dipjnng neither in whole nor in part, but substitut- ing pouring or sprinkling in its place. Lev. xiv. 16. "That the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." Here, also, we see the characteristic distinction between dipping and sp)rinkling. The action of putting the oil on the finger is expressed by bapto ; that of applying it to the object, by raiiio. The word occurs again in the 51st verse, with reference to the same process as that described in verse 6. Numb. xix. 18. " And a clean person shaU take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the house." Deut. xxxiii. 24. "Let him dip his foot in oil." Here the great abundance of oil is expressed by representing the possessor as dipping his foot in it. The unlearned reader may perceive, that in all these instances the meaning of the word in question is so clear and definite, that even our translators, who were no practical immersers, render it as we do. Can it then admit a doubt, that this is the proper rendering ? Josh. iii. 15. "And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water." Euth ii. 14. " Dip thy morsel in the vinegar." 1 Sam. xiv. 27. " And Jonathan heard not Avhen his father charged the people with the oath ; wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in a honey-comb." Here the mode is 32 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. most determinately fixed. He stretched forth his rod, and dipjnng the point of it, ate the honey off the rod. 2 Bangs viii. 15. " And it came to pass, that on the morrow he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in xoaterT Job ix. 31. What our translators render, '' yet shalt thon plimge me in the ditch," &c., in the Greek is. Thou hast dip>ped me deeply in filth. Here we not only have the mode signified by this word, but evidence that the word is as appKcable when the object of dipping is to defile, as when the object is to wash. It denotes the mode only, without any reference to the intention with which it is used. Psalm Ixviii. 23. " That thy feet may be dijyped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." Here the person is supposed to wade through blood, to denote the great slaughter. In 2 Mac. i. 21, the word is used to signify the draAving of water from a deep pit (compare verse 19) : " He ordered them to draw," Hterally dip. The tise of the Avord in the New Testament is exactly the same as in the examples which have been quoted from other writers. Matt. xxiv. 23, has already been referred to. The same transaction is related Mark xiv. 20 : " It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish." John xiii. 26, relates the fact, omitting the circiunstance that the betrayer was dipping with him in the dish, and giving a circumstance omitted by Matthew and Mark, namely, that Jesus pointed out the betrayer by giving him a sop, after he had dipped it. The word here refers to the dipping of the bread in the bitter sauce. Neither pouring nor sprinkling could have any place here. Luke xvi. 24. " And he cried and said. Father Abraham, have mercy on me ; and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip) of his finger in tvater, and cool my tongue." Eev. xix. 13. " And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood." The glorious Redeemer is here represented as going forth to the de- struction of his enemies, and, as an emblem of his work, he is figured as clothed with a vesture dipped in blood. This gives the most aAvftd image of the approaching slaughter. Dr. Gale, indeed, has alleged some reasons, to prove that we have not here the genuine reading. " The aiithority of Origen," says he, " whose writings are older than any copies of the Old Testament we can boast of, and therefore that he described from more ancient copies, must be more considerable than any Ave have. NoAv he, in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel, cites these Avords from ver. 11, to ver. 16, incliTsively, almost verbatim as they are in our edition, but reads sjmiikled, instead of dipp)ed ; which makes this passage nothing to owe purpose. However, I should not think this single authority of Origen sufficient to justify my altering the word ; but I have likcAvise observed that the S^^iac and ^thiopic versions, which, for their antiquity, must be thought ahnost as valuable and authentic as the original itself, being made from primitive copies, in or very near the times of the apostles, and rendering the passage by words which signify to spriixkle, must greatly confirm Origen's reading of the place, and very strongly argue, that he has preserved the very same word which was in the autograph." These reasons, however, do not in the least bring the THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 33 common reading into suspicion in my mind, and I Avill never adopt a reading to serve a piu'pose. Misapprehension of the meaning of the passage, it is much more hkely, has substituted sprinkled for dipped. The warrior is represented as going out, and not as returning, and the garment is emblematically dyed to represent his work before it was begun. Dr. Cox's reply to Mr. Ewing's observations on this verse, is a triumphant refutation of the objection which misconception has founded on this passage, and must silence it for ever. Section IV. — Before I proceed farther, I shall advert to some examples in which hap to has been supposed to signify to loash ; but in all of which it retains its own peculiar meaning. Aristophanes appHes the Avord to the cleansing of wool in warm water ; must not wash or cleanse, then, be one of its meanings ? By no means. Let us examine his words : " First they dip the wool in warm water, according to ancient custom." Wliat is asserted is, that they dip, or immerse, or plunge the wool into warm water. Washing is the consequence of the operation, but is not the thing expressed by the verb. It might be rendered by wash in a free translation ; but this Avould be to give the sense, not an exact version of the words. Had he used the word pluno, then the washing would haA'e been expressed, and the dipping would have been necessarily supposed. Both these words might be iised for the same thing in many situations ; still each of them Avoidd have its peciiliar meaning. Accordingly, Siiidas and Phavorinus interpret baptousi here by pliinousi. It argues very shallow philosophy, however, to suppose, that on this account the words are perfectly synonymous. We could, even in oiu' OAvn langiiage, say indifferently, that sheep are dipped in the river before they are shorn, or sheep are washed in the river before they are shorn, yet this does not make diji and ivash synonjTuous in our language. Words may be so far eqtuA^alent, as in certain situations to be equally fitted to fiU the same place, Avhen each continues even in such situations to haA^e its characteristic meaning. Ignorance of this important principle in the application of AA^ords, has led Avriters into the greatest absurdities, in determining the meaning of terms in a dead language. Wlienever they find one Avord used in explanation of another, or Avhere another would serve the purpose, they think the Avords are sjmonymous. This is a false first principle, and all reasonings founded on it must be unsound. Yet this is the most plausible argtiment that Dr. Wall and others can find to prove that bapto signifies to icash. Suidas and PhaA'o- rinus explain it hy pluno, therefore they think it must signiiy to icash. To convince the unlearned reader of the fallacy of this principle, let him open an English dictionary, and try if aU the Avords giA-en in explanation are strictly synonymous AAdth those Avhicli they are used to explain. Yet on this principle, it is siipposed to be irresistibly evident that bapto sig- nifies to ivash, because baptism is referred to in the expression, " having your bodies AA^ashed Avith pure water," Heb. x. 22. When a person is dipped in pure water, he is ivash ed ; still dipping and washing are tAvo different things. Baptism is a ivashing, not from the meaning of the D 34 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. word itself, for as far as that is concerned, it might be a defilement ; but because it is an immersion in pure water. The passage from Herodotus, in which he represents swine as an abomination to the Egyptians, coincides entirely with this doctrine. If an Egyptian touches a swine, he runs immediately to the river and dips himself. That he dips himself, is the thing expressed; but as the pur- pose of the dipping is cleansing, or religious washing, the same fact might be substantially reported by saying, that he washed, or cleansed, or purified, or bathed himself in the river. Yet hapto no more signifies to wash or purify here, than it does in the translation of the LXX., with respect to Job, when appHed to phmging in filth. The word has here its own peculiar meaning, and makes not the smallest intrusion into the province of louo. Mr. Ewing's remark on this passage is truly surpris- ing. The Egyptian, it seems, performed this operation on himself, but the Christian is baptized by another. And can Mr. Ewing really think that this is anything to the purpose ? "Was it ever supposed that it is from the verb hapto that we are to learn whether a behever is to dip himself, or to be dipped by another, in the ordinance of baptism ? It is enough that the word informs of the mode : other things must be learned from their proper sources. From Herodotus, in the story of the Egyptian, we may learn the meaning of the word; but from Scripture, we must learn whether the operation is to be performed to the behever by himself, or by another. Was ever anything so imreasonable, as to expect a perfect coincidence between an ordinance of Christ, and a superstitious custom of heathens ? The meaning of the word is qiiite unaffected, whether the person dips himself or is dipped by another. Does Mr. Ewing doubt whether hapto can apply when the operation respects a thing different from the agent ? This cannot be his meaning, for almost all the examples of its use refer to such cases. Does he mean, that among the innumerable things which are said to be dipped, as expressed by hapto, a human being is not to be found, except in the case of one performing the operation for himself ? If this is his meaning, it is not to the purpose ; for though an example could not be found in which one person is said to dip another, the command of Christ warrants the practice, and the word hapto will apply to one thing as well as another. But, as Dr. Cox has observed, there is an example in the case of the dro^wning of Aristobulus, which we shall afterwards consider : and we have already seen an example in the Scythian custom of immersing their new-born infants. But I will never consent that any such example is necessary. The demand is founded on a false principle of criticism. A passage from the Hymns of Callimachus, in which this word is mis- understood by some, is set in its proper light by Dr. Gale. " My opinion," says he, " is confirmed also by CaUimachus, in his Hymns, when he says : ' Ye Grecian watermen (they ftirnished private houses with water, as some do among us), dip not your vessels in the river Inachus to-day.' The hymn was made on the solemnizing the festival of washing the statue of Pallas; which ceremony was performed by persons set apart for that purpose, in the river Inachus, a Httle before day ; from this river the inhabitants were usually supphed with water, THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 35 which makes the poet, in veneration to the goddess, charge the water- men here not to dip their pitchers in the river on that day." This, however, is of importance, rather for the understanding of the poet, than for ascertaining the meaning of the word in question. For whether the pru-pose of the watermen was to wash their pitchers by dipping them, or to fill them by dipping them, dipping is the only thing expressed by the word bapto. In Dan. iv. 30, and v. 21, this word is rendered by wet m oiir version, which may seem an insuperable objection to the uniformity of its signi- fication of mode. This instance is thought to siipport their opinion, who assert that bapto is a generic word, denoting the bringing of anything into a state of wetness. But there is here no exception to the peculiar meaning of the word. The term wet gives the general sense of the passage well enough, but is by no means a translation of the word in the original, nor of that employed by the Septuagint. It ought to have been rendered according to the usual modal meaning, which, instead of being harsh, woiild have found corresponding expressions in all lan- guages. By employing a general word, our translators in this instance have lost the peculiar beauty of the original, -ttdthout in the least adding to the perspicuity. The words of the Septuagint are, " His body was immersed in the dew." In the translation, " His body was wet wdth the dew," the general effect is the same, but the eloquence of expression has evaporated. But a soiilless critic will reply, " there was here no literal immersion; the word cannot then be used in that sense." Were Ave to pass through the poets, conforming their language to this observation, what havoc should we make of their beauties ! How dull and Lifeless would become their animated expressions ! I have seen no expUcation of this passage that appears to develop the principle of this application, though the general sense of the passage is well enough imderstood. As the theory of generic meaning in bapto ^ including every appHcation of water without reference to mode, has no other plausible foundation but the common version of this passage, it wiU be of importance to settle the question, though it shoiild occiipy some pages. Dr. Gale affords us many materials to prove that the word has here its ordinary sense ; but I think he fails in his attempt to analyze the expression. His observations on the copiousness of the eastern dews are much to the purpose ; a part of which I shall transcribe. " Philosophi- cally speaking," says he, " the hottest cUmates and clearest skies naturally abound most mth dew, which is also confirmed by constant experience. It is commonly known to be so in her Majesty's Leeward Islands in America, — where one season of the year, when they have no rains for a considerable time together, the fi'uits of the earth would be biu'ned up, were it not for the dews that fall plentifully in the night. That incom- parable mathematician. Captain HaEey, observed, when making some experiments in St. Helena, that the dews fell in such abimdance as to make his paper too wet to write on, and his glasses unfit for use -without frequent wiping. And as to Africa, in particular, where part of Nebu- chadnezzar's dominions lay, Pliny tells us the nights were very dewy. Egypt has little or no rain ; but is fed by the overflowino; of the Nile, d2 36 THE MODE or BAPTISM. and by constant noctnmal dews ; and Nebucliadnezzar kept his court in a country of near the same latitude, and consequently of the like temperament." This is very useful as a ground- work for the analysis of the expression ; but it does not in the least give a reason why a wetting with a copious fall of dew is called an immersion. Had this monarch been wet even by a shower-bath, why is his wetting called a dipping ? If all the water in the ocean had fallen on him, it would not have been a hteral immersion. The mode would still be wanting. Our opponents, if they know their business, may admit this, and still deny the consequence which this writer draws from it. Nor does this gentleman succeed better in ana- lyzing the expression. " Hence it appears very clear," says he, " that both Daniel and his translators designed to express the great dew Nebuchadnezzar should be exposed to, more emphatically, by saying, he should he in dew, and be covered with it aU over, as if he had been dipped ; for that is so much hke being dipped, as at most to differ no more than being in, and being put in ; so that the metaphor is easy, and not at all strained." But Daniel does not say that Nebuchadnezzar should lie in deiv, and be covered with it all over. Had this been his expression, it woidd have been quite hteral. Dr. Gale absurdly sripposes that bapto means to cover with water without reference to mode, and at the same time metaphorically alludes to dipping. Neither Daniel nor his translators say, that Nebuchadnezzar should be as wet as if he were dipped; for if that had been the expression, there could have been no dispute about it. Dr. Cox's reply to Mr. Ewing, AAdth respect to the analysis of this expression, appears to me not quite satisfactory. " It was," says IVIr. Ewing, '■'■ i^oioped upon, not even by effusion^ but by the gentlest distillation that is known in natioi^e." " To this it has been generally replied," says Dr. Cox, " and I think satisfactorily, that a body exposed to eastern dews would be as wet as if plunged into water." Now, this is valid, as proving that the body ought to be completely wetted in baptism ; but it leaves the mode tmaccounted for. Mr. Emng might grant this, yet still insist, from this passage, that mode is not contained in the word. Many persons do plead for a copious effusion of water in baptism ; and they might yield to the above reasoning, still contending that the mode is not essential, or that it is not immersion. The most complete wetting by dew or rain is not dipping hteraUy. If we would fairly meet this passage, we must show, not merely that Nebuchadnezzar was completely wetted, biit that a wetting in one mode may be figuratively designated by the words that properly denote a wetting in another mode. I will not hide one particle of the strength of our opponents' cause, nor an apparent weakness in our own. Let Christianity itself sink, rather than use one insufficient argument. Dr. Cox continues : " The passage, however, merits a little more detailed explanation. The verb is used in the passive voice, in the second aorist, and the indicative mood, implpng consequently that the action was past, and indefinite as to time." It does not seem to me, that the voice, tense, and mood of the verb, have any concern in this debate. THE MODE OV BAPTISM. 37 In all voices, tenses, and moods, a verb must liave its characteristic meaning. " It does not," continues Dr. Cox, " imply the manner iu 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." Without doubt, the verb expresses mode here as weU as anywhere else. To suppose the contrary gives up the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned. This in fact makes hapto signify simply to wet, without reference to mode. Dr. Cox gives an illustration, but unfortunately it can give no relief, as it fails in an essential point of similarity. " Suppose," says he, " by way of illustration, we select another word, and put it into the same voice and tense ; as eblabe upo sou, ' he was hurt by you.' It is obvious that this representation might refer to an injuiy done long ago, and would predicate nothing of the manner in which it was inflicted," &c. Very true. Nothing of manner is here expressed, and for an obvious reason, nothing of manner is expressed by the verb hlapto. But will Dr. Cox grant that this is the case with the verb hapto ? K he does, about what is he contending ? Bapto not only necessarily implies mode, but literally expresses nothing but mode. Instead of literally denoting wetting in any manner, it does not hterally include wetting at all. Tliis is as true in this passage, as it is in any other. Mode is as much expressed here, as it is in the commission of our Lord to the apostles. The difference is, that the thing that is here called an immersion was so only figuratively. I claim this passage as much as I do the plainest example in the New Testament. That the word in question ought here, as in all other places, to be rendered immerse, is necessary from the following reasons : 1. It is utterly unwarrantable to give a meaning to the word which it cannot be shown to have in some unquestionable examples. To assign a meaning not so justified, is to reason without first principles — to build without a foundation. This suits the visionary, but can never be the resource of true criticism. Now, the whole history of the word does not afford a single example in which it must signify to ivet. Wliatever, then, may be the principle on which this wetting of Nebuchadnezzar is called immersion, immersion it is called. 2. This is confirmed, as Dr. Cox has observed, by the original. The word in the original signifies to dip ; if so, why should not the Greek word by which it is translated have its own pecuHar meaning ? How can mode be excluded, if it is in both the original and the translation ? 3. The Syiiac version, as Dr. Gale remarks, renders the original in the same manner as the LXX. " The authors of the ancient and valu- able Syriac version," says he, " who were of the neighboiu'hood of Babylon, and well enough acquainted with the large deAvs iu those parts, and endeavoured to give an exact Hteral translation, have shimned this error." If, then, the Syriac translators have rendered the original by a term that signifies to dip, why shoidd not bapto in the translation of the LXX. have the same meaning ? To me the reasoning of Dr. Gale is entirely satisfactory. 4. The expression is intelligible and beautiful in our own language, ' 38 THE MODE OE BAPTISM. and, I have no doubt, might be exemplified in all languages. Alluding to the flood, we might say, that God immersed the world in water ; or of a rock when covered by the tide, that it is immersed in the sea. Do we not every day hear similar phraseology ? The man who has been exposed to a sximmer-plump will say that he has got a complete dipping. This is the very expression of Daniel. One mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wettmg, by the hvehness of the imagination. The same figure meets us almost in every page of the poets. Virgil will supply us with instances in abundance : — " Postquam collapsi cineres, et flamma quievit; Relliquias vino et bibulam lavere favillam." They washed the relics, and the warm spark, in wine. Who washes ashes, and bones, and embers ? On the pi-inciple of Mr. Ewing's criticism, we might, from this passage of Virgil, deny that lavo properly signifies to wash, and assert that it denotes to drench, to quench, to wet, to moisten, &c. What avails it, then, to teU us that Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the gentlest distillation in nature ? The effect of that gentle operation may be so like that of another more violent operation, that the language of the imagination may designate the more gentle by the characteristic denomination of the more violent. A wetting by dew may, in the language of animation, be called a dipping. Lan- guage violates the laws of natural philosophy, as well as of logic, without scruple; or rather it does not at aU own subjection to them. It owes allegiance only to the laws of mind. Things most absurd, if explained according to the laws of natural philosophy, and most untrue, according to the laws of logic, are true and beautiful when tried by their proper standard. Wlay did Virgil make such an application of the word lavo here ? Was it for lack of proper terms to express his ideas ? Of these he had abimdance. Was it to deceive or puzzle ? Neither ; for his meaning appears at a glance. He uses lavo for the same reason that the Holy Spirit, by Daniel, used the word signifying to immerse, when speaking of the wetting of Nebuchadnezzar by the dew, to enhven the style. Every reader must observe that much of the beauty of this pas- sage in Virgil is owing to the use of the word lavo in this figiu-ative, catachrestic sense. Literal accuracy would have been comparatively tame. And had not the word hapto been a term whose meaning affects rehgious practice, the above expression of Daniel and the Septuagint, instead of tormenting commentators and controversiahsts, woiJd have been admired as a beaiity in composition. " Wetting by the gentlest distillation in nature," would the critic say, " is here, in the most lively and imaginative language, figured as an immersion." But what is an ele- gance in the classics, is a grotmd of never-ending qrubble to theologians, who, instead of seeking the laws of language in the human mind, subject the words of the Spirit to the laws of logical truth. No doubt, were Virgil of authority in rehgion, and were rites and ceremonies to be deter- mined by his wiitings, the above expression woidd have been as vari- - ously interpreted as that in Daniel. Many a time we should hear, that THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 lavo, from this example, does not signify to wash, but to wet, to moisten, to drench. Virgil affords us another example in the same word : " Illi altemantes multa vi praelia miscent Vulneribus crebris : lavil ater corpora sanguis." In the encounter of the two bioHs, the black blood luashes their bodies. Here it might be said, in the spirit of Mr. Ewing's criticism, the black blood coxild not wash ; nay, it would defile the bodies of the contending animals. Lavo, then, cannot signify to luash, but to smear. But every one must see that the word lavo has here its pecuhar signification, and that the whole beauty of the expression depends on tliis cii'ciunstance. Every man who has a soul at all, knows well that lavo is here much more beautiful, than if the poet had chosen a term hteraUy signifying to smear. That which was a real defilement is called a ivashing, to express figui'atively the copiousness of the blood that flowed fi-om the mutual wounds of the contending bulls. This gives a feast to the imagination, where hteral expression woiild afford no food. Audire habenas, to hear the reins, signifying to obey the bridle, is an expression of the same kind. Indeed, it is impossible to open the poets without being presented with examples of this phraseology. Section V. — Having examined those examples in which this word has been supposed to signify to wash or to luet, but in each of which it is to be explained according to its characteristic meaning, I shall now proceed with other examples. The word occurs, as might be expected, very fre- quently in the writings of Hippocrates : and as, in medical use, there is occasion to refer repeatedly to every mode of the appUcation of hquids, in the voluminous writings of this great physician there can be no doubt but we shall find the characteristic meaning of bapto. Accordingly, we do find it in nrmierous instances ; and in all these, I do not recollect any but one, in which it has not the sense of dip. Li that one, it signifies to dye, according to its secondary import. The first occiu'rence of it which I have obsei^ved in this author, is in his treatise De Siiperfoet. p. 50, edit. Basil. " Dip the probes in some emollient." At the bottom of the next page, we have another example : " Dipping the rag in white sweet-smellhig Egyptian ointment." In the treatise De Victus Eatione, p. 104, the foUoAving example occurs : " Let the food be cakes dipped hot in soiu- wine." In the treatise De Usu Humidorum, we have the following example : " But for the sake of coohng the woimd, wool is either sprinlded -with the sour wine, or put into it, or it may be dipped into the coldest water." In continuation from the last words, the following immediately suc- ceed, p. 113: "As a cooler, black -wine is sprinkled on wool, whereas beet-leaves and Hnen are for the most part dipped.'''' In the treatise De Morbis, we have the foUomng examples, Hb. xi. p. 145 : " Dipping sponges in warm water, apply them to the head." In the next page, at top, we have the following example : " As an 40 THE MODE OF BAPTISM, external application, dipping sponges into warm water, let them be applied to the cheeks and jaws." A similar example occurs near the top of the next page : " Dipping a sponge into warm water, apply it." Page 149 : " Give garlic, dipping it into honey." In page 151, we have the following example: " Let him not siip sotip, nor even dip his bread into it." In the Appendix to Mr. Emng's Essay on Baptism, "written by a friend, we find a very odd view of this passage. I shall quote Ms observations at large. " Hippocrates (de Morb. hb. ii.) uses hap>testliai to denote the appHcation of a hquid to the skin ; zomos de me phoreito me de baptesthai, ' neither sip, nor pour (or sprinkle) broth ; ' using baptesthai in this sense, I suppose, from the idea that the appHca- tion of the hquid would strongly affect the place to which the apphcation was made ; at all events, it wotdd require no smah ingenuity to discover in this passage the idea of immersion." In this criticism there is a comph- cation of errors and false principles. 1. Wliy does the author translate baptesthai by pour or sp)rinkle ? Is there one instance in which it con- fessedly must have this meaning in the whole compass of Greek htera- ture ? K not, to apply such a meaning in any particular emergency is to reason without fii'st principles. 2. If the author read the whole of the works of Hipj)ocrates, as I am convinced he did, must he not have found a multitude of examples in which the word bapito unquestionably has the meardng dip ? He might reply, such a meaning could not apply here. But even if he could not find any view in which the usual mean- ing of the verb could apply in this instance, Avould it not have been more candid to grant the usual signification of the word, and confess a diffi- culty, than to assign a meaning altogether at random, without a shadow of authority either fi-om the Avord or the context ? 3. How does he bring the skiri of the patient into requisition in tlais place ? Where does he find this ? Neither in the expression, nor in any usual elhpsis. He might as well have supposed the feet or the head. 4. Is it a fact that broth or soup would have such a mischievous effect on the skin ? The solution of this siu'passes my medical knoAvledge. 5. It requires no inge- nmty to find here the proper meaning of the word baptesthai, as import- ing to dip. It is weU kno-vsTi that at table the ancients dipped their bread into the soup, or other hquid which they used as a seasoning. What, then, can be so natural as to fill up the elhpsis with the bread which was dipped ? An elhpsis of the regimen in things so common was quite usual. The evangehst uses the same elhpsis, where he says, " he that dippeth -with me in the dish," that is, he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, as another evangehst expresses it; or " he that dip- peth his bread with me " might, with equal propriety, be supphed as the supplemental matter. 6. The eUiptical matter must be supphed by the connexion. In an elhpsis we are never left to wander abroad to look for the thing that is wanting. It is always omitted, because it is so obvious that it cannot be missed. This is the principle on which ellipsis is used, and on no other is it justifiable. Were it othen\dse, aU language would consist of riddles. This is the reason why elhpsis is so common in con- versation, and about the most common things. What is omitted is omitted because every hearer will instantly supply it. We say of a THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 man, that lie is a great drinker — drinker of what ? Drinker of water ? No. Drinker of milk ? No. But, without the smallest hesitation, we understand it to be drinker of ardent spirits. Just so in the present pas- sage. The elliptical matter must be supplied from the connexion, and this leaves no doubt what it is. The -^vriter was giving direction about the food of his patient. In the words immediately preceding, he pre- scribed boiled mutton, fowl, goTU'd, and beet. In the passage quoted, he forbids him to eat broth, or even to dip — dip what ? Dip his bread, or his food, whatever it was, in the broth. What else could he mean ? In this view, the passage has a natural and a rational meaning. In some cases, a patient might be forbidden to partake freely of broth, when he might be permitted to season his morsel by dipping it iti the savoury liquid. But in this case, it seems, even this indulgence was not permitted. But upon what principle could the skin of the patient be suppUed as the supplemental matter ? It is not in the connexion, and is as arbitrary as if we should siipply the coat of the patient. It may be added, that, in the immediately succeeding connexion, the patient is permitted to eat fish. The whole passage speaks of diet. 7. Whatever is forbidden in a medical prescription, must be a thing that is Hkely to be done, if not forbidden. No physician would act so absui'dly as to prohibit what there is no probability his patient would do. Now, there was no proba- bihty that the patient here would sprinkle broth on his skin, had the physician been silent on the subject. I never heard of any such custom ; and against even accidental sprinkling he was sufficiently guarded, by the circumstance that he was not permitted to use the fluid as food. There was surely no danger of sprinkling his skin with broth, if he was not permitted to eat broth. This gloss is one of the wildest that I ever met. The word occui-s again in the same book, p. 153. " Dipping Linen rags into water, apply them to the breast and back." Lib. iii. p. 163. "A livid blister rising on the tongue, as of iron dipped into oil." P. 164. " Having dipped a piece of fine linen into moist Eretrian earth, well potmded and warm, cover the breast round with it." In the treatise De Internarum Partium AfFectibus, we have the fol- loAving examples from the same author: — P. 193. " Dipping beet in cold water, apply it to the body, especially to a new pain ; or dipping rags in cold water, after wrmging out the water, apply them." In the same page we have another example: " Let him eat green mar- joram, for the most part dipping it into honey." P. 199. Having prescribed a variety of things to be eaten by his patient, he adds: " These are of a very diy nature; and let him not dip) them into the broth." This passage is a decisive commentary on the ellipsis which Mr. Swing's friend has so strangely misunderstood. The different kinds of food here mentioned are prescribed on account of the quahty of dryness, and the patient is expressly forbidden to dip them in the soup or broth, as was usual. He is not forbidden to sprinkle his skin with broth, which no man ever thought of doiag ; but he is for- 42 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. bidden, in the eating of the things prescribed, to dip them in the soup, which he was hkely to do, had he not been forbidden. P. 202. " Bum it with spindles of box- wood, dipping them into boiling oil." P. 203. " Let him use radish and parsley, dipping them into vinegar." In the treatise De Natura Muliebri, p. 119 : " Dipping (the flies) into the oil of roses." P. 226. " Dipping the softest wool in a pipkin." P. 228. " Dipphig the balls into the juice of the fig-tree." P. 231. " Dipping (the plaster) into white Egyptian oil." In the treatise De Morb. Mul. the follo-\ving examples occur: P. 249. " Taking a sponge, or dipping soft avooI into warm water." And in the next line : " Then dipping again the sponge, or the wool, into pure wine." P. 250. Speaking of a number of things boiled together, he says: " Then dipping wool into this." P. 254. Speaking of a certain mixture, he says : " After this, having dipped it into the oil of roses, or Egyptian oil, let it be apphed dui-ing the day." In the same page, we have another example : " After supper, let her eat onions, dipping them into honey." P. 257. When a blister is too painful to the patient, he orders it to be taken away; and '■'■ dip)ping wool into the oil of roses, let her apply it." P. 258. " Having boiled nitre with rosin, and forming them into a ball, dipping it into the fat of a fowl, apply it." P. 261. '■^ Diptping the ball into white Egyptian oil." "Having dipped nut-gaU into honey, or the gall of a bull into Egj^tian oil, let it be applied." — Ih. " Make an oval ball, and dip it into white oU."— 7*. P. 262. " Then put a fine rag about it, in wool, dipjping it into Egyptian oil." " Dipping (the thing prescribed) into white Egyptian oil."— /^>. P. 263. " Having roUed a bit of galbanum the size of an ohve into a piece of linen, and having dipped it into cedar-oil." P. 264. Having prescribed different kinds of flesh to his patients, he directs, " Cooked without pepper, diijping it into vinegar." P. 269. Speaking of wool rolled round a quill: "Z)zp it either in white oil, or," &c. And within a few Knes: '■'■Dip the feather in vinegar." P. 273. " Dip the leaden instrument into cold water." P. 279. " Apply the fat of the deer, melted, dipping soft wool into it." P. 279. " Dipping wool into ointment." P. 280. " Put this mixtui'e into clean soft wool, and let her dip it in Avhite Egyptian oil." P. 284. " Dipping the unsecured wool in honey." P. 288. " Form it into a baU, and dip) it into some Hquid." " Eoll around a quill the gall of a bull, rubbed; and dippAng it into Egyptian oil, apply it." — lb. " Or cyclaminus, the size of a die, with the flower of brass ; or a head of anemone, bruising it with meal, and putting the THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 mixture into white wool, aroTind a quill, dip it," as directed above. For eirion, some read elaion ; dip it into white oil : oleo alho intingito. — lb. P. 289. " Having pounded finely a drachm of the fibres of flax with the stalks, steep them thoroughly for the night in the sweetest white wine ; then, having strained and warmed it, dip the softest wool in it." Literally, dip in it with the softest wool; just as we might say dip the liquor with the wool, instead of dip the wool in the liquor. P. 290. " Alixing myrrh and rosin together, and putting them in wine, dip a piece of linen in the mixture, and apply it." De Steril. p. 292. " Dip the probe in the unguent." P. 293. " Working them into a httle ball, roll it in wool, except the top ; then having dipped it in the sweetest oil, apply it." P. 297. Speaking of a mixture the size of a nut-gaU, he says: *' Dipping it in the ointment of fleur-de-luce." P. 299. " Taking lead and the magnetic stone, rub them smooth, and tie them in a rag ; then having dipped them in breast milk, apply them." " Dipping unwashed wool into honey." — Ih. De Morb. Pass. Grass, p. 339. Speaking of a shoe-maker who was kiUed by the prick of his awl in the thigh, he says, " The instrument dipped about a finger's length." P. 362. " Dipping sponges." De Ratione Victus Acutorum, p. 383. " Dipping hot cakes in black wine and oil." Coacae Pr^cognitiones, p. 435. " If a Hvid blister rise on the tongue at the beginning, as of iron dipped in oil, the cure becomes the more difficult." De Ulceribus, p. 514. " The other things being the same; but in place of the wine, take the strongest vinegar of white wine. Dip into this the most greasy wool." " Dip the wool in the smallest quantity of water possible ; then pouring into it of wine a third part, boil it to a good thickness." — Ih. P. 522. " Dipping the raw hver of an ox in honey." Thus we have seen in what a vast mrdtitude of examples Hippocrates tises this word to signify to dip ; and that quite irrespectively of the nature of the fluid. Indeed, he not only uses it so frequently in this signification, but he uses it in no other signification, excej)t once in the sense of to dye ; and it is the only word which he employs to denote the mode in question: for I have intentionally omitted no instance in which the word occurs in all his works. Besides, Ave have in this Avriter the words which signify every apphcation of water, and other fluids, from the gentle distillation from the nipple, to the bathing of the whole body. He uses raino, aioneo, &c., for sprinkle, and for j»02ping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner. A hke process might be shoAAoi in the history of a thousand other Avords. Can- dlestick originally denoted a stick to hold a candle, but noAV the utensil employed to hold a candle is called a candlestick, even AAdaen it is of gold. The only instance in which I haA^e obsei'ved the Avord ba2)to in this signification, in the Avorks of Hippocrates, he employs it to denote dyeing by dropp)ing the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed: " Wlien it drops upon the garments, they are dyed.''' This sui-ely is not dyeing by dipping. There is a similar instance in Arrian's Expedition of Alexander the Great, the only one in Avhich I have foimd the Avord at all in that woik. " Nearchus relates that the Indians dye their beards." It Avill not be contended that they dyed their beards by immersion. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 We meet this word, or its derivatives, several times in ^lian, in tBe sense of dyeing^ and sometimes when the process was not by dipping. Speaking of an old coxcomb, who endeavoured to conceal his age bv dyeing his hair, he says, " lie endeavoured to conceal the hoariness of his hair by dyeing it." Baphe here denotes dyeing in general; for hair on the head is not dyed by dipping. In the title of this anecdote, the old man is styled : " The old man "with the dyed hair." Lib. vii. c. xx. Speaking of a lady whose yellow locks were not coloured by art, but by nature, he uses tlae word haphais. Lib. xiii. c. i. Nicolas of Damasciis, speaking of parasites as obliged to flatter their patrons, says, " Does a patron affect to be younger than he is ? or does he even dye his hair ?" ^schylus, in the Choephorse, p. 85, uses the Avord in the same way: " This garment, dyed by the sword of iEgisthus, is a witness to me." The garment must have been dyed by the blood runrdng down over it. These examples are sufficient to prove, that the word hapto signifies to dye in general, though originally and stiU usually apphed to dyeing by dipping. Having such evidence before my eyes, I could not deny this to my opponents, even were it a difficulty as to the subject of the mode of baptism. In a controversiahst nothing can compensate for candour; and facts ought to be admitted, even when they appear unfavourable. It is an unhallowed ingenuity that strains to give a deceitftd colouring to Avhat cannot be denied, and cannot ultimately serve a good cause. Truth will be sooner made to appear, and wiJI sooner be received, if on all sides there is openness and honest dealing, without any attempt to conceal, or to colour. To force through difficidties, employ insufficient e^ddence, reftise admissions that integrity cannot deny, and by rhetorical artifice cut down whatever opposes, is the part of a rehgious gladiator, not of a Christian contending earnestly for Divine institutions. On the subject of this application of the word bapto, I cannot but blame some of the most distinguished ■^Titers on both sides of the question. On the one side, supposing it to be necessary, or at least serviceable, to prove that, Avhen the word relates to dyeing, it is always dyeing by dipping, they have evidently strained, and have employed false criticism. With respect to the other side, to say nothing of the straining to squeeze out of the word the several significations of sprinMing, pjouring, washing, wetting, &c., for which there is not any even plausible ground, the obvious fact, that it signifies dyeing by any process, has been uncritically pressed to prove, that when it relates to the application of pure water it denotes all modes equally. There is neither candom- nor philosophy in such attempts. It manifests little acqiiamtance Avith the history and philosophy of the signification of Avords. In reahty this admitted fact is nothing in their favour, as it is perfectly agreeable to the history of the meanings of a numerous class of words. Use is always superior to etymo- logy as a Avitness on this subject. A word may come to enlarge its meaning, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smatterer in philology. Had it been attended to, Baptists Avould have found no necessity to prove that bapto, Avhen it signifies to dye, always properly signifies to dye by dipping ; and their opponents Avould 46 THE MODE or BAPTISM. have seen no advantage from proving, that it signifies dyeing in any manner. The Avord candlestick applies now as well when the material is gold, as when it is timber. He would not, however, be worth reasoning mth, who should from this circumstance deny that the name points ont the materials of Avhich candlesticks among the Saxons were originally made. The observations of Dr. Gale on this subject fall in some degree nnder the above censui'e. " The Grecians," says he, " very frequently apply the word in all its various forms to the dyer's art, sometimes perhaps not very properly, but always so as to imply and refer only to its true natiiral signification to clipT Wliat does this learned -writer mean when he expresses a doubt of the propriety of this usage? Does he mean that such an extension of the meaning of Avords is in some degi'ee a trespass against the laws of lan- guage? But such a usage is in strict accordance with the laws of language ; and the history of a thousand words sanctions this example. Language has not logical truth for its standard ; and therefore against this it carmot trespass. Use is the sole aebiter of la]s"guage; akd whateatee is AGREEABLE TO TfflS AUTHORITT, STANDS JUSTIFIED BEYOND DIPEACmiENT. Candlestick is as properly apphed to gold as to timber; hapto signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping, though originally it was confined to the latter. Nor js he Avell founded when he asserts, that the Avord in such apphca- tions ahvays imphes and refers to its primary signification only. On the contrary, I have produced some examples, and he himself has produced others, in which candour cannot say that there is any such imphcation or reference. From such examples it could not be knoAva even that hapto has the meaning of dip. They relate to dyeing AvhoUy without reference to dipping ; nay, some of them Avith an expressed reference to another mode. This is a fact, and were it even against me, I could not but admit it. Nor are such apphcations of the word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension of hteral meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words come to depart so far from thefr original signification. The exam- ples of this kind which Dr. Gale produces, cannot be accoimted for by his philosophy. " Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and smeared it over ivith tawny washes.'"' Now, sm'ely haptomenos here has no reference to its primary meaning. Nor is it used figuratively. The face of the person was rubbed with the wash. By anj'thing imphed or referred to in this example, it could not be knoAATi that hapto ever signifies to dip. Ornis haptos, a coloured bird. This expression is indeed figm-ative. But the figure has no reference to dipping, the primary meaning of the word, but to dyeing. The bird is said to be dyed, though its colours were natural. By the same figure we should say a painted hird, though its colours were not conferred by the pencil. This example strongly confirms my Adew of the Avord in Daniel. Here even in the verbal {haptos) of the very word hapto, we have the same figure which I have pointed out in the use of the word in the above contested passage. The THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 47 colours of a bird are said to he dyed, by a beautiful figure foxmded on like- ness ; just as, in Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was said to be immersed in dew, though Hterally the dew fell on him. What a Goth should we reckon the critic who woiild philosophize on such expressions as painted bird, on the principle of the objection to dipping as the meaning of the word in the expression used by Daniel! "The plumage of the bird," says the philologist, " is natural, and not confen'ed by either painter or dyer. The word painted therefore, and the word dyed, when appHed to birds, designate properly natural colours. Baptos, therefore, in the expression used by Aristophanes, does not signify dyed, but denotes colour, whether artificial or natural." A foreigner, on the same principle, might show the depth of his philosophy on the phrase painted bird. " Here," says he, " a bird is said to be painted. Now we know that the colours of a bird are not given by the pencil, but by the Creator. The proper sense, then, of the Enghsh word painted, is not coloured by the pencil, but coloured in any way." This might appear to have great depth and justness to people as Httle acquainted with the language as himself, and who should not venture to dip into the philosophy of the criticism. But a mere child who speaks English would laugh at it. Yet it is the very criticism employed by celebrated scholars on the passage in Daniel. If theologians had as much taste as they have ingenuity and learning, it would save themselves and their readers an immensity of useless labour. The pictce volucres of Virgil is a perfectly similar example in the Latin language. Aristophanes speaks of dyed birds, Virgil of painted birds. Let the criticism on the passage in Daniel be applied to the phrase of VirgU. " Here," says the critic, " instead of colours laid on by the pencU of the painter, the colour is given by the invisible hand of nature. Pictce, then, cannot signify painted, or have any allusion to pai7iting, but must denote properly natural colouring." This is the very essence of the criticism on the passage in Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar, they say, was not ' immersed in dew, — therefore the word bapto must here signify the distillation of deiv. Our own Milton uses the same figure when, speaking of the wings of the angel Raphael, he says, colours dipped in heaven, though he does not mean that they were either dijjped or dyed. The foreigner, who, from this authority, should argue that the English word dip does not signify the mode which we understand by it, would find his justification in the criticism on the above passage in the book of Daniel. Dr. Gale gives us another passage from Aristotle, which is as little to his purpose, namely, to prove that the word, when it signifies to dye, has always a reference to dipping, and implies it. " If it is pressed, it dyes and colours the hand." Surely there is no reference to dipping here ; the hand is dyed by pressing the thing that dyes. Here, also, the critical eye will see a confii-mation of my view of the principle that operates in the application of the word bapto in the passage of the book of Daniel. Things are said to be dyed by nature, on the same principle that Nebuchadnezzar was said to be immersed in dew. Having found, beyond reasonable doiibt, that bapto, in its secondary sense, is employed literally and properly to denote dyeing, even when 48 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. there is no cli2oping^ we are noAv prepared to examine the occurrence of the word in the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, which has been so obsti- nately contested; and which hitherto has been the most plausible resource of those who have laboured to prove that at least one of the meanings of the word is to pour. The blood was poured into the lake, therefore it is thought hapto must signify to pour. But in reahty, the passage favours neither the one party nor the other. It expresses neither pouring nor dipping, but dyeing, without reference to mode. If hapto, as we have proved, signifies to dye in any mode, there is no occasion for the advocates of immersion in baptism to find immersion in the word, as it signifies to dye. This simple fact settles the controversy about this passage for ever. " He fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged with blood ;" or, according to the translation of Cowper, " So fell Crombophagus, and from that fall Never arose, but reddening with his blood The wave," &c. To suppose that there is here any extravagant allusion to the hteral immersion or dipjnng of a lake, is a monstrous perversion of taste. The lake is said to be dyed, not to be dipped, nor p)oured, nor sprinkled. There is in the word no reference to mode. Had Baptists entrenched themselves here, they would have saved themselves much useless toil, and much false criticism, -without straining to the impeachment of their candour, or their taste. Wliat a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse ! Yet Dr. Gale supposes the lake dipped by hyperbole. " The hteral sense," he says, "is, the lake Avas dipp)ed in blood." Never was there such a figure. The lake is not said to be dipped in blood, but to be dyed with blood. They might have foimd a better commentary to this passage in the battles of Homer's heroes in the Iliad. The expression evidently alludes to one in the beginning of the twenty-first book of the Eiad, with respect to the slaughter of the Trojans by Achilles in the river Xanthus : " The waters as they ran reddened with blood." — Cowper. In allusion to this, in the burlesque poem, from which the disputed pas- sage is taken, the whole lake is said to be dyed with the blood of a mouse, which fell in battle on its edge. The monthly reviewers, as quoted by Mr. Booth, understood the expression in this paradoxical sense. " In a poem attributed to Homer," they say, " caUed the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, it is said a lake was baptized with the blood of a wounded combatant — a question hath arisen in what sense the word baptize can be used in this passage." This should never have been a question ; for this lake is not said to be bap- tized. The word bapto, not baptizo, is used. Again, the lake was not dipped, as these friends of dipping, or at least of profuse pouring, assert. The expression is literal, and has not the smallest difficulty. Section VH.' — The derivatives of this word, both in the primary and secondary meaning, prove that it denotes immersion. Bamma, sauce or THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 49 souiJ into which bread or other food is dipped in eating ; also a dye into which the thing to be dyed is dijjjyed, as distinguished from chroma. Baphe, immersion, &g., Soph, in Ajace: "I who endui'ed horrible things, as iron dipped in water." Baphe siderou is also used for the edge of iron; because the edge, or sharpness, is given in the tempering by immersion in water. Bapsis, the act of dipping : as bapsis chalkou kai siderou, the tempering of brass and iron ; quoted by Scapula from Pol. ex Antiphonte. Now metal is tempered in water by immersion. Baptisis, a laver, or bathing place, used by Lucian. Dibaphos, dyed by being tmce dipped ; just as dyers with us speak of giving their cloth one dip, or two or three dijjs. Oxubaphos, oxubaphon, and oxubaphion, quoted by Scapula from Athen. lib. ii. : the small vessel ivhich was used to hold the vinegar with which they seasoned their food. This the ancients did by dipping. To this, doubtless, our Avord saucer owes its origin, however differently it is used at present. This is an instance of the process by which words extend their signification beyond the ideas originally contained in them. The word saucer, from signifying a small vessel for holding sauce, now signifies one for coohng tea. This is a fine illustration of the process by which bapto, from signifying to cKp, came to signify to dye by dipping, and at last dropping the mode, to dye in any manner. The foreigner who should allege that the English Avord saucer cannot signify a smaU vessel for tea, but must ahvays denote one for sauce, A\^oidd reason as correctly as those who attempt to force bapto, when signifying to dye, ahvays to look loack to its origin. This compound, mentioned above, is also used as the name of a measure, doubtless because this vessel Avas at first used as the measure of the quantity so designated. At last, however, it Avould come by a natural process to denote the measure, Avithout any reference to the vessel. In medical language, this compound was also applied to the deep caAdties or cups in which bones tiirn in the joints — doubtless taking the name from the shape. Here the socket of a joint is called a vinegar cup. Opsobaphon, taken also by Scapula from Poll. Hb. Arii. denotes the small vessel in which these things Avere served up, which were eaten with bread, and which were always used by dipping. Xenophon repre- sents the hands of the king of Media, as smeared in this operation. The verbal baptos, to be dipped, or that may be dipped, we haA'e already seen in the passage quoted from Eru-ipides in justification of the transla- tion of a passage in Hippocrates. The negative abaptos may also be alleged as confirmatory of the application of the root in the sense of dipping. Abap)tos sideros is untempered iron, literally undipped iron, for iron is tempered by dipping. Abaj)tistos also signifies that cannot be immersed, and is applied by Pindar, as Scapula obsei'ves, to cork. This fact is perfectly decisiA'e. There can be no doubt that the property of cork, not to sink in Avater, is referred to liy Pindar. Abaptiston, a trepan, a surgical instrument, so called because it Avas SQ F, 50 THE MODE OE BAPTISM. formed as not to smk too deeply, lest it should injtire the membrane of the brain. This shows that the word from which it is derived signifies to dip. In ascertaining the meaning of bapto, it may be of assistance to us to examine also some of its compounds, and also the prepositions with which it is construed. In composition, we find it sometimes joined with prepositions that point to the meaning for which we contend, and which will not suit the meaning attached to it by omt opponents. Besides, it admits no preposition in composition or construction with it, which cannot be accounted for on the supposition of this meaning. If this position can be made good, it will afford the strongest confirmation to our doctrines. "We have seen, in the ntunerous examples quoted, that it admits both the prepositions eis and en to be compounded with it, as well as to con- strue with it in regimen. A mere glance at the examples may convince any one that this would not suit either pou7' or sprinkle, from the con- sideration of the things which are the subjects of the operation of the verb. We could not, for instance, say, pour or sprinkle luool in or into the river. If, then, the word signified pour or sprinkle, it could not admit these prepositions either in composition or in regimen, "with respect to many things that are the subject of the operation of the verb. Both the prepositions eis and en, in composition Avith this word, have the same form. Embapto is the compotuid word with respect to both. The regimen, however, is different. If em is put for eis, the verb is construed with the accusative of the thing in which the operation of the verb is performed, either without, or more generally mth the preposition itself repeated before it. Embapto eis to udor. When em is put for en, the verb is construed with the dative of the thing in which the operation of the verb is performed, either "with the same preposition repeated before it, or without it. — Embapto en to elaio. When eis is used either in the compoimd or before the substantive, there can be no question that aU idea of pouring or S2:)rinkling is excluded. And though en may sometimes be translated with, it never has this acceptation in composition. Indeed, this form is so decisive, that the celebrated Dr. Owen asserts, that it is this that makes the verb signify- to dip. " Baptizo^'' says he, " does not signify properly to dip or plunge, for that, in Greek, is embapto and embaptizo." This observation is not worthy of the learning of that great and good man. If the verb bapto did not of itself signify to dip, the preposition in question could not give it that meaning. Dr. Owen's criticism is well exposed by the cool good sense of Mr. Booth. " Besides," says he, " I appeal to the learned whether Dr. Owen might not as well have asserted, that mergo does not properly signify to dip or plimge, for that, in Latin, is immergo ? Nay, does not the Dr. himself, in the same discoiu-se, acknowledge, that ' the original and natural signification of the word imports to dip, to plunge, to dye, to wash, to cleanse?''^'' Embamma signifies sauce, or any liquid into which food is dip)ped in order to be eaten — something to be dipped into. This compound could not suit either pouring or spnnkling. Embaphion, a saucer, or vessel THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 51 to hold the liquid for seasoning food, which was used by dipping. It came also to denote a certain measure, — no doubt fi'om the circiunstance that this vessel was employed as a measui'e. In this sense, Hippocrates uses it several times. Katabapto signifies, literally, to dip doiun, that is, to dip deeply, or thoroughly. The preposition is designed to increase the action of the verb. Accordingly, katabajHoJi signifies a dyer. Epibapto, to dip upon. We find this compoimd once used by Hippo- crates, and, althotigh it affords us no evidence, it takes none from us. The use of apo Avith this word may appear more strange, but it is explicable. It is used both in composition and following the verb ; and sometimes it is used in composition when eis follows the verb. Apobapto appears to designate to dip, as intimating the departm-e of the thing dipped from the thing in which it is dipped. Wlien apo follows bapto, it respects the point from which the finished dipping has proceeded. Bap)to apo tou aimatos. I dip it fivm the blood. The blood is the point from which the thing dipped proceeded, after the operation. The preposition ek is also construed -with apobapto, in one of the examples taken from Hippocrates. This makes it still more evident, that apo, in construction with tliis verb, denotes the pomt from which the dipping was effected. Ek views the thing dipped as proceeding out of the thing in which it was dipped. Scapula seems to think that apo in composition mth this word, is designed to intimate the gentleness of the operation, as he translates it, immergo leniter, / dipt gently ; and refers to Dioscorides lib. v. apobapsai eis udor. But though it may be used with respect to the gentlest dipping, it cannot intimate this. But whatever may be the peculiar effect of this preposition in composition Avith bapto, and on Avhatever principle its use is to be accounted for, the fact that the compounded word is sometimes used in construction with eis, removes all appearance of objection to our view of the meaning of the verb. Section VHI. — Let us now take a glance at a few passages in which bapto is used figuratively, as this also may cast some light back upon its literal meaning. Aristophanes says : " Lest I dip you into a Sardinian dye.'''' The figure is but low, and is just the same as if a pugilist Avith us should say, / luill dip you in vermilion. It is an allusion to the dyer's art, and means, / ivill beat you, till you shall be covered all over luith your oivn blood. It would be to no purpose to allege, that, Avhen a man is beaten, he is not hterally dipped in his blood, but the blood rmis over him. This Avould indicate a total misconception of the figure. The likeness does not consist in the manner, but in the effects. As the refer- ence is to the art of dyeing, so the expression must be suited to the usual mode of dj^eing. / ^vill dip you in vermilion, is exactly the expression of the poet in English. He Avould be a sorry critic, Avho, from this, should allege that the Enghsh Avord dip signifies to run over, as blood from the Avouuded body. In fact, p)0Hr and sprinkle are as Httle appH- cable here, in a literal sense, as dip itself. When a man is beaten, there e2 52 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. is no pouring or sprinkling, more than dipping. The blood is not put on the beaten person by the beater, in any manner. Marcus Antoninus Pius speaks of the man of virtue as bebammenon, dipped or dyed in justice. I would not explain this with Dr. Gale, " dipped as it were in, or swallowed up with justice." Justice is here represented as a colouring liquid, which imbues the person who is dipped in it. It communicates its quaUties as in the operation of dyeing. . The figiu-e can receive no illustration from the circumstance, that " persons given up to their pleasures and vices, are said to be immersed or swal- lowed up with pleasures." The last figure has a reference to the primary meaning of the word bapto, and points to the drowning effects of liquids ; the former refers to the secondary meaning of the word, and has its resemblance in the colouring effects of a hquid dye. The vir- tuous man is dipped to be dyed more deeply with justice ; the vicious man is drowned or ruined by his immersion. Perfectly similar is the figure in an observation of the same writer, where he asserts that the thoughts are tinctured by the mind. We use the word imbue in the same way. He uses the same word also when the dye injures what it colours. He cautions against bad example, lest you he infected. We see, then, that the use of this word in a figurative sense, is not only always consistent with my view of the meaning of this word, but that it frequently illustrates its primary import. Section IX. — That bapto signifies to dip is strongly confirmed by the circumstance, that dyeing, which it also imports, was usually performed, both among the Greeks and Romans, by immersion. If the word originally denoted to dip, it might, by a natural process, come to signify to dye, which was performed by dipping. But if the word originally signified to pour or to sprinkle, no process can be supposed by which it would come to denote to dye. Upon our view, there is a connecting link which joins these two meanings together, notwithstanding their great diversity. They are seen by our doctrine as parent and child. On the view of our opponents there is no relation. The two meanings cannot have any consanguinity. Now, that dyeing anciently was com- monly performed by dipping, and that it still is so, admits no reasonable doubt. Dr. Gale has well observed this, and has given evidence of the fact, should any be so perverse as to deny it. After producing some passages, he observes, " I will only observe, you will please to consider dipping as the only probable and convenient way ; and in every respect perfectly agreeable to the nature of the thing, as well as to that sense of the word, which is very considerable. We see it is the only way Avith us; and, which carries the parallel still farther between the ancient Greeks and us, as they used bapto, we use the word dip, both among the workmen in the shop, and in ordinary conversation; for what is more common than to talk of such or such a thing dipped, meaning in the dyer's copper, or in some colours ?" " Besides it is observable, that the Grecians made a difference between dye, and other colotu-ing matter. Thus Plutarch distinguishes between chromata and hammata ; and PoUux does the same; bammata signifying only that sort of colouring-matter THE MODE or BAPTISM. 53 into which anything is dipped, according to the sense of the word, as I see Stephens also has remarked. And there is a passage in Seneca very clear to this purpose. ' Interest quamdiu macerata est, crassius niedica- mentum an aquatius traxerit, ssepius mersa est, et excocta, an semel tincta.' There is a difference also, how lo7ig it lies infused; whether the dye he thick and gross, or waterish and faint; and whether dipped very often and boiled thoroughly, or only once tinctured. And Phavorinus and Pollux use katahapton, which on all hands is allowed most emphatically to signify dipping, plunging, immei^sing, as a synonymous word for bapton and chronnus, in Enghsh, a dyer." " This makes it necessary to suppose they dyed by dipping ; as well as another word used by them in these cases, namely, epsein, to boil: they boiled it in kettles, says Aristotle; and when the flowers are boiled long enough together, at length all becomes of a purple." A most decisive passage to the same purpose, he thus translates from Plato de Eepublica, lib. iv. p. 636. " The dyers, when they are about to dip a quantity of wool, to make it of a purple colour, cidl out the whitest of the fleece, and prepare and wash it with a ivorld of trouble, that it may the better take the grain ; and then they dip it. The dye of things thus dipped is lasting and unchangeable, and cannot he fetched out or tarnished, either hy fair loater, or any preparations for the discharging of colours. But things which are not dyed after this manner, you know ivhat they are ; no matter what dye they are dipped in, they never look well; without this preparation they take but a nasty colour, and that is easily washed out too. And thus in like manner our choosing soldiers, and instructiiig them in music, and those exercises which consist in agility of body, you must imagine our design is only to make them the better receive the laws, which are a kind of dye, — that their temper being formed by a proper discipline, may he fixed and unalterable by terror, ^c, and their tincture may not he washed out by any medicaments of the most poioerfidly expelling nature ; as plea- swe, which is stronger to this effect than any dye, as is likewise grief, fear, or desire, and the like." Here is the most complete evidence, that both among the Greeks and Eomans dyeing was usually performed by dipping. Indeed, nothing but perverseness can make a question of this, though there was no evidence of the fact from history. There is no other way in which fluids can be extensively appUed in dyeing, but by dipping. The truth of this fact is not in the least affected by the observation of Mr. Ewing, that dyeing, staining, and painting were originally similar operations, having been first suggested by the accidental biTiising of fruits, &c. Though this were a fact recorded, instead of a conjecture, it could be of no service on this subject. Arts are not necessarily con- ducted in the way in which they Avere originally suggested. "N^Hiatever was the origin of dyeing, dip>ping was the common way of performing it as an art. It is the usual mode of performance, and not the accidental mode of discovery, that could give its name to the art. Dr. Cox's answer to this objection is quite satisfactory. " In reply to this," says he, " it might be sufficient to say, that in whatever manner the process was primarily discovered, the correct meaning of the term whicli 54 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. expresses it, involves the idea of immersion, and did so at the very period when the contested words were in colloquial use. Pliny states, ' the Egyptians began by painting on white cloths, with certain drugs, which in themselves possessed no coloui- ; but had the ^ property of abstracting or absorbing colouring matters; but these cloths were afterwards im- mersed in a diluted dyeing liquor, of a uniform colour, and yet, when removed from it soon after, that they were found to be stained Avith inde- lible colours, differing from one another, according to the nature of the drugs which had been previously appHed to different parts of the stuff.' In this passage, we are favoui'ed with an intelligible distinction between painting, immersing (or the art of dyeing), and staining ; yet we are required to admit that they were one." Agi'eeably to the above view of the connexion between the secondary meaning of this word and the primary, we have a great niunber of the branches which have the same double import, from the same comiexion. Bamma, sauce into which food is dipped, — and a dye into which things are to be dipped. Baplie, dipping and dyeing stuff, or the tincture received from dyeing. JBaphikos, both dip)ping and dyeing, — and hapliike, the dyer's art. Baptos, to be dijyped, and to be dyed, &c. &c. Li all these, there is no other common idea bixt mode : this is the hnk that con- nects these two things that are altogether different. If the same Avord has the same double meaning in so many of its branches, there must surely be at the bottom some natural relation between these meanings. This view of the primary meaning of hapto, and the secondary, is greatly confirmed by the analogy of other languages. The same primary and secondary meanings are found in the corresponding word, in many other languages. The Septuagint translation gives parabapta, in Ezek. xxiii. 15. The Hebrew, to which this corresponds, signifies dyed rai- ment. Here we see that the Hebrew, which, as Dr. Gale obsei^ves, every- one must own, signifies to dip, is used also for dye. This analogy is complete, and must arise from the same cause, namely, that among the Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Romans, dyeing was commonly per- formed by dipping. The same word, in the Chaldee also, as Dr. Cox has observed, signifies both to dip and to dye. In the Latin also, the same word, tingo, signifies to dip and to dye. To this Mr. Ewing replies, that " Tingo is the Greek teggo, [pron. tengo^ Avhich is very properly translated in the Lexicons, madefacio, hiimido, mollio ; I moisten, ivet, soften, or mollify.''^ That tingo is derived fi-om teggo is undoubted ; biit to assert that it has all the significations of its parent, and that it has no other, would be as unphilological in theory, as it is inconsistent with fact. Teggo does not signify to dye ; tingo, its derivative, has this signification. Where did it find it ? Teggo signifies to moisten, &c. ; tingo has not this signification. I am aware that wash is given as one of its meanings in the dictionaries, but I have seen as yet no authority for this from the classical use of the word. Besides, wash is not the same as moisten, wet, &c. I grant, indeed, that the word may be used when washing, wetting, moistening, softening, &c., is the consequence of the dip- ping. Still, however, this is not hterally contained in the expression. Though any of these words might be given in certain situations as a THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 55 translation, yet such a translation would not be literal. Tingo expresses appropriately dipjnng and dyeing, and these only. Indeed, the meaning of tingo is to be learned from its use in the Latin language, and not from the use of its root in the Greek. Wlien this is ascertained, then the philologist may look into its origin, to discover a correspondence. It may be expected that the root "will contain some idea which has been a foundation to its use in the derived language. But a correspondence in all theii* meanings would often be looked for in vain. The derived word often di^ops every meaning of the root but one, and takes others that the root never possessed. Does Mr. Emng deny that tingo signifies to dii? ? If he does, the classical u.se of that word -will contradict him. The dipping of the sun, moon, and stars, in the ocean, as we should express it, is in the language of the Latin poets expressed by tingo. If he does not deny this, liis assertion in the above extract is nothing to his purpose. If there was any need of authority with respect to the meaning of tingo, we have it in Tertullian. He understood the Latin language, and he uses tingo for dipt. It is weU known that he believed that proper baptism consisted in three immersions ; and he translated the Greek word by ti7igo. The same analogy is recognised by om- OAvn language ; and though I would not say mth some, that dip has dye as a secondary signification, yet in certain circumstances it may have this import by consequence, — " colours dipped in heaven.''^ Since, then, the analogy of so many lan- guages connects dipping and dyeing by expressing them by the same word, why should not the same thing be supposed in the Greek ? and bapto, as it has the secondary meaning of dye, have also the primary meaning of dip ? It may be added, that we have the authority of the Latin poets, to translate bapto by tingo, in the sense of dipp>i7ig. As the Greek poets apply bapto to the settmg of a constellation, or its dip)ping in the ocean, the Latin poets express the same thing by mergo and tingo. Section X. — Having viewed bapto in every light in which it can assist us on this subject, I shall now proceed to exhibit the examples of the occurrence of baptizo itself, Avhich, to the utter exclusion of the root, is apphed to the Christian rite. Bapto, the root, I have sho-\vn to possess two meanings, and two only, to dip and to dye. Baptizo, I have asserted, has but one signification. It has been formed on the idea of the primary meaning of the root, and has never admitted the secondary. Now, both these things have been mistaken by waiters on both sides of this contro- versy. It has been generally taken for granted, that the two words arc equally applicable to baptism ; and that they both equally signify to dye. Both of them are siipposed, in a secondary sense, to signify to loasli or moisten. I do not admit this with respect to either. I have already proved this with respect to bapto; the proof is equally strong with respect to baptizo. My position is, that it always signifies to dip ; NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE. NoAv, as I have all the lexico- graphers and commentators against me in this opinion, it wiU be neces- sary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may be startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the imanimous 56 THE MODE or BAPTISM. aiitliority of lexicons, as an instance of the boldest scepticism. Ai-e lexicons, it may be said, of no anthority ? Now, I admit that lexicons are an authority, but they are not an ultimate authority. Lexicographers have been guided by their own judgment in examining the various pas- sages in which a word occurs : and it is still competent for every man to have recourse to the same sources. The mea7iing of a word must ulti- mately he determined by an actual inspection! of the passages in which it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judgment of the lexicogra- pher. The use of a Avord, as it occurs in the -^vriters of authority in the EngHsh language, is an appeal that any man is entitled to make against the decision of Dr. Johnson himself. The practice of a language is the House of Lords, Avhich is competent to re"sdse the decisions of all dictionaries. But though it is always lawful to appeal from lexicons to the lan- guage itself, it is seldom that there can be any necessity for this, with respect to the primary meaning of words. Indeed, with respect to the primary meaning of common words, I can think of no instance in which lexicons are to be suspected. This is a featiu^e so marked, that any painter can catch, and faithftdly represent. Lideed, I should consider it the most imreasonable scepticism, to deny that a word has a meaning, which all lexicons give as its piimary meaning. On this point, I have no quarrel with the lexicons. There is the most complete harmony among them, in representing dip as the primary meaning of bapto and baptizo. Except they had a turn to serve, it is impossible to mistake the primary meaning of a word commonly used. Accordingly, Baptist writers have always appealed, Avith the greatest confidence, to the lexi- cons even of P^o-baptist writers. On the contrary, their opponents often take refage in a supposed sacred or scriptural use, that they may be screened from the fire of the lexicons. It is ia givmg secondary meanings, in which the lines are not so easily discovered, that the vision of the lexicographers is to be suspected. Nor is it -with respect to real secondary meanings that they are likely to be mistaken. Their pecuhar error is in giving, as secondary meanings, what are not properly meanings at aU. The same objection that I have to lexicons, mth respect to this word, I have not ^Yith. respect to it alone, but with respect to almost all words to which they assign a great variety of meanings. I do not exclude Dr. Johnson himself from this censure. It may appear strange to some, that the most learned men can be imposed upon in this matter ; and Avith respect to words which they find in use in what they read, think that they have meanings wliich they have not. But a little consideration of the nature of the mistake will explain this matter. I admit that the meaning which they take out of the word, is always imphed in the passage Avhere the word occurs. Biit I deny that this meaning is expressed by the word. It is always made out by imphcation, or in some other way. To explain this point more clearly, I shall lay down a canon, and by this I mean a first principle in criticism. That which does not contain its own evidence is not entitled to the name of a critical canon. I do not request my readers to admit my canon. I insist on their submission THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 — ^let tlaem deny it if they can. My canon is, that in certain situa- tions, TWO WORDS, OR EVEN SEVERAL WORDS, MAY, WITH EQUAL PROPRIETY, FILL THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH THEY ARE ALL ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS. The physician, for instance, may, with equal pro- priety and perspicuity, say either " dip the bread in the wine," or, " moisten the bread in the wine." Yet this does not import that dip signifies to moisten, or that moisten signifies to dip. Each of these words has its o^vn peculiar meaning, which the other does not possess. Dip the bread does not say moisten the bread, yet it is known that the object of the dipping is to moisten. Now it is from ignorance of this principle that lexicographers have given meanings to words wliich they do not possess; and have thereby laid a foundation for evasive criticism on controverted subjects, with respect to almost all questions. In Greek it might be said Avith equal propriety, deusai en oino, or bapsai en oino, "moisten in luine, or dip in -wine;" and fi-om this circiunstance it is rashly and unphilosophically concluded that one of the meanings of bapto is to moisten. Let it be remembered that my censiu'e Hes against the critical exact- ness of lexicographers, and not against their integrity, or even their general learning and ability. I go farther, — I acquit them of misleading their readers with respect to the general meaning of the passages, on the authority of which they have falsely assigned such secondary meanmgs. The ideas which they affix to such words, are implied in the passage, though not the meaning of the words out of which they take them. But this, Avhich is harmless "with respect to most cases, is hurtful in all points of controversy, as it gives a foundation for the evasive ingenuity of sophistry in the defence of error. It may be of no importance to correct the lexicographer, who, from finding the expressions deiisai en oino and bapsai en oino employed for the same thing, asserts that here bapsai sig- nifies to moisten. But it is of great importance when the error is brought to apply to an ordinance of Christ. Besides, it introduces confusion into language, and makes the acquisition of it much more difiicult to learners. The mind must be stored -with a number of difierent meanings in which there is no real difierence. WTaat an insui-mountable task would it be to master a language, if, in reahty, words had as many difierent mean- ings as lexicons represent them! Parkhurst gives six meanings to baptizo. I midertake to prove that it has but one ; yet he and I do not differ about the primary meaning of this word. I blame him for giving different meanings, when there is no real difference in the meaning of this word. He assigns to it figurative meanings. I maintain, that in figures there is no different meaning of the word. It is only a figurative apphcation. The meaning of the word is always the same. Nor does any one need to have a figiu'ative application explained in any other way, than by giving the proper meaning of the word. Wlien this is knoAvn, it must be a bad figure that does not contain its own fight. It is useless to load lexicons Avith figiu'ative apphcations, except as a concordance. Polybius, vol. iii. p. 311 ult. applies the Avord to soldiers passing through Avater, immersed up to the breast. Here surely the word cannot 58 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Biean pouring or sprinkling. The soldiers iii passing through the water were clipped as far as the breast. Strabo also applies the word to Alex- ander's soldiers marching a whole day through the tide, between the moiuatain Climax and the sea, (lib. xiv. p. 982,) baptized up to the middle. Surely this baptism was immersion. Plutarch, speaking of a Eoman general, dying of his woimds, says, that having dipped his hand m blood, he wrote the inscription for a trophy. Here the mode of the action cannot be questioned. The instrument of wiiting is dipjped in the colouring fluid. Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals in water, says, that when the water overflows, " many of the land animals, immersed in the river, perish." This baptism also is immersion. The whole land was overwhelmed ■wath water. This itself, upon a principle before explained, might be called a baptism or hnmersion, in perfect consistency with the modal meaning of the word. However, it is not the land, but the land animals, that are here said to be baptized. These would at first smm, but they would soon sink., and be entirely immersed. There is here then no catachrestic extension of the word, as in the cases which I have illustrated in another place. The sinking of animals in water is here called baptism. What then is baptism but immersion? Upon the principle of giving secondary meanings to words, which has been resisted by me, drown might be given as an additional meaning to baptizo, from the authority of this passage. As the animals were drowned by immer- sion, this immersion might be called drowning. Lucian uses the word in a like case, and Avith circumstances that explain the former example. ToAvards the end of the dialogue, he makes Timon, the man-hater, say, that if he saw a man carried doAvn the stream, and crying for help, he would bap)tize him — " If in lointer, the river shoidd carry away any one with its stream, and the person ivith oid- stretched hands shoidd beg to be taken out, that he ivoidd drive him from the hank, and plimge him headlong, so that he ivould not be able again to lift up his head above water." Here is a baptism, the mode of which cannot be mistaken. Timon's baptism was certainly immersion. To resist such evidence, requires a hardihood which I do not envy. Having such examples before my eyes, I cannot resist God, to please men. To attempt to throAV doubt on the meaning of the word bap)tizo, is as vain as to question the signification of the word dip. The latter is not more definitely expressive of mode in the EngHsh, than the fonaaer is in Greek. The only circumstance that has enabled men to raise a cloud about haptizo is, that it belongs to a dead language. There ncA^er was a Avord in any language, the meaning of Avhich is more definite, or Avhich is capable of being more clearly ascertained. The shiner is represented by Porphyry, (p. 282,) as baptized up to his head, in Styx, a celebrated river in hell. Is there any question about the mode of tliis baptism ? Dr. Gale gives some striking examples from Strabo. " Strabo," says he, " is very plain in several instances : Speaking of the lake near Agrigentmn, a toAvn on the south shore of Sicily, noAv called Gergenti, he says, things ivhich otherwise ivill not sivim, do not sink in the ivater of THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 the lake, hut float like wood. And there is a rivtilet in the south parts of Cappadocia, he tells us, zvhose waters are so buoyant, that if an arrow is thrown in, it ivill hardly sink or he dipped into them." " In another place, ascribing the fabulous properties of the asphaltites to the lake Sii'bon, he says, the hitumen floats atop, heeause of the nature of the water, which admits no diving ; for if a man goes into it, he cannot sink, or be dipped, but is forcibly kept above." Now, in these several passages, the modal meaning of the word is confirmed in so clear, express, and decisive a manner, that obstinacy itself cannot fiind a plausible objection. Things that sink in other water, will not smk or be baptized in the lake near Agrigentum. This is mode, and nothing but mode. It is immersion, and nothing but immersion. Sprinkling, and pouri?ig, and popping, and drop)ping, and wetting, and ivashing, and purifying, and imbuing, and dedicating, and devoting, and consecrating, with aU the various meanings that have ever been forced on this word, are meanings invented merely to serve a purpose. And if the sinkuig of an arrow in water is called its baptism, what can baptism mean but immersion ? If, Avhen the buoyancy of water will not suffer a person to sink, the idea is expressed by haptizo, what can baptism be but an operation of the same nature with sinking or diving, which are used here as nearly synonymous terms with that which signifies to baptize ? It may as well be said that sprinkling or pouring, is sinking or diving, as that it is baptism. Two Greek critics are quoted by Dr. Gale, as applying the word in exhibiting the beauty of Homer's representation of the death of one of his heroes : " He struck him across the neck ivith his heavy sword, and the whole sword became warm loith blood.'''' On this, Pseudo Didjoiuis says, that the sword is represented as dipped in blood. And Dionysius says, " In that phrase. Homer expresses himself with the greatest energy, signify- ing that the sword was so dipped in blood, that it ivas even heated by it.''' " Herachdes Ponticus," says Dr. Gale, " a disciple of Aristotle, may help us also in fixing the sense of the word ; for, moralizmg the fable of Mars being taken by Vulcan, he says, Neptune is ingeniously supposed to deliver liars from Vulcan, to signify, that when a p)iece of iron is taken red hot out of the fire, and jnit into water (baptizetai,) the heat is repelled and extinguished, by the contrary nature of loater.'''' Here we see that the immersion of hot iron in water, for the purpose of cooling it, is denomi- nated a baptism. Themistius, Orat. IV. p. 133, as quoted by Dr. Gale, says, " The pilot cannot tell but he may save one in the voyage that had better be drowned, sunk into the sea." Such a baptism, siu'ely, would be immersion. The word occtu"s in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our version. 2 Kings v. 14. Naaman ivent doivn, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan. Here bathing in a river is called baptism. Wliat more do Ave want, then, to teach us the mode of this ordinance of Christ ? If there was not another passage of Scripture to throAV hght on the institution, as far as respects mode, is not this, to every teachable mind, perfectly sufficient ? But, it seems, we are cryuig victory before the field is won. This passage, which Ave 60 THE MODE 0¥ BAPTISM. think so decisive, has a far different aspect to others. On the contrary, it is made to afford evidence against us. Well, this is strange indeed ; but ingenioity has many shifts. Let us see how artifice can involve the passage in a cloud. Nothing is more easy. Does not the prophet command Naaman to wash ? if, then, he obeyed this command by haptizing himself, baptizing must signify ivashing. For the sake of argument, I will grant this reasoning, for a moment. If, then, this is so, go, my brethren, and wash the person to be baptized, as you think Naaman washed himself, from head to foot. This will show that you respect the example. In what manner soever the water was apphed to Naaman, he was bathed all over. If the word signifies to wash the whole body, who but the Pope himself would take on him to substitute the sprinkling of a few drops, in the place of this universal washing ? But I do not admit the reasoning, that, from this passage, concludes that haptizo signifies to wash, although no instance can be produced more platisible in favour of that opinion. This passage is a complete illustra- tion of my canon. The two words, louo and baptizo, are here used interchangeably, yet they are not of the same signification. Not of the same signification! it may be asked, mth surprise. Elisha commands him to wash ; he obeys by haptizing himself; must not baptizing, then, be washing ? I think none of my opponents will wish a stronger state- ment of their objection than I have made for them. But my doctrine remains uninjured by the assault. The true philologist will not find the smallest difiiculty in reconciling this passage to it. The words louo and haptizo have theii' own pecuhar meanings even here, as well as every where else, without the smallest conftision. To baptize is not to wash ; but to baptize in a river or in any pure water, impHes washing, and may be used for it in certain situations. K Naaman clipped himself in Jordan, he was washed. It comes to the same thing, whether a phy- sician says, bathe yourself every morning in the sea, or, dip yourself every morning in the sea, yet the words bathe and dip do not signify the same thing. We see, then, that we can make the very same use of our modal word dip, that the Greeks made of their baptizo. No man who understands Enghsh, will say that the word dip and the word bathe signify the same thing, yet, in certain situations, they may be used indifferently. Persons at a bath may ask each other, did you dip this morning ? or did you bathe this mormng ? To dip may apply to the defiling of any thing, as well as to washing. It expresses no more than the mode. It is the situation in which it stands, and the word with which it is construed, that determine the object of the application of the mode. To dip in pure water, is to Avash ; to dip in colouring matter, is to dye; to dip into mire, is to defile. None of these ideas, however, are in the word dip itself. No word could determine mode, according to the principles of criticism employed by Avriters on this subject. The error in this criticism is that which I have before exposed. It supposes that, if in any cfrcumstances two words can be used inter- changeably, they must sig-nify the same thing ; and that controversialists are at fiber ty to reciprocate their meanings, as often as the necessity of their cause demands it. This is a source of error more fruitliil in ialse THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Gl criticism, than any other of its numerous resources. There is a speciousness in it that has imposed on lexicographers, critics, and com- mentators. They have miiversally, so far as I know, taken as a first principle, that which is a mere figment. The Sibylline verse concerning the city of Athens, quoted by Plutarch La his Life of Theseus, most exactly determines the meaning of baptizo. " Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder! but thou art not fated to sink." The remark of Vossius and Turretine upon this is : " Hence it appears that baptizein is more than epipolazein, which is to swim lightly on the surface, and less than dunein, which is to go down to the bottom, so as to be destroyed." In the latter part of this distinction, they are certainly mistaken, as to both verbs. Baptizein may be appHed to what goes to the bottom and perishes ; and dunein very frequently applies to things that sink without destruction. It is the usual word applied to the setting of the stm, or its apparent sinking in the ocean ; and it is the word which Homer applies to the sinking of the marine deities who live in the bottom of the sea. Indeed, the word has no more destruction in it than baptizo itself, which is occasionally applied to the sinking of ships. The matter of fact is, that whether the sinking object is destroyed or not, is learned from neither word, biit from the circum- stances in which it is used. If baptizein is appUed to a ship going to the bottom, its destruction is known without being expressed by this word : if dunein is applied to Neptune, Thetis, or a sea nymph, it is in the same way known that there is no destruction. The obvious and characteristic distinction between the words is, that dunein is a neuter verb, signifying to sink, not to cause something else to siiik. But a thing that sinks of itself, wiU doubtless sink to the bottom, if not pre- vented; and if it is subject to destruction by such sinkmg, it will perish. It is therefore characteristically applied to thuigs that sink to the bottom. But baptizein signifies merely to dip, •without respect to depth or conse- quence, and is as proper to the immersion of an insect on the siu'face of the deepest part of the ocean, as to the sinking of a ship or a whale in the same. Both words might in many cases be appHed to the same thing indifferently, but in their characteristic meaning, as in the above verse, they are opposed. The expression in this verse is allegorical, literally referring to a bladder or leathern bottle, which, when empty, swims on the surface; if svifficiently filled, will dip, but will not sink. In this view, it asserts that the Athenian state, though it might be occasionally overwhelmed with calamities, yet would never perish. There is another sense which the expression might have, which is very suitable to the ambiguity of an oracle. " You may yourselves destroy the state, otherwise it is imperishable." A leathern bottle raight be so filled as to force it to the bottom, thoixgh it would never sink of itself. Nothing can more decisively determine the exact characteristic import of baptizein, than this verse. It is dip, and nothing but dip. Mr. Ewing's learned friend, in remarking on this word, falls into an error opposite to that of Vossius and Turretine. They make the woi'd denote to dip, without going to the bottom : he makes it to dip, so as to 62 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. continue under water. " Oui' Anti-p«do-baptist friends," says he, " wlien they contend, that fi'om the examples adduced by them, immer- sion is the only sense in Avhich baptizo, in its hteral acceptation, was employed, do not seem aware that almost all of these examples imply not a mere dipping, or immersion immediately followed by an emersion, but a continued and permanent immersion, a continuance under water." Now upon this I remark, first, that if there is one example in which it apphes to an immersion, followed by an emersion, it is as good as a thousand to determine that it may apply to such immersions. I observe in the second place, that not one of the examples impHes a continuance under water. When the word is apphed to a drowning man or a sink- ing ship, it no more implies the permanence of the immersion, than when Plutarch uses it to signify the dipping of the hand in blood. The word has no reference to what follows the immersion ; and whether the thing immersed Hes at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot be learned from the word, but from the connexion and circimistances. It is a childish error to suppose, that we must have a model for Christian baptism in the meaning of the word that designates it. But if this argument had any foundation, what does the gentleman mean by it ? Does he think that baptized persons ought to be drowned ? This is surely very perverse. When it cannot be denied that the word denotes to dip, they endeavoiu' to make it more than dij)ping. Then by all means let them have baptism in their own way. When we have brought them under the water, perhaps they will not make conscience of lying at the bottom. The example referred to by Hammond is also irresistible. It is said of Eupohs, that being throAvia into the sea, he was baptized. This baptism surely was immersion. This example shows us also, that the word may be applied when the object is destroyed, as well as Avhen it is raised again out of the water, though in general, things dipped are taken immediately up after the dipping. The baptism spoken of by Plutarch, must also be immersion, — Baptize yourself into the sea. The expression quoted by Hedericus from Hehod. b. v. is equally decisive, to baptize into the laJce. And that from jEsop, the ship being in danger of sinking. K a ship sinking in the ocean is baptized, baptism must be immersion. But the language of no writer can have more authority on this sub- ject than that of Josephus. A Jew who Avrote in the Greek language in the apostolic age, must be the best judge of the meaning of Greek words employed by Jews in his own time. Now this author uses the word frequently, and always in the sense of immersion. He uses it also sometimes figuratively with the same literal reference. Speaking of the purification from defilement by a dead body, he says, "and having dipped some of the ashes into spring water, they sprinkled," &c. Here we see the characteristic distinction between baptizo and raino. The one is to dip, the other to sprinkle. Antiq. 1. iv. c. 4, p. 96. On this example, Mr. Ewing's friend remarks : — " Now, upon looking into the Levitical law upon this particular point, (Numb. xix. 17,) we find the direction was, ' They shall take of the ashes, and running water THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 63 shall he put thereto.'' Here, then, the putting running ivater to ashes, is expressly termed ba2jtisantes tes nepliixtsy Let the gentleman look a little more closely, and he wU see that his observation is not correct. It is true that Numb. xix. 17, and the above passage from Josephus, refer to the same thing; but they do not relate it in the same maimer. The Septuagint directs, that water shall be povired upon the ashes into a vessel ; Josephus relates the fact as if the ashes were thrown into the water. Now this might make no difference as to the water of purifica- tion, but it Avas a difference as to the mode of preparing it. Nothing, then, can be farther from truth, than that the putting of the water on the ashes, according to Numb. xix. 17, is called by Josephus, the bap- tizing of the ashes. If Josephus speaks of the baptizing of the ashes, he represents the ashes as being put into the water, and not the water as being poured on the ashes. He uses the verb eniemi as weU as baptizo. According to Josephus, then, the ashes were dipped, or put into the water; though, according to the Septuagint, the water was poured out into a vessel on the ashes. Speaking of the storm that threatened destruction to. the ship that carried Jonah, he says, " when the ship was on the point of sinking, or just about to be baptized.^'' — 1. ix. c. 10, p. 285. Wliat was the mode of this baptism ? In the history of his own Ufe, Josephus gives an account of a remark- able escape which he had in a voyage to Eome, when the ship itself foundered in the midst of the sea : " For our ship having been baptized or immersed in the midst of the Adriatic sea," &c. Is there any doubt about the mode of this baptism ? p. 626. S]oeaking of the murder of Aristobulus, by command of Herod, he says, " The boy was sent to Jericho by night, and there, by command, having been immersed in a pond by the Galatians, he perished." Jewish War, Book I. p. 696. The same transaction is I'elated in the Antiqui- ties in these words: "Pressing him down always, as he was swim- ming, and baptizing him as in sport, they did not give over till they entirely dro^vned him." Can anything be more express and exact than this? Here the baptizers drowned the baptized person ia the pool, where they were bathing, p. 458. Describing the death of one Simon by his own hand, after he had killed his father, mother, wife, and children, lest they should fall into the hands of the enemy, he says, " He baptized or plunged his sword up to the hilt into his own boAvels." The mode here is not doubtfril ; the sword was dipped in his body. We have previously seen bapto used in like circumstances, and ebapse would have been eqiially proper here, accord- ing to the observation already made, that words which have a charac- teristic distinction, may, in certain situations, be interchangeable. Ehaptise, he caused it to dip, may denote a greater effort than ebapse, dipped it. Jos. Bell. Jud. 1. ii. p. 752. A little afterwards, he applies the word to the sinking of a ship: " After this misfortune of Cestius, many of the Jews of distinction left the city, as people swim away from a sinking ship." Here a sinking ship is supposed to be baptized by sinking, p. 757. 64 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. He applies the Avord to the immersion of the ships which carried the people of Joppa, after being driven out of the city by the Romans: " The wave high raised, baptized them." Here is a sublime baptism. The surge, rising hke mountains over the ships, immersed and sunk them to the bottom. The surge is the baptizer, the ships are baptized, and this baptism is the sinking of them to the bottom. Joseph. Jewish War, Book HI. p. 737. Towards the end of the same book, he thus speaks of those who perished in the lake of Gennesareth, having fled from the city of Tarichese: "They were baptized or sunk with the ships themselves." p. 792. Here the Roman soldiers were the baptizers ; and in executing this duty, they sunk both ships and men. Hippocrates uses this word sometimes, and always in the sense for which I contend. We have seen that he uses bapto very often : I have not foimd baptizo more than four times. This circumstance sufficiently proves, that though the words are so nearly related, they are not per- fectly identical in signification. The first occurrence of it is in p. 254 : " Dip it again in breast-milk and Egyptian ointment." He is speaking of a blister which was first to be dipped in the oil of roses, and if when thus appUed, it shoiild be too painful, it was to be dipped again in the manner above stated. The first dipping, as we have seen from a pre- ceding quotation, is expressed by bapsas. This shows that, in the radical signification of dipping, these words are perfectly of the same import ; and that thotigh they have their characteristic distinction, there are situations in which they are interchangeable, where the character- istic difference may be expressed, but is not necessary. The same -writer gives us the clearest insight into the meaning of this word, by twice comparing a pecidiar kind of breathing in patients, to the breathing of a person after being immersed : " He breathed as per- sons breathe after being baptized." p. 340. The same comparison occurs again, p. 357, in the following words : " He breathed as persons breathed after being baptized." Surely tmbelief must be obstinate, if this does not remove it. The breathing of persons under the disease referred to, is hke the breathing of a person after baptism. Can any- thing, then, be more obvious, than that baptism is an immersion in water, even an immersion over head, so as to stop the breath till it is over ? Hippocrates applies the word also to a ship sinking, by being over- burthened : " Shall I not laugh at the man who baptizes or immerses his ship, by overlading it ; then complains of the sea, that it ingulfs it with its cargo ?" p. 532. What sort of baptism was this ? Is it possible that a mind really thirsting for the knowledge of God's laws, can resist such evidence ? Here we see baptizo not only most definitely signifying to immerse, but contrasted mth another word, which signifies this with additional circumstances. Baptizo is used to denote that immersion that takes place when a ship is weighed down by its burthen, so as to be completely under water : katabuthizo signifies to make to go down into the abyss. Yet we have more than once met with instances in which baptizo itself is applied to a ship going to the bottom. But as I observed in such cases, it is not from the Avord itself that it is known THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 65 that the ship goes to the bottom, but fi-om the circumstances. It does not, by virtue of its own intrinsic meaning, denote going to the bottom, but to dip or immerse, without reference to depth. It may, then, be applied when the oj)eration is extended to the bottom, as well as when it is confined to the surface. But when it is so apphed, it does not definitely distinguish the idea of depth. Wlien this is intended to be expressed, another word, as in the present case, is employed : hatabuthizo definitely expresses going doivn into the abyss. This word is found in Polybius, in circumstances that leave no doubt of its signification. He applies it to soldiers wading through deep water, and expressly hmits its apphcation to that part of the body which was covered vnth water : " The foot soldiers passed with difficulty, baptized or immersed up to the breast." Polyb. iii. c. 72. Does not this deci- sively determine the meaning of baptizo ? They were not, indeed, plunged over head; but for this reason, a limitation is introduced, con- fining the application of the word to that part of the body which was under water. That only was baptized which was buried. The same avithor gives us another example equally decisive: "They are of themselves baptized or immersed, and sunk in the marshes." V. c. 47. Here haptizomai is coupled with kaiaduno, as a word of similar import, though not exactly synonymous: tlie former denoting simple immersion; the latter, the sinking of the immersed object to the bottom. Dio also affords evidence decisive of the same meaning : " They are entirely baptized, sunk, overwhehned, or immersed." xxxviii. p. 84. He apphes it, as we have seen it employed by others, to the sinking of ships : " So great a storm suddenly arose tkrough the whole country, that the boats were baptized or sunk in the Tiber." xxxvii. What, then, is baptism but immersion ? He applies it in the same way, 1. 492 : " How could it escape sinking, from the very multitude of rowers ?" We see, then, that the classical writers in the Greek language, without exception, know nothing of this word in any other signification than that of immersing. They never apply it to any other mode. They no more apply it to pouring or sprinkling, &c. than to warming or cooling. Such significations have been conjured up by profane ingenuity, endeavouring to force the words of the Spirit of God into agreement vdth the long-estabhshed practices of men, in perverting the ordinances of God. Porphyry apphes the word to the heathen opinion of the baptism of the wicked in Styx, the famous lake of heU : " When the accused person enters the lake, if he is innocent, he passes boldly through, having the water up to his knees; but if guilty, having advanced a little, he is plunged, or baptized up to the head." — De Styge, p. 282. The baptism of Styx, then, is an immersion of the body up to the head. The part not dipped is expressly excepted. Diodorus Siculus apphes the word to the sinking of beasts carried away by a river : " The most of the land animals being caught by the river, sinking or being baptized, perish ; but some escaping to the higher groimds, are saved." — I. p. 33. Hero to be baptized, is to sink in water. This example also confirms my observation, that though when sinking to 66 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. the bottom, or sinking in the great deep is designed to be distingmshed from simple immersion, haptizo could not suit the situation ; but another word, such as kataduno, katabuthizo, katapontizo, &c., is used: yet haptizo will apply to the deepest immersion, and to destruction by immersion, when there is no contrast, and when the depth and destruction are known from other words or circumstances in the connexion. Baptizo denotes simple immersion, yet it may be used in circumstances when that immersion is certainly known to he going to the bottom, and being destroyed. Section XI. — There are instances in which the word is by some translated ivash, and in which the general meaning may be thus well enough expressed in a free version. Still, however, the word, even in such situations, does not express the idea of washing, but has its own peculiar meaning of mode, the idea of washing being only a consequence from the dipping. There are some cases in which it is pretended that it must apply to purification by sprinkhng, &c. Now, as I am pledged to show that the word does not signify to wash in any manner, I am still more bound to show that it does not denote pxu-ification by sprinkling. I shall therefore now attend to this part of the subject. In Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30, it is said, "He that washeth himself because of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth his washing ?" Now as haptizomenos is the word here used, and as from Numb. xix. 18, we learn that such a person was to be purified by sprinkhng, does it follow that haptizo must signify to sprinkle, or to purify by sprinkhng ? He that wishes to see this objection honestly stated in all its strength, and refuted in the most triumphant manner, may consult Dr. Gale's Reflections on Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism. But the answer must be obvious to every person who consults Numb. xix. 19, which shows that sprinkhng was but a part of that purification, and that the unclean person was also bathed in water. It is this bathing that is effected by baptism. The passage in qiiestion ought to be translated, — " He that dippeth or haptizeth himself because of a dead body, and toucheth' it again, what availeth his dipping or baptism f The word baptizo has here its appropriate meaning, without the smaUest deviation. Besides, had there been no immersion or bathing of the whole body enjoined in Numbers, I should utterly despise this objection. Though God had not made bathing of the body a part of this purification, might not the traditions of the elders have made the addition ? And would not this have been sufficient authority for the author of this apocryphal book to make a ground of his reasoning ? When I have proved the meaning of a Greek word, by the authority of the whole consent of Greek hterature, I wiU not surrender it to the supposition of the strict adherence of the Jewish nation, in the time of the writing of the Apocrypha, to the Mosaic ritual. We know that they made many additions, and that these were esteemed as of equal authority with the rites of Moses. For a very full and interesting discussion of Luke xi. 38, and Mark vii. 4, let the reader consult Dr. Gale, p. 125. Here he will find a triumphant answer to every quibble from Dr. Wall. But as the text THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 67 itself is perfectly sufficient for my purpose, I shall not swell my volume with quotations from that learned writer. In our version, Luke xi. 38, ebaptisthe is translated wash. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- velled that he had not first washed before dinner." The objection is, does not baptizo, then, sometimes denote to ivash ? Nay, farther, as the Jews washed the hands by having water poured on them, and as this passage respects the Avashing of the hands, is there not here evidence that the word in question sometimes signifies to ivash hy pouring ? This surely is as strong a statement of their objection as our opponents can wish. Yet, in all its plausibility, I despise it. Even here, the word signifies to dip, and not to ivash. Dipping is the thing expressed ; washing is the consequence, known by inference. It is dipping, whether it relates to the hands or the whole body. But many examples from the Jews, and also from the Greeks, it is said, prove that the hands were washed by poxiring water on them by a servant ; and I care not that ten thousand such examples were broiight forward. Though this might be the usual mode of washing the hands, it might not be the only mode, which is abundantly sufiicient for my purpose. The possibility of this is enough for me ; but Dr. Gale has proved from Dr. Pococke, that the Jews some- times washed their hands by dipping. People of distinction might have water poured on their hands by servants, but it is not Hkely that this was the common practice of the body of the j)eople, in any nation. The examples from Homer cannot inform us Avith respect to the practice of the common people. But I say this Avithout any view to my argument in this place, for it is evident that the word does not here refer to the washing of the hands. It may apply to any part, as well as to the whole ; but whenever it is used Avithout its regimen expressed, or imderstood in phi'ases much used, it applies to the whole body. When a part only is dipped, the part is mentioned, or some part is excepted, as is the case with louo. The passage, then, ought to have been translated, — " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he was not immersed before dinner." The Pharisees themselves, on some occasions, would not eat tiU they had used the bath, and this Pharisee might expect still more eminent deA'o- tion from Jesus. Indeed, to use the batli before dinner, was a very common practice in eastern countries ; and the practice would be still more in vogue Avith those who considered it a religious piu'ification. But there is no need to refer to the practice of the time, nor to ransack the wiTitings of the Rabbins, for the practice of the JeAvs. We have here the authority of the Holy Spirit for the Jewish custom. He uses the word baptizo, and that word signifies to dip, and only to dip. If I have estabhshed the acceptation of this Avord by the consent of use, even an inexplicable difficulty in this case Avould not affect the certainty of my conclusions. But the difficulty is not inexphcable. What should hinder the word to have here its usual import ? Mark vii. 4, omx translators render, " except they wash, they eat not." Now, my opponents may say, does not baptizo here signify to Avash ? I answer, No. Dipinng is the thing expressed ; but it is used in such cir- cumstances as to imply ivashing. The xvashing is a consequence from F 2 68 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. the dipping. It ouglit to have been translated, " except they dip them- selves, they eat not." In the preceding context, we are told that usually they do not eat without washing their hands. Here we are told that when they come from market, they eat not tiU they are dipped or baptised. Dr. Campbell's notion, that nipto and baptizo here both refer to the hands, the one to washing by having water poured on them, and the other by dipping them, I do not approve. For, though baptizo will apply to the dipping of the hands, as well as to the dipping of the whole body, yet when no part is mentioned or excepted, the whole body is always meant. His view of the matter I consider nothing btit an ingenious conceit, withoiit any authority from the practice of the language. Nipto cannot denote a pectUiar mode of washing, in distinction from another mode. Besides, to wash anything by mere dipping, is not so thorough a washing as may be expressed by nipto. Now, if the words both refer to the washing of the hands, the first will be the best washing, which is contrary to Dr. Campbell's supposition. Dr. Campbell, indeed, with Pearce and Wetstein, understands pugme of a handful of water. But they produce no example in which pugme has this signification, and therefore the opinion has no authority. Indeed, there is a self-contra- diction in the opinion of these learned -writers on this point. Pugme they properly consider as signifying the fist, or shut hand ; and from . this, suppose that the word here denotes as much water as may be held in the hollow of the hand, with the fingers closed. But a fist will hold no water; and the hand with the fingers closed so as to hold water, is no fist. With as httle reason can it be supposed to signify, as Dr. Campbell suggests, that pugme denotes the manner of washing, with reference to the form of the hands when they wash each other. In such circum- stances, neither of them is a fist, but still less the washing hand. In this operation the hands infold one another, and if there is anything like a fist, it is the two hands rniited. Dr. Campbell quotes, with approba- tion, the remark of Wetstein : " baptizesthai est modus aqu£e immergere, niptesthai manibus affondere." But the former does not signify to dip the hands, except the regimen is expressed ; and though the latter applies to pouring water on the hands, it will equally apply to washing out of a basin. Parkhurst, indeed, translates the phrase, " to wash the hands with the Jist, that is by rubbing water on the pahn of one hand, with the doubled fist of the other." This distinguishes the infolded hand as the rubbing hand, but, as a matter of fact, I beheve that, though both hands may be said to rub on each other, yet the infolding hand is distinguished as the rubbing hand. To wash the hand tvith the Jist, is not an expres- sion which would be likely to be chosen to express the operation of washing the hands. The palm of one hand is appUed to the palm of the other ; and when the palm of one hand is apphed to the back of the other, the intention is to cleanse the latter, and not by the latter to cleanse the former. Besides, the inside hand is seldom closed into a fist. I prefer, therefore, the explanation of Lightfoot, which is both most agreeable to the meaning of pugme, and to the Jewish traditions. He understands it as denoting the hand as far as the fist extended. This is agreeable to the definition of the word by Pollux ; " If you shut your THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 69 hand, the outside is called pugme ;" and it is agreeable to the Jewish traditions, one of which he shows enjoins such a washing. The contrast then, here, is between the washing of the hands up to the ^vrist, and the immersion of the Avhole body. Dr. Campbell, indeed, remarks, that " it ought to be observed, that haptisontai is not in the passive voice, but the middle, and is contrasted with nipsontai, also in the middle ; so that by every rule, the latter must be tmderstood actively as well as the former." But though I understand haptisontai in the middle voice, I do not acknow- ledge that this is necessarily required from a contrast with nipsontai. Let the meaning of this passage be what it wiU, the active, passive, and middle voices, might be so associated. I know no ride that requires such a conformity as Dr. Campbell here demands. It might be said of Christians, they eat the LorcVs supper; and they are baptized. The contrast between iiipsontai and haptisontai in the passage referred to, does not require the same voice. Nipsosi, the active itself, might have been used, and haptisontai in the passive. I understand it in the middle, not because nipsontai is middle, btit because in the baptism referred to, every one baptized himself. Had it been as in Christian baptism, I should understand it in the passive. Mr. Ewing translates the passage thus : " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they Avash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And even when they have come from a market, imless they baptize, they eat not," &c. But the word oft, as a translation of pugme, is liable to the objections of Dr. Campbell, which I need not here repeat. Mr. Ewing surely should have obviated them. Besides, neither Mr. Ewdng, nor any other person, so far as I know, has produced one example, in which pugme confessedly signifies oft. Without this the translation has no. authority. Mr. Ewuig translates kai, and even, for "which there is no authority. That particle often signifies even, but never and even. Mr. Ewing' s translation makes their baptism after the market, inferior to the washing before-mentioned. But this certainly reverses the tme meaning. Defilement certainly was imderstood to be increased by the market. Mr. Ewing indeed endeavoui'S to give a tiu'n to this, but it is a complete failure. " And in order to show how strictlj' they hold this tradition," he says, " they observed it, not merely on their more solemn occasions, but even when they had just come from places of public resort, and fi'om the ordinary intercoiu-se of Hfe." But where did Mr. Ewing find their more solemn occasions ? This is apocryphal, and, like the Apocrypha, it contradicts the genuine Scriptures. The evan- gelist declares, that except they wash their hands, they eat not. This impHes, that they never sat down to table, even at their ordinary meals, without washing. The baptism after market, then, must have been a greater or more extensive purification. Mr. Ewng supposes that the Avord baptize is used here to show that the washing was not for cleanh- ness, but Avas a religious custom. But this is shoAvn sutiSciently, if baptize were not used. It is directly stated, that this washing Avas obedience to the tradition of the elders. I obsei-ve farther, that if the Avashing Avas not by other circumstances knoAvn to be a reHgious custom, this Avould not have been knoAvn by the word haptizo more than by nipto. 70 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Besides, baptisontai does not here explain or limit nipsontai. If the latter could not, with the words constnied with it, be known to designate a rehgious observance, it can receive no assistance from the former. Mr. Ewing understands both words as referring to the same thing, washing the hands by water poured on them. Wliy, then, is nijJto changed for baptizo ? Surely the change of the word intimates a change of the meaning in. such circumstances. " They eat not, except they wash their hands. And after market they eat not, except they baptize.'" Surely no person, Avho has not a purpose to serve, would suppose that baptize here meant the very same thing vpith wash the hands. Biit if it is insisted that baptize here is distinguished from nipto as a religious washing, then how vdll it determine that nipto here refers to a religious washing ? If it is here so distinguished from nipto, then the washing denoted by nipto cannot be a religious washing. This would import, that the washing of the hands first spoken of by nipto was not a religious washing ; and that the latter washing was distinguished from the former by this. The meaning then would be : " Except they wash their hands, they eat not ; and when they have come from the market, they eat not until they have washed their hands religiously." But as respects my argument, I care not whether baptisontai here refers to the hands or the whole body ; it is perfectly sufficient for me, if it here admits its usual meaning. Let it be here observed, and never let it be forgotten, that with respect to the meaning of a word in any pas- sage, the proof that it has such a meaning always lies upon him who uses it in that meaning as an argument or objection; for this obvious reasoyi, that if it is not proved, it is neither argument nor objection. Now if I choose to bring this passage as an argument, or as additional evidence, I must prove its meaning. In this way I have viewed it as having weight: but if I choose to give up its evidence, and stand on the defence, my antagonist is bound to prove his view of it as a ground of his objection, and my cause requires no more of me than to show that the word in such a situation is capable of the meaning for which I contend. For it is evident, that if it may have such a meaning, it camiot be certain that it has not that signification. Many a passage may contain the disputed word in such circiunstances as to afford no definite evidence. It cannot, in such a passage, be used as proof: it is enough, if it admits the meaning contended for. This is a grand law of controversy, attention to which vdll save the advocates of truth much useless toil ; and keep them from attempting to prove, what it may not be possible to prove, and what they are not required to prove. It will also assist the inquirer to arrive at truth. Now, in the present case, except Mr. Ewing proves that baptisontai must here signify the pouring of water upon the hands, or that it cannot refer to the dipping of the hands or the body, he has done nothing. I bring passages without number, to prove that the word must have the meaning for which I contend. No passage cotild be a valid objection against my conclusion, except one in which it cajmot have that signification. These obsei'A^ations I state as self-evident truth : the man who does not perceive their justness, cannot be worth reasoning with. But why should it be thought incredible, that the Pharisees immersed THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 themselves after market ? If au Egyptian, on touching a swine, wotild run to the river and pkmge in with his clothes, is it strange that the siiperstitious Pharisees should immerse themselves after the pollution of the market? Dr. Gale, however, on the authority of the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Persic versions, is inclined to imderstand the passage as relating to the dipping of the things bought in the market. But as I decidedly prefer the other sense, I will not avail myself of this resource. I abhor the practice of catching at any forced meaning that sei'ves a temporary pui'pose, at the expense of setting loose the mearung of God's word. I do not wish to force a favoui'ite mode of baptism on the Scriptures, but I will imphcitly submit my mind to the mode that God has appointed. I have not a wish on the subject, but to know the will of Christ. What our version, Mark vii. 4, calls the washing, &c., the original calls, the baptisms of cups, pots, &c. It may then be asked, does not this imply that this word signifies washing ? But I answer, as before, that though these things were dipped for ivashing, yet dipping and washing are not the same thing. The ivashing is not expressed, but is a mere consequence of the dipping. The passage, then, ought to be translated immersions. The purification of aU the things specified, except the last, was appointed by the law, Levit. xi. 32, to be effected by being- put under water. But with respect to the klinai, or beds, Mr. Ewing asserts that the translation dippings would be manifestly absurd. Now what is manifestly absurd cannot be true. If this assertion, then, is well founded, Mr. Ewing has opposed a barrier, which the boldest cannot pass. But why is this absurd ? Let us hear his own words. " The articles specified in ver. 4, are all utensils and accommodations of the Jewish mode of eatiag, about which the evangeUst was speaking; from the ' cups, pots, and brazen vessels' of the cook and the biitler, to the ' beds' of the triclinium, or dining room, for the use of the family and their guests. There were three only of these beds in one room. Each was commonly occupied by three persons, and sometimes by five or even more. Three such beds probably accommodated our Lord and his dis- ciples at the last supper. They nuist have been of such a size, therefore, as to preclude the idea of their being immersed, especially being frequently immersed, as a religious ordinance." Now I wUl admit this accotuit in every tittle, yet still contend that there is nothing like an absurdity in the supposition that the couches were immersed. The thing- is quite possible, and who will say that the superstitious Pharisees might not practise it ? It would indeed be a very inconvenient thing, but what obstacles will not superstition overcome ? It would be a foolish thing ; but who would expect anything biit folly in will- worship ? Such religious practice was indeed absurd, but it is an abuse of language to assert that it is an absurdity to say that the Pharisees immersed their couches. Let Mr. Ewing beware of usiag such language. If the Holy Spirit has asserted that the Pharisees baptized their couches, and if this word signifies to immerse, Mr. Ewing has asserted that the Holy Spirit has asserted an absurdity. This is no light matter. It is an a-wful charge on the Spiiit of inspiration. 7Ji THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Dr. Wardlaw is equally rash on this point. He supposes that it is incredible that they immersed their beds. Plow is it incredible ? Is the thing impossible ? If not, its credibihty depends on the testimony. But whether or not the Holy Spirit gives the testimony, depends on the meaning of the word. If from other passages we learn that it has this meaning, this passage camiot teach the contrary, if the thing is possible. Upon the principle of interpretation here recognised by Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw, we might reject every thing in history not suited to our own conceptions ; or explain them away by paring down the meaning of words. This is the very principle of the Neological explanation of the Scripture miracles. The things are thought absurd in the obvious meaning of the words ; and therefore the language must submit to accept a meaning suitable to the conceptions of the critics. Mr. Robinson thinks the common view of the exploit of Samson in killing such a multitude with the jaw-bone of an ass incredible, and he takes away the incredibility of the scriptural account, by explaining it of the tooth of a rock which Samson pulled down on his enemies. Dr. "Wardlaw says, with respect to the immersion of beds, " he who can receive it, let him receive it." I say, he who dares to reject it, rejects the testimony of God. This is a most improper way to speak on the subject. K immersion is the meaning of the word, it is not optional to receive or reject it. Whe- ther or not this is its meaning, must be learned from its history, not from the abstract probability or improbability of the immersion of beds. J£ the history of the word declares its meaning to be immersion, the mere difficulty of immersing beds, in conformity to a religious tradition, cannot imply that it has another meaning here. The principle, then, of this objection, and the language in which these writers state it, cannot be too strongly reprobated. If adopted on other questions respecting the will of God, it tends to set us loose from the authority of his word. I will here reduce my observations on this point to the form of a canon. When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be adjutted as decisive, except they involve an dipos- SIBILITY. This is self-evident, for otherwise nothing could ever be proved. If every man's view of abstract probability were allowed to outweigh evidence, no truth would stand the test. The existence of God could not be proved. The Scriptures themselves could not abide such a trial. If my canon is not self-evident, let no man receive it; but if it is just, it overturns not only this objection, but almost all the objections that have been alleged agamst immersion in baptism. Besides, there is hardly any point of theological controversy in which it may not be useful. Many who are willing to admit it on the subject of baptism, may act contrary to it on other subjects. Indeed, there are few who do not in things of small moment overlook this principle. In tracing the history of Jesus, we shall see how much of the oppo- sition to his claims was foiuided on the principle which my canon reprobates. When he said that he was the bread that came down from heaven, the Jews murmiired, and replied, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven ?" John vi. 42. Here was a difficulty THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 7o that they thought insviperable. " We are sure he was bom among ns — ^he could not therefore have come from heaven." But there was a solution to this difficulty, had their prejudices permitted them to find it. It was possible, that though born on earth, as a man, he might come from heaven, as he was God. But they were glad to catch at the appa- rent inconsistency ; and their prejudices would not allow them to attempt to vindicate themselves. This in fact is the very substance of one com- mon objection to the deity of Christ. The Arians still collect all the passages that assert the human nature of Christ, and take it for granted that this is a proof that he is not God. Let oru' brethren take care that it is not on the same principle they allege this objection to immersion in baptism. Were there no wish to find evidence on one side only, would it be supposed that it is absurd or incredible that the stiperstitious Phari- sees itnmersed even their couches ? — Another striking mstance of objecting on this principle we have, John vii. 41, 42. " Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was ?" This would appear to them a noose from which he could not extricate himself — a diflficulty that he could not solve. The Scriptures assert, that the Christ will come out of Bethlehem, hut this man has come out of Galilee. Had they been as willing to see evidence in his favour, as evidence against him, they might have perceived that the agreement of these apparent contradictions was not impossible. The knowledge of his real history would have given the solution. But it was not a solution they wanted. In reading the history of Jesus also, it is not uninstructive to remark, that many things which appear to his enemies decisive eAddence against him, had no weight at aU with his friends. This discrepancy shows how much our sentiments are under the influence of our feelings, and consequently the guilt of imbelief, with respect to any part of the Divine counsel which we reject. Though we have no right to judge one another, we have a right, when God has given a revelation, to ascribe all ignorance of it to sin. I make this observation not merely with respect to the point now in debate, or to criminate my opponents. The obser- vation applies to every error; and as no man has attained in every thing to truth, it applies to us all. I make the observation to incite my brethren on both sides of this subject, to search mthout prejudice — to inquire under the influence of an impression of great accountableness. I will state farther, that in proving that a thing is not impossible, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE POSSIBLE WAYS OF SOLU- TION DID ACTUALLY EXIST. ThE BARE POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE IS ENOUGH. This also is self-evident, and may be stated as a canon. Yet from inattention to this, the opponents of immersion are constantly calhng on us to prove, that there were, in such and such places, things necessary for dijDping. Mr. Ewing gauges the reservoirs and weUs of Jerusalem, to show their insufliciency for immersion. He may then call on me to find a place sufficient to immerse a couch. But I will go on no such errand. If I have proved the meaning of the word, I Avill believe the Spirit of God, wlio tells me that the Pharisees baptized their beds, and leave the superstition and industiy of the devotees to find or make such 74 THE MODE or BAPTISM. a place. Let tlie demand Avhich our opponents in this instance make on us, be conceded to the infidel, and the Bible must be given up. In replying to dif&culties started by the deist, the defender of Christianity thinks he has amply done his duty, when he shows that the solution is possible, without proving that the possible way of solution did actually exist. Indeed, many of the defenders of Christianity undertake too much, and lay too much stress on actual proof, with respect to the way in which difficulties may be removed. When such proof can be got, it is always right to produce it, more clearly to confound the infidel. But it is extremely injudicious to lay such a stress on these solutions, as if they were actually necessary. It ought always to be strongly stated, that such proof is more than the defence of truth requires. When writers think themselves remarkably successful in this way, they are not disinclined to magnify the importance of their discoveries, and are willing to rest a part of the evidence on their own success. This dis- covers more vanity than judgment, and more desire for the glory of discovery, than for the interests of the truths defended. When this happens, it is not strange that infidels are emboldened to make the unreasonable demand, which their opponents have voluntarily rendered themselves liable to answer. If I could prove that there was at Jeru- salem a pond that could immerse the High Church of Glasgow, I would certainly bring forward my proof; but I would as certainly disclaim the necessity. To give an example. In opposition to Dr. Campbell's opinion, that Mark vii. 4, refers to the dipping of the hands, Mr. Ewing, as his proof, alleges, that "as far as he has obser^^ed, there is only one way of washing either the hands or the feet in Scriptiu"e, and that is, by pouring water upon them, and rubbing them as the water flows." Now, were I of Dr. Campbell's opinion on this passage, I would grant Mr. Ewing all this, yet abide by my position. It is very possible that all the other instances of washing the hands that are mentioned in Scrip- ture may be such, yet a difierent way have been in existence on some occasions. And if the expression were haptisosi tas cheiras, this I would suppose not only possible, but undoubtedly true. No number of exam- ples of one mode of washing the hands can prove that no other mode was ever practised. It is of vast importance in every conti'oversy, to know what we are obhged to prove, and what is not necessary to our argument. From inattention to this, Mr. Ewing thinks he has defeated Dr. Campbell, when he has never touched him. His weapons fall quite on this side of the mark. Now, on this last point I differ from Dr. Campbell. I do not think that baptisontai refers to the dipping of the hands. Yet I would not use Mr. Ewing's arguments to disprove this. Indeed, were Dr. CampbeU ahve, he would not be so easily defeated. Mr. Ewing discredits his authority on the subject of immersion as the scriptural mode of baptism, by representing him as resting his opinion onTertulhan among the ancients, and Wetstein among the modems. Nothing can be more unfair. He merely refers to TertuUian, to show the sense in which the word haptizo was understood by the Latin fathers, and quotes the opinion of Wetstein, mth a general approbation of him as a critic, certainly beyond his deserts, and with respect to a criticism THE modi; or baptism. /o which I believe to be false. Biit Dr. Campbell was not a man to found his views on such authority. When he says, " I have heard a disputant of this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge ; and in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method was the earhest, and for many centuries the most general practice in baptizing,''' does he not found it on his o-wti knowledge of etymology and use — on his own knowledge of antiquity ? Will Mr. Ewing venture to say that Dr. Campbell was not well acquainted with the etymology and use of the word in question ? From what modem must he receive instruction with respect to the antiquities of church history ? It may be triie, indeed, that Dr. Campbell has not done all for this subject that he might have done. But did he fail in what he attempted ? Who wotild expect that in his situation he could have done more ? Nor is his candour in con- fessing a mode of baptism to be primitive, which he did not adopt, to be ascribed to a vanity of patronising what he did not practise. Like many others, he may have thought that the mode was not essential to the ordinance. And I have no hesitation in affirming, that such an opinion is far less injurious to the Scriptures, than the attempt of those who will force their favourite mode out of the Scriptiu-es, while even on the rack they vsdll not make the confession. Such persons are obhged to give a false turn to a great part of Scripture, totally unconcerned in the conti'oversy. Nay, they are obhged to do violence even to the classics. Popery itself is not obliged, on this point, to make such havoc of the word of God. It has a happy power of changing Scriptui-e ordinances, and therefore, on this point, can confess the truth "without injury to its system. I am led to the defence of Dr. Campbell, not from a wish to have the authority of his name on my side on this question. In that point of view, I do not need him. I consider myself as having produced such a body of evidence on this subject, that I am entitled to disregard the mere authority of names. I have appealed to a tribunal higher than the authority of all critics — to use itself. I do not hold up Dr. Camp- bell as imiversally successful in his criticisms. Many of them I am convinced are wrong ; and those who have in all things made oiu' version of the Gospels conform to his, have done no service to the cause of Christ. His judgment is always to be respected, but often to be rejected. On some points of Christian doctrine, he was evidently bixt partially enlightened, and against some he has made his translation and criticisms to bear. But as a man of integrity — as a candid adversary — as a philosophic critic, he has few equals. With respect to the philosophy of language, he is immeasurably before ah. oiu- Scriptxu-e critics. I bow to the authority of no man in the things of God, yet I cannot but reverence Dr. Campbell. I respect him almost as much when I differ from him, as when we are agreed. He looks into language -with the eye of a philosopher, and in controversy manifests a candour unknown to most theologians. Mr. E-\ving's censure of Dr. Campbell involves the great body of learned men: it is too notorious to need proof, that the most learned men in Europe, while they practised sprinkling or pouring, have confessed immersion to be the primitive mode. 76 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. But with respect to Mark vii. 4, thougli it were proved that the couches could not be immersed, I would not yield an inch of the ground I have occupied. There is no absolute necessity to suppose that the klinai, or beds, were the couches at table. The word, indeed, both in Scripture and in Greek ^vriters, has this signification; but in both it also signifies the beds on which they slept. Now, if it were such beds that the Pharisees baptized, there is nothing to prevent their immersion. They were such that a man could take up from the street, and carry to his house, Matt. ix. 6. Besides, as it is not said how often they piu'ified in this manner, we are at liberty to suppose that it was only for particular kinds of unclean- ness, and on occasions that did not often occur. Mr. Ewing, indeed, says, " there was, no doubt, a complete observance of the ' baptisms ' of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds, at the feast of the marriage in Cana in Galilee." There is no doubt that at that feast there was a purification of all things, according to the custom of a wedding: but where did Mr. Ewing learn that it was during the feast that the couches were purified ? The water-pots were, no doubt, for the pxirification usual at a wedding: but this does not indicate aU Jewish purifications. The hands and the feet of the guests were washed, and very hkely also, the vessels used at the feast : but that the couches were purified is not said, and is not likely. It is not necessary, even, that all things piuified at a feast, should have been purified out of these water-pots. It is enough that they were suitable for the purification of some things. If there was anythiag to be purified which could not be purified in them, it may have been purified elsewhere. It is not said that aU things were purified in these water-pots. Besides, it is not said that these watei- pots were but once filled during the wedding feast. "We may therefore fill them as often as we find necessary. I do not, therefore, find it at aU necessary, Avith Mr. EA^•ing, to gauge these water-pots, in order to settle this question. Mr. Bruce informs us, that in Abyssuiia, the sect called Kemmont " wash themselves from head to foot, after coming fi'om the market, or any pubhc place, where they may haA^e tou.ched any one of a different sect from their OAvn, esteeming all such unclean." Is it strange, then, to find the Pharisees, the superstitious Pharisees, immersing their couches for purification, or themselves after market ? I may add, that the couches might have been so constructed, that they might be conveniently taken to pieces, for the purpose of purification. This I say, only for the sake of those who will not beheve God -without a voucher. For myself, it is perfectly sufficient that the Holy Spirit testifies that the Pharisees baptized themselves before eating, after market; and that they baptized their couches. It is an axiom in science, that no diffictdty can avail against demonstration; and -with me it is an axiom, that no difficulty entitles us to give the he to the Spirit of inspiration. In Heb. ix. 10, the word haptismois is translated loasldngs. Is not this proof that the word signifies to wash ? The reply to this has already been given, ui shoAving the difference between dip and ivash. The translation ought to be " diffei'ent immersions," not " different THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 1 i waslaings." Dipinng is the thing expressed, washing is a consequence. But Dr. Wardlaw observes, " that amongst the ' divers washings ' of the old dispensation, referred to Heb. ix. 10, must surely be included all the various modes of Jewish purification; and consequently the rantismata, or sprinklings, which were the most numerous," p. 172. But how is this certain ? Wliy should it be supposed that the baptisms under the law contained all the purifications required by the law. This is not said here, nor anywhere else in the Scriptures. There is no necessity to suppose that every thing enjoined in the law must be included in the things here mentioned. The apostle designs to illustrate merely by specification, not to give a logical abstract. But even were the sprink- lings to be included in one or other of the things mentioned, it may be in the carnal ordinances. It is a very convenient way of proving any- thing, to take it for granted. Dr. Wardlaw here takes for granted the thing to be proved. The phrase " divers baptisms," must indicate the sprinklings ; therefore baptism must signify sprinkling, as one of its meanings. But we deny that the " divers baptisms" include the sprink- lings. The phrase alludes to the immersion of the different things that by the law were to be immersed. The greatest part of false reasoning depends on false first principles. Dr. Wardlaw's first principle here, is Hke that of Nathanael with respect to Christ : " Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?" If it is granted that no good thing could come out of Nazareth, the proof was imdoubted, that Jesus was not the Christ. To refute such reasoning, we have only to demand the proof of the premises. Judith xii. 7, is another passage which may be alleged to prove that haptizo sometimes signifies to wash ; but from what has frequently been observed on the like use of the word, with how little reason, ■wdll appear ill a moment: "And she went out in the night, and baptized herself in the camp at a fountain." This ought here to have been translated she dipped herself. Washing was the consequence of dipping in pure water. Homer speaks o^ stars washed in the sea, (II. E. 6;) and Virgil, express- ing the same thing, speaks of the constellation of the bear, as fearing to be dipped in the ocean, (Georg. i., 245.) Now, though exactly the same thing is referred to, the expressions are not exactly equivalent. By the word washing, Homer fixes our attention, not on the mere dipping, but on the effect of it, — the washing of the stars by being dipped. Virgil fixes our attention, not on the washing of the stars, but on their dipping, with reference to the danger or disagreeableness of the operation. We may say either ^fill the pitcher, or dij) the pitcher ; but this does not imply that dip signifies to Jill. In Hke manner, the word baptizo is iised when persons sink in water, and perish. Whiston, in his version of Josephus, sometimes translates it drown. But does this imply that baptizo signifies to drown, or to perish ? The perishing, or the droicning, is the consequence of dipping in certain circumstances. The person, then, who so perishes, may be said to be drowned. But this is not a translation ; it is a commentary. I have already pointed out the fallacy of that position, which is a first principle Avith most critics ; namely, the siipposition, that words are equivalent, which in any circumstances are 78 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. interchangeable. It is an error plausible, but mischievous. Yet, on no better foundation does Dr. Wall, and innumerable others after him, argue that baptizo must signify to wash in general. The verb louo is appHed to baptism; therefore baptizo, it is thought, must signify to wash, as well as louo. Mr. Ewing, indeed, says, " In this case, the washing could not have been by immersion, being done at a spring or fountain of water." But what sort of impossibihty is this ? Was it utterly impossible to have a conveniency for bathing near a fountain ? On the contrary, is it not very probable that stone trotighs, or other vessels, were usually provided at fountains for bathing and washing clothes ? We find such a pro- vision at two fountains near Troy, mentioned by Homer, lib. xxii. 153 : " Two fountains, tepid one, from which a smoke Issues -voluminous, as from a fire ; The other, ev'n in summer's heats, like hail For cold, or snow, or crystal stream frost-bound. Beside them may be seen the broad canals Of marble scooped, in which the wives of Troy, And aU her daughters fair, were wont to lave Their costly raiment, while the land had rest," &c. COWPER. We find also a like provision at a river in Phseacia, in the Odyssey, lib. vi. 86 : " At the delightful rivulet anived. Where those perennial cisterns were prepared. With purest crystal of the fountain fed Profuse," &c. Cowper. Why, then, may not such a provision have been at the fountain referred to, especially as it was in a camp ? Is it likely that in such a place there would be no convenience for bathing ? Indeed, nothing is more common in our own country, than where there is no river, to have a vessel, or contrivance of some kind, for bathing, near a well. But I produce this evidence as a mere work of supererogation. Nothing more can be required of me than to show that the thing is not impossible. Even were it certain, that at this fountain there was no such provision, might not some person have supplied her with a vessel ? To argue as Mr. Ewing does here, is to reason without first principles. He takes it for granted, that a thing is impossible, which is so far from being impossible, that it is not improbable. Were this a lawful mode of reasoning, it would be easy to disprove every thing. Section XII I shall now try what evidence can be found to deter- mine the literal meaning of the word baptizo, from its figurative applica- tions. When a word is used figuratively, the figure is founded on the literal meaning ; and, therefore, by examining the figure, we may discover additional evidence with respect to the literal meaning. AJad here I would first observe, that some instances of figurative use may not be decisive, as well as some instances of literal use. It is enough that every instance of both Uteral and figurative use will explain fairly on THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 79 the supposition of the meaning for wliich we contend, when other instances irresistibly and confessedly imply it. Our opponents contend, that in some of its figuratiA^e occurrences the allusion is to pouring. " In this sense of pouring upon, and pouring into,'^ says Mr. Ewing, " till mind and body are overwhelmed, impregnated, intoxicated, and the circumstances are oppressive, or even destructive, the word is very frequently used in profane writers." In opposition to this, I assert that not one of all Mr. Emng's examples necessarily refers to pouring upon, or pouring into. In many of them, the ti'anslation may be overwhelm ; but in this term, the reference is not to water poured upon, or poured into, but to water coming over in a ciurent, like the tide overwhelming the beach. This is strictly and characteristically expressed by kluzo. To this, some of the figurative occurrences of haptizo have a reference; and here there is a real immersion. The overwhelming water baptizes or sinks the person or thing baptized. Some of the instances in which the word is translated overwhelm, may well enough be so rendered, as a free translation ; yet as there is no allusion to water coming over, but to sinking in water, the translation is not literal. I observe again, that whether the water is supposed to come over the object, or the object is supposed to sink in the water, there is not a single figurative occurrence of the word, which does not imply that the object was completely covered with the water. Now, this kind of baptism would be little relief to Mr. Evnng. The man who is covered by the tide, while he lies on the shore, by the edge of the sea, is overwhelmed ; and he is as completely covered, as if he had gone into the sea, and dipped himself. Even were Mr. Evsdng to pour or sprinkle the water in baptism, till the person baptized should be entirely drenched, it would aiford no relief from immersion. Not one, then, of the examples of figurative use addticed by Mr. Ewing, countenances his own favourite mode of baptism. Let lis now take a look at Mr. Ewing's examples, in which the word is used figui'atively : " To have been drenched with wine." I have no objection to the translation drench, as it may imply that the object is steeped or dipped, so as to be soaked in the fluid. But as a thing may be drenched by pouring or sprinkling, the translation is not definitely exact. Literally, it is immersed in wine. In order to determine whether pouring or immersing is the ground of the figure, let us examine what is the point of likeness. It must be a bad figure, if the point of resemblance in the objects is not obvious. Now, let it be observed, that there is no Hkeness between the action of drink- ing, and either the pouring of fluids, or immersion in them. Were this the point of resemblance, the di'inking of one small glass might be desig- nated a baptism, as well as the drinking of a cask ; for the mode is as perfect on the lowest point in the scale, as on the highest. Every act of drinking, whether ivine or ivater, would be a baptism. Mr. Ewing, indeed, supposes that there is an excessive pouring, but as this cannot be included in mere mode, it camiot be included in the word that designates this, but must be expressed by some additional word. Besides, if the word baptiso signifies excessive pouring, it nuist do so in baptism, which condemns Mr. Ewing's popping a. Kttle water on the face. If it is 80 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. supposed that there is pouring in the drinking of a dnuikard, which is not in drinking moderately, and that the design of this apphcation of the word haptizo is to desig-nate this ; I reply, that the mode of diinking a small glass is as much jwuring, as the drinking of the cnp of Hercules. Indeed, there may be something of pouring in the action of putting a small quantity of hquid into the mouth, which is not in drinking a large goblet. But if the word baptizo, in expressing drunkenness, refers to the mode of drinking, there is then no figiu-e at all in the expression, for between pouring and pouring there is no resemblance. This is identity. Indeed, Mr. Ewing does not treat these expressions as figurative. He speaks as if he considered that the word haptizo was taken in them literally. He supposes that there is a ^'■pouring upon or & p)ouring into, till mind and body are overwhelmed," &c. The -wine then is poiu'ed into the person till he is intoxicated. This might be true, if the wine was put into him as men administer a drench to a horse. But the drunkard administers the wine to himself. What is the sense of the expression he is poured ivith wine, which on this supposition is the literal meaning ? But when hap)tizo is applied to drunkenness, it is taken figuratively; and the point of resemblance is between a man completely under the influence of wine, and an object completely subjected to a Uquid in which it is wholly immersed. This is not only ob^dous from the figure itself, but from the circumstances with which the figure is sometimes conjoined. Clemens Alexandi-mus, employing the same figure, says, baptized into sleep, through diimkenness. Now, baptized into sleep, is exactly oui' figure buried in sleep, which is an immersion ; and burial is the thing represented by Christian baptism. Is there any hkeness between pouring and sleeping ? Is not the likeness between complete subjection to the influence of sleep, and the complete subjection of an object to the influence of a Hquid Avhen immersed in it ? The same father applies the word to those who give themselves up to fornication. This is just our own figure when we speak of plunging headlong into debauchery. This view is fully confirmed by the same figure in other languages. All figui'es that are founded on nature, and obvious to the observation of all nations, will be in all languages the same. Figurative language is a xuiiversal language. Now, when we examine this figure in the Latin language, oui' view of it is put beyond all doubt. Virgil says of the Greeks taking Troy, " Invadunt urbem somno vinoque sepultam." They invade the city buried in sleep and wine. Here burial is apphed both to sleep and wine. Baptized, therefore, into sleep and vane, as used in the Greek language, must be the same as buried in sleep and wine in the Latui. Surely if the expression in the Greek needed a commentar}-, this must be an authoritative one. There can be no pretence for taking pouring out of burial. This miist be immersion. Lactantius, as Gale remarks, employs the phrase vitiis immersi, THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 81 immersed or pZiiw^ecZ in vice; and Origen, in his commentary on John, uses the same figiu-e. The expression of the former, therefore, must be the best commentary on that of the latter. Vices are not supposed to be poured upon the vicious person, but he sinks in them. "VVe ourselves speak in this manner. We speak of a man who sinks in vice. Martial's figure — " Lana sanguine conchas ebria" — wool drunk with the blood of the shell-fish — -also affords a commentary on the Greek figure. Here, wool dipped in a liquid is said to be drunk with that liquid from being completely soaked mth it. Schwarzius, indeed, supposes that Shak- speare's figure, " then let the earth be drunken with our blood," counte- nances the supposition that baptizo, thoiigh it primarily signifies to dip, sometimes signifies pouring or sprinkling. But what is the ground of this opinion ? Wliy, it is this. Baptizo, sometimes, is fignratively appHed to drunkenness, and drimkenness is sometimes figuratively applied to the earth drenched with blood. Therefore, since the earth is drenched with blood by pouring or spjrinkling, haptizo must sometimes signify pouring or sprinkling. This states the evidence as fairly as any can desire. But there is a multitude of errors here. If one word may figiuratively be apphed to an object literally denoted by another word, does it follow that they mark the same mode ? Is there any Hkeness betAveen the mode of drinking, and that of the falling of blood on the earth ? The earth is here said to be drunk with blood, not because there is a likeness between the manner of drinking wine, and that of the falling of blood, but from being completely drenched Avith blood, -without any reference to the manner in which it received the blood. Indeed, as there is no likeness between the faUing of blood on the earth, and the mode of drinking, the above expression is the clearest proof that the expression baptized loith tvine does not refer to the same mode. It might as well be said, that the expression, Deut. xxxii. 42, " I will make mine arrows drunk with blood," implies a proof that baptizo signifies to dip ; because arrows are besmeared A\dth blood by beuig dipped in the body. But this would be false criticism. God's arrows are supposed to be drunk with blood — not from the manner in which ari'ows are usually covered vnih. blood, but from the abundance of the blood shed by them. These observations Avill apply to all the examples in which this word is applied to drunkenness. I need not, therefore, examine them particu- larly : but I must refer to one or two, to show how ill Mr. Ewing'a explication Avill apply to them. " Oino ds polio Alexandron bajytisasa" — having immersed Alexander in wine, — that is, having made him drunk ■with Avine. This, according to Mr. Ewing's explication, would be, " having poured Alexander with much -wine," not " having poiu-ed mvich wine into Alexander." This would be pouring the man into the wine, instead of pouring the wine into the man. " Baptized into insensibility, and sleep under drunkenness." Now, a baptism into sleep, Ave haA'e already seen, is an immersion. Immersed, or buried in sleep, is a phrase that is warrantable ; but Avhat is the meaning of Vjeing poured into sleep and insensibihty ? Here it is not supposed that sleep is poured out on the person, but if bebaptismenon signifies pouring, the person must have been poured out into sleep. G 82 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. The words, dunamis behaptismene en to bathei tou somatos, Mr. Ewing translates, " a force infused into (or diffused in) the inward parts of the body." This translation, however, is not only unwarranted by the ori- ginal, but is as unsuitable to the supposition that haptizo signifies to pour, as that it signifies to immerse. To infuse into would not be hap- tizein en, but hcqotizein eis. Does Mr. Ewing mean to say, that the parenthetical words are explanatory, and that diffused in is equivalent to infused into ? or does he mean that they are two different meanings, of which the text is equally susceptible ? A strange thing, indeed, if the same phrase can equally signify infused into and diffused in ! In Enghsh these things are very different. Greek, it seems, has a wonderful fer- tihty of meaning. ^Vhen a controversialist indulges himself in a Ucence of this kind, he may indeed very easily prove or disprove anything. He has nothing to do but make the text speak what he Avants. This gives haptizo a new meaning, to diffuse. This is the most wonderful word that was ever found in any language. It can Avith equal faciHty in the very same phrase denote opposite things. To diffuse is surely the opposite of infuse. It is very true, that the same word compounded with different prepositions may do so, as is the case with infuse and diffuse ; btit let it be observed, that it is the very same phrase that Mr. Emng makes equally susceptible of these opposite meanings. This siu-ely is philolo- gical legerdemain. Let it be observed, also, that Mr. Ewing supposes that the word baptizo itself in these examples signifies io pour upon, or to pour into. Now where does he find the force of these prepositions in the Greek word ? If it signifies to pour, it does not signify to pour into, or to pour upon. The additional idea which varies the word so materially, must be got by a preposition prefixed or following : the hteral translation of the above example is, "a force or power immersed in the depth of the body." To immerse in the depth is a congruous expression, but to p)our in the depth is altogether incongruous. The example from Plutarch will suit my piu-pose well enough in Mr. E wing's translation; "for as plants are nourished by moderate, but choked by excessive watering, (literally waters,) in hke manner the mind is enlarged by laboiu-s suited to its" strength, but is overiohelmed (Gr. baptized) by such as exceed its poAver." Mr. EAving says, " The reference here to the nourishment of plants, indicates pouring only to be the species of Avatering alluded to in the term." But in this figure there is no reference at ah to the mode of watering plants. The reference is to the quantity of water. The mode is not mentioned ; but even Avere it mentioned, it would be merely a circumstance to which nothing corre- sponds in the thing illustrated. What critic would ever think of hunt- ing after such likenesses in figurative language ? There is actually no likeness between the mode of watering plants, and the proportioning of laboiu- to the mind of a pupil; and Plutarch is not guilty of such ab- surdity. To Plutarch's figrn-e it Avould be quite the same thing, if a pot of plants was dipped in water, instead of having the water poured into it. The pot itself might be dipped in water without any injury to the plants. The plants are injured when water is suffered to lie about them in too great abundance, in whatever way it has been applied. The THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 83 choking of the plant corresponds to the suffocation in baptism, or im- mersion. The choJcing of the powers of the mind is elegantly illustrated by the choking of the vegetative powers when a plaiit is covered in water. There is a beautiful allusion to the suffocation of an animal under water. Were Plutarch to rise from the dead, with what indignation would he remonstrate against the criticism that makes him refer to the mode of watering plants, in a figure intended to illustrate the bad effects of too much study ! Hoav loudly would he disclaim the cold, unnatural thought ! Is it not possible figuratively to illustrate something by a reference to the momitains buiied under snow, Avithoiit referring to the manner of its falling, and piu'suing the resemblance to the fiakes of fea- thered snow '? So far from this, I assert, that this manner of explaining figures is universally improjjer. No instance could be more beautifully decisive in our favoiu- than the above figm-e of Plutarch. Mr. Ewing makes him compare the choking of one thing to the overwhelming of another. But the author himself compares the choking of a plant^ or the extinction of vegetable hfe, to the choking or the extinction of the mental powers ; and in both there is an elegant allusion to the choking of an animal under water. But even on Mr. Ewing's own system, his explanation of this example is most fatal to his popping. Baptizo here he makes to signify death by too much water, as opposed to the moderate apphcation of water. If this is the distinctive meaning of haptizo, it cannot also denote the smallest application of water. It cannot surely designate the opposite extremes. The word is frequently applied to overwhelming debt, or oppressive taxation: " tous de idiotas dia ten ek touton euporian^ ou haptizoiisi tois eisphorais.'''' This Mr. Ewing very well translates, " on accoimt of the abundant supply from these sources, they do not oppress (or overload, Gr. baptize) the common people with taxes." But neither the original nor the translation will bear to be explained by the assertion that they are brought to support, namely, that bajjtizo sometimes signifies to pour upon, or poz^r into. Taxes are not supposed in this figure to be poured upon, or poured into, the people who pay them; and overwhelming taxes are not supposed to be poured, while small taxes are di'opped on the people. The people might rather be said to pour their taxes into the treasury. If baptizousi here signifies to ptour upon, or pour into, as Mr. Ewing supposes, the translation, Avhen literal, will be, " They do not pour the common people with taxes," or rather, " they do not pour into, or pour upon, the common people mth taxes." If any man can take sense out of this, he will deserve the praise of invention. But in this figure, the rulers are supposed to immerse the people, through the instru- mentahty of the oppressive taxes. The Hteral translation is, " They do not immerse the common people Avith taxes." The people, in the case of oppressive taxation, are not in such figui'es supposed either to have the taxes poured upon them, nor themselves to be immersed in the taxes, but to sink by being weighed doAvn with taxes. The taxes are not the element in which they sink, but are the instrumental baptizers. They cause the people to sink by their weight. This suits the words: this g2 84 THE MODE or BAPTISM. suits the figure : tliis suits tlie sense : this suits every example which refers to debt: this suits the analogy of all other languages. We say oiu'selves clipped in debt, droioned in debt, sunk by debt, or sunk in debt. To sink in debt figui-es the debt as that in which we sink. It is a deep water in which we sink. To sink by debt figures the debt as a load on our shoiilders, Avhile we are in deep water. In this view, it is not the drowning element, but the baptizer or drowner. To be dipped in debt, supposes that we owe something considerable in proportion to our means. But we may be dijjped without being drowned. The last cannot be adequately rejoresented by baptizo, except when cu'cumstances render the meaning definite. The Latin language recognises the same analogy. Were we at any loss with respect to the meaning of the figui'e in Greek, the ^re alieno demersus of Livy is a commentary. This supposes that the debtor is plunged or sunk in debt. A man strugging for his hfe in the midst of deep water, and at last sinking by exhaiistion, is a true pic- ture of an insolvent debtor. Wlien baptizo occurs in such a situation, the meanhig is substantially given in English by the word oppress, or overload; but neither of them is a translation. They convey the mean- ing under the figure of a load ; the other gives the idea under the figure of immersion. The same observation applies to the next example, Avhich Mr. Ewing quotes from Josephus, p. 302, translated by Mr. Ewing, " those, indeed, even without (engaging m) faction, afterwards overburdened or oppressed (Gr. baptized) the city." The original is stronger than the translation. It asserts that the robbers ruined, or sunk the city. The passage is translated by Wliiston, " although these very men, besides the seditions they raised, were otherwise the direct cause of the city's destruction also." The reference is to a ship sinking from being overburdened, and ill- managed in the storm, from the dissensions of the crew. In this view, the fig^ire is striking and beaiitiful. But how can Mr. Ewing accom- modate even his o^vn translation to his defiriition of the meaning of the word baptizo in such examples ? In them, he says, it is used in the sense of p)ouring upon and pouring into. What did the robbers pour upjon or into the city ? Besides, there is neither ujJon nor i7ito here. If the word baptizo signifies to pour, the translation literally will be, " they poured the city." This will not accommodate to Mr. Ewing's own definition of the meaning of the word, more than ours. Again, even according to Mr. EAving's own translation of this passage, the word baptizo here denotes something in excess. Wliat aspect has this towards the popping system ? A few drops of water is not an oppressive load. Josephus uses the same figure on another occasion. Speaking of Herod's sons, he says, " touto osper teleutaia thuella cheimazomenous toiis neaniskous epebaptisen," p. 704. This is a commentary on the preceding- example, and Hmits the figure to a ship sinking. In the former case, the ship was overbui'dened, and there was a mutiny among the sailors. Here the ship is attacked by repeated storms, and at last is sunk by a hurricane. The word cheimazomenous imports, that the young men had a winter voyage, in which they were attacked by many storms, and at last were plunged into the abyss by an overwhelming blast. Whiston, THE MODE or BAPTISM. 85 who has no piii-pose to serve, translates it thus : " and this it was that came as the last storm, and entirely sunk the young men, when they were in great danger before." Wliat has popping or pouring to say here ? The very next example which Mr. Ewing quotes in the sense of over- whelming by being overburde?ied, definitely refers to siiiking in water : " I am one of those who have been overwhelmed by that great wave of calamity." Now, what allusion is there here to pouring upon, pouring into, or pouring of any kind ? Yet this is one of the examples brought by Mr. Ewing, to prove that the word sometimes signifies to pour upon, and pour into, till mind and body are overwhelmed. What was poured upon or poured into this person ? Is it sitpposed that the wave gradually poured on him till it sunk him ? Nay, verily. He is said to be bap- tized under the wave. Indeed, a wave does not cover by pouring, biit by floiving, dashing, or sweeping horizontally. In the overwhelming by a v/ave, there is no Ukeness to j^ouring or popping, and the object is as completely covered by the wave, as when it is dipped. Besides, the person is here supposed to be forced do\vn into the water below, by the weight of the superincumbent wave. The wave is the baptizer, not the thing in which he is baptized. He is baptized under the wave. And can there be a stronger proof that baptism is immersion ? Let Mr. Emng perform baptism according to his own translation of this passage, and he will act as differently from his own mode as from oiu's. Let the baptized person be overwhelmed with water, and he "will be buried in Avater. Another example of this figiu-e from the same author, is entirely decisive in owe favoui'. Liban. Ep. 310. " He who bears with diffi- culty the bui'den he already has, would be entirely overwhelmed (or crushed) by a small addition." Is it possible to squeeze the idea of pouring out of the word in this occurrence ? A biu'den is not poured on the shoulders. Besides, it is not the putting of the burden on the man, that is here called baptism. The baptism is effected by the bui'den after it is put on. The burden causes the man to sink. The example which Mr. Ewing qiiotes from Plutarch, is already decided by the evidence produced with respect to the allusion when the figure respects debt : " Oppressed by a debt of .5000 mpiads." This debt was not poured upon him, nor poured into him ; but, oppressed by it as a load, he sunk or became insolvent. The figui'e does not represent the mode of putting the debt on him, for in this there is no Hkeness. It represents the debt ivhen on him as causing Mm to sink. The example from Heliod. xEthiop. lib. iv., can, by no ingenuity, be reconciled to the assertion which Mr. Emng brings it to support: "And overwhehned mth the calamity." If haptizo is supposed to signify to pour, this passage must be translated, " and poured by or with the calamity." The calamity is not poured upon him, but the calamity pours him. But to be immersed, or to sink, by calamity, is good sense, and a common form of speech. This also is baptism by immersion, and can be nothing else. "What is more common than to speak of sinking imder misfortunes ? 86 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. In like maimer Gregory Thaiitnaturgus, p. 72, speaks of persons as delivered from the difficiilties in wliicli they were immersed. But the observation of Schelhornins, renders the reference in this figure entirely definite. After quoting a nmnber of examples in which the word is- apphed figuratively to calamities, he observes, with great sagacity, that the same sentiment is expressed in the same author by the word hutlii- zesthai, which determines his meaning when he uses the word haptizo to express the same thing. " Sunk into the deep by a greater wave or tide of misfortunes." Now, that buthizo denotes to cover, to sink in the abyss, there can be no doubt. It is a verb formed from the appropriate name of the great abyss. Baptizo, then, as expressing the same thing, must agree with it in the general idea, though it characteristically difiers ft-om it in strength of expression. In some circumstances, they may both refer to the same thing, Avhile in others they have a characteristic dif- ference. No evidence can be more satisfactory in determining the meaning of a word than this. It is indii-ect, and would be hid from the ordinary reader; but when sagacity points it out, no candid mind can reject it. This also confirms an observation which I have made on another example, namely, that to be baptized by a wave, does not import that the baptism was in the wave, but under it; and that the wave is the baptizer, or power that sinks the baptized person under it. Here the great wave not only covered the person itself, but siuik liim below itself into the deep. The Septuagint renders Isaiah xxi. 4, " iniquity immerses me," trans- lated by Mx. Emng, " iniquity overwhelms me." " Here," he says, " the idea oi p)lunging into is excluded. The subject of baptism is viewed as having something poured or brought upon him. He is not popped into the baptizing substance, but it pops upon him." And pray, Mr. Ewing, who 2^02:)$ this iniquity upon the baptized person ? Is iniqiiity itself the popper ? Is not iniqiiity the thmg "vvith which he is popped ? Is it both popper and popped? But if iniquity pops him with itself, does not this represent sin as coming on the sinner of itself? But ^Mr. Ewing most manifestly mistakes the meaning of this phrase. The expression, "iniquity baptizeth me," does not mean that iniquity comes on him either by popp)ing or di2')ping, either by pouring or sijrinkling ; but that his sin, which originated in himself, and never was put on him in any mode, sunk him in raisery. Otu* iniquities cause us to sink in deep waters. This example is, with all others in which the word occurs either in its literal or figm-ative use, completely in our favour. Iniquity is the bap- tizer, and, instead of popping the subjects of its baptism, would sink them eternally in the lake that burnetii with fire and brimstone, were they not delivered by that which is represented in the baptism of Chris- tians. Upon the whole, there is not one of all the examples of the figurative use of this word, which will not fairly explain in perfect accordance with the hteral meaning which we attach to it, Avhile many of them can bear no other meaning. So far fi'om all explauiing with an allusion to pouring, there is not one of them, taking aU circumstances together, will fafrly explain in that meaning. There is not one instance in which Mr. Ewing can show, that the reference must necessarily be to THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 87 pouring. All languages employ corresponding words in the same figurative meaning for which we contend in the above examples. No evidence can be more entirely satisfactory. The figurative baptism of oiu* Lord is quite in accordance with those examples in which the word is used for afflictions. Matt. xx. 22 ; Mark X. 37. In accordance with this view, also, he is represented in the pro- phetical parts of the Old Testament, as immersed in deep waters. " Save me, O God, for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing; I am come into deep waters, where the floods ovei-flow me." Psa. bdx. 1, 2, 14. In like manner, the afflic- tions of the church are represented by this figiu-e. " Then the waters had overwhelmed us, the stream had gone over our soul: then the proiid waters had gone over our soul." Psa. cxxiv. 4, 5, &c. The enemies of the Lord, also, and of his people, are represented as destroyed by immersion in deep waters. " Then will I make theu- waters deep, and cause their rivers to rim like oil, saith the Lord God." Ezek. xxxii. 14. The baptism of the Spuit is a figtu-e that has its foimdation in immersion, by which the abimdance of his gifts and influences, and the sanctification of the whole body and soul, are represented. That which is immersed in a fluid is completely subjected to its influence, as wool is said to be drunk with the blood of the sheU-fish. So the sanctifica- tion of the behever by the Holy Spirit, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, is figui*atively called an immersion or a baptism. But this and the preceding figiure I shall meet again, in the examination of the theory of Mr. Ewing. Section XIII. — ^ExAJ^nNAxioN of Mr. Ewtng's System. — Having con- sidered the evidence for the meaning of this word from its occurrences in Greek Aviiters, I shall now examine the new theory proposed by Mr. E-\ving. Tliis Avriter pretends to have discovered the signification of bapto, by reducing it to its radical letters ; and by interchanging labials and vowels, he forms the word j^op from the soimd. For an admii-able exposiu'e of this fancy, I refer the reader to Dr. Cox. But the very attempt is absurd and ludicrous. It could not succeed on any subject, or with respect to any word. It is entitled to no more consideration, than an attempt to decide by an appeal to the cry of birds. The thought of setthng a rehgious controversy about the meaning of a word in a par- ticular language, by speculations with respect to its radical letters, as applying to all languages, is certainly one of the wildest conceits that has been broached in criticism since the birth of that art. Upon this theory, I shall do no more than make a few observations. 1. It apphes etymology utterly beyond its province. Etymology, as a foimdation for argument, can never proceed beyond the root existing as a ivord in the language, whose meaning can be learned from its use. To trace a word to a more remote ancestry, is to relate fable for history. 2. Wlien etymologists go farther, they do not pretend to give a meaning to a word which it is not foimd to have by use, nor to reject any meaning which use has assigned. They do not pretend to regulate 88 THE MODE or BAPTISM. language by assigning meanings from origin, but, from a comparison of actually ascertained meanings, "to assign a probable root. The value of their discoveries is not from their authority in setthng controversies about the meanings that use has actually assigned to the words which they analyze, but from the light which they reflect on the philo- sophy of language, and the science of mind. So far from having authority in theological controversy, their researches have no authority in criticism, mth respect to the use of words in classical writers. Classical writers are an aiithority to the etymologist, but the etymologist camiot give law to the classics. The etymologist must collect, and from use ascertain, the various meanings of a word, — on the authority of which he may venture a conjectiure of an origin higher than that of any word now in the language. By a comparison of these meanings, he may discover a common idea, and thereby be enabled to detenxdne the primary meaning. But Avithout this authority, the primary meaning can never be ascertained by the mere sound of radical letters. It may be true that particular radical letters are found in words that designate a common idea ; but that this is the case, and how far it is the case, depends on ascertaining from use the actual meaning of the words. If the meaning of words may la^\rfully be ascertained from the radical letters which they contain, instead of the tedious process of reading the classics, and acquiring the meaning of Avords from their use, we may at once proceed to reduce them to thefr radical sounds, and determine thefr import by this philological chemistry. Mr. E^ving not only fails in this instance of analysis, but utterly mistakes the true object of etjTuological researches. His attempt is not calcidated to throw Hght on the philosophy of language, nor illustrate the processes and relations of htiman thought, but converts etjonology into a sort of philological alchemy. 3. Were the origin of haiyto to be traced, even with the utmost cer- tainty, to some other word or words in the lang-uage, its meaning in the language must be determined by its use in the language, and not by its origin. Words often depart mdely in their use from the meaning of their root. They may drop some idea that Avas at first essential, or they may embrace ideas not originally unphed. 4. In analyzing any word, the etymologist must be guided not merely by the consideration that the letters that compose it have the appearance of mdicatiug a certain origin, but, especially as a groimd-work, that such an origin corresponds to its knoAvn and acknowledged mean- ing. And Avhen Ave haA'e found such an origin to a Avord, it is of no authority in argrunent, as it takes the meaning of the Avord for granted. If 2^op were the ascertained and acknoAvledged nieardng of hcqjto, the etjonologist might emj)loy his art to reduce the one word to the other. Biit CA'en then, the evidence that the one Avas the parent of the other, would depend on the fact that the meaning was ascertained by use, and could not rest on the coincidence of sounds. That rain comes from raino, to sprinkle, and plunge from pluno, &c., depends on the fact, that the meaning of the one Avord is known by use to correspond to the meaning of the other. Were there no sucli correspondence in knoivn THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 89 signification, the correspondence in soiuad "would be no foundation for derivation. Many words correspond as nearly in sound, whicli have no relation. In deriving a word, therefore, by reducing it to its radical letters, the etymologist, if he acts agreeably to the soxmd principles of his art, must have all the meanings of the derived word previously ascertained, as a ground-work for his conclusions : they are data which in liis process must be taken for granted. But if the nieardngs of a word are taken for granted in this process, the object of the process cannot be to ascertain a doubtful meaning. If the word hapto has not from use all the meanings which Air. Ewing assigns to it, no etymo- logical process can give any of these meanings to it, for they must be all taken for granted as a foundation for his deductions. 5. This theory assigns to hapto, as its primary meaning, a significa- tion which use has not given it in a single instance. Indeed, though the author endeavours to conform the examples to this primary accepta- tion, he does not pretend to have derived it from the examples. He concludes that the primary meaning of this Avord is pop, from the sotmd, and from its correspondence to the other meanings. That hapito has such a primary meaning there is no evidence. If pop really embraced aU the significations aissigned by Mr. Ewing to hapto, he might allege, that it is probable that the word once signified to pojj ; but this would not be proof that it had any such signification dru-ing the period to which the wiitings now extant in the Greek langiiage belong. This could be proA^ed only by examples from these authors. Whatever is the origin of the word hapto, it never signifies p)op. 6. To prove that any meaning is sanctioned by use, it is not sufficient that there are examples of its occiuTcnce which will explain on this meaning. There is no word of frequent occurrence, Avhich in some situations might not bear a false translation, or explain in a sense which it really never has, without making nonsense. Nay, a false translation of a word may, in many situations, make good sense, and even express a scriptiu'al truth, though not the truth of the passage. Before the authority of use, therefore, can be pleaded for a meaning, a passage must be produced in which the Avord must have the meaning assigned. This is self-evident. I state it, therefore, as a canon, or fii'st principle of criticism, that in controversy a word occurring frequently in the LANGUAGE IS NEARER TO BE TAKEN ARBITRARILY IN A SENSE ANTOCH IT CANNOT BE SIIOAVN INCONTESTABLY TO HA ATE IN SOAn: OTHER PASSAGE, An acknoAvledged sense is necessary as a foundation on Avhich to rest the supposition, that in the contested passage it may haA'e the signification assigned. There is no gromid to allege that the Avord has a signification in the contested passage, A\'hich it is not proved to have in some other place. It may have this authority, and fail ; but without this it cannot succeed. A meaning not so proved has no right to be heard in contro- versy. I have limited the canon to controA-ersy, but, in fact, it extends in some measure to matters in Avhich men do not find an inducement to dispute. Many of the beasts and fishes and foA\ds and plants mentioned in the Old Testament, cannot be noAV exactly and confidently ascertained 1)V us, for want of this criterion; and althougJi there is no Avarni 90 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. controversy about these things, it is because there is no temptation from the subject. If a word occurs so seldom in what remains of any language, and in such circumstances as cannot definitely determine its meaning, nothing can be legitimately rested on it in controversy. Now this canon sweeps aAvay not only Mr. Ewing's theory, but all other systems that give a meaning to baptizo, different from that for which we contend. There is not one instance in all the Greek language in which it necessarily signifies to pour, sprinkle, &c. Otu' opponents have not an acknowledged foundation on which to rest the opinion, that, with respect to the ordinance of baptism, the word baptizo may have the meaning for which they contend; for in no instance can it be proved to have such a meaning. On the contrary, even Mr. Ewing himself, the boldest of all the critics on that side of the question, does not deny that this word sometimes signifies to dip ; nay, he Mmself gives many exam- ples in which it miist have this signification. 7. I will state another canon equally self-evident, and equally fatal to the doctrine of Mr. Ewing, and all our opponents : A word that applies TO TWO MODES CAN DESIGNATE NEITHER. The Same word Cannot express different modes, though a word not significant of mode may apply to all modes. Wash, for instance, may refer to the action designated by it, in whatever mode it may be performed, Wliether it is done by dipping or by pouring, the word wash does not assert. It is indifferent as to mode, although even here one mode is more common than another. Stain, in hke manner, asserts nothing of mode, but applies to all modes. A thing may be stained by sprinkling, by po^mng, or by dipping. Wet also applies to all modes. A thing may be wetted by dipping, by pour- ing, by sprinkling, by the insensible distillation of the deiu, by damp. The word expresses the effect only, and says nothing of the mode. But it would be both false and absurd to say that these words signify all these modes. They express nothing of mode. Modes are essentially different from one another, and have nothing in common. One word, then, cannot possibly distinguish them. The name of a mode is the word which expresses it as distinguished from other modes. But it is impossible for the same word to express the distinction of two modes. It might more reasonably be supposed, that the word black may also be employed to signify the idea denoted by ivhite, as well as the idea which it is employed to designate, because black and white admit of degrees ; but there are no degrees in mode. Withoiit reference, then, to the practice of the language, on the authority of self-evident truth, I assert that bapto cannot signify both dip, and pour or sprinkle. I assert, that in no language under heaven can one loord designate two modes. Now we have the confession of our opponents themselves, that baptizo signifies to dip. If so, it cannot signify also to pour or sprinkle. 8. The variotis meanings that Mr. Ewing assigns to this word, will not deriA^e from po20. His theory, then, has not the merit even of con- sistency, which a false theory may have. He asserts, indeed, that all the meanings which he admits, may easily be reduced to this word; and that each holds of it, independently of all the rest. But how does he make out this assertion ? By making as many compounds oi pop, as THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 91 hapto is supposed to have meanings. In each of these meanings, it becomes, in fact, a different word. Pop in, pop out ; pop up, pop doiun ; pop hackivard, pop forward, &c., are different compound words, as much as diffuse is different from infuse. Now, if the, word bapto signifies merely to pop, it caimot signify to po23 up, to pop doicn, &c., by its o^vn power. It must have something added to give it such a meaning. It is false, then, to say that hcqHo has all these significations. But if bapto signifies to pour, it does so Avithout the aid of any other word : if it signifies to sp)rinkle, it must do so by itself. It signifies to dip, without the aid of any other word. It is true, indeed, that baptizo admits com- position with prepositions, but this is not to enable it to signify to dip : for if this were the case, it could never have that signification without the preposition in composition. But it has this signification where there is no such composition. Indeed, there are but few of its occiurences in which it admits the composition. It was indeed a conceit of the great Dr. Owen, that baptizo cannot denote to dip, except in composition mth en or eis. But this is conti-adicted by use, and by the analogy of other words, as is well remarked by Mr. Booth. Besides, if bapto signifies to pop, and ii pop can apply to none of the meanings which bapto is said to have, without the aid of a preposition, then it cannot be said that bapto signifies to pour or sprinkle. It only signifies a part of that idea. Again, when the compoimd is formed, it will not produce the meanings contended for. To p)op upon does not signify to sprinkle, for there may be a popping upon, Avhen there is no sprinkling, though sprinkling may be performed by popping upon. In the very example alleged by I\'Ir. Ewing, there is popping iqjon withoiit sprinkling. " A fellow finding somewhat prick him, popped his finger upon the place." Did he sprinkle his finger upon the place ? But if there is p)opping iqjon without sprinkling, then pojJj^ing iqjon will not signify sprinkling withoiit something to limit it stiU farther. Granting, then, that hapto signifies to pop, for this very reason it cannot signify to sprinkle. In the same manner it may be proved, that if bapto signifies to pop in or into, it does not signify to p)our; for there may be popping in or into without pouring. Mr. Ewing's own example proves this : " He that kill'd my king, Popt in between th' election and my hopes." There was no poiu-ing here. But a word that does not necessarily imply pouritig, cannot signify pouring. Even with the addition of the Avord loater itself, the idea is not made out. If we substitute toater for finger in the above example, we shall fail in the attempt to express sptr inkling. The felloAV might pop icater iipon the place without sprinkling. In like manner, there may even be popping into water, without immersion. AVlien a boy pops a duck into the water, she does not sink. Mr. EAviug, then, has failed in every point of view. Even the expression, " he popped Avater into lais tiu'ned up face," Mr. Ewing's favourite expression for baptizing, does not express either pouring or sprinkling. So far from necessarily implying that the Avatcr Avas poured or sprinkled, it natm-ally implies that the Avater Avas cast l->y 9.2 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. a, jerk or slight dash., and not by droits, or by a stream. Instead, then, of accounting for all the meanings attached by Mr. Ewing to the word bajjto, it does not accoxmt for any one of these meanings. Still less wih this derivation accoimt for dyeing as a meaning of bapto. How is it possible, that if bajJto primarily signifies to j9op, it could also receive the signification to dye ? ]\Ir. Ewing ansAvers this, by supposing that a thing may be dyed, by having the colouring hqupr popped iipon it, and by the supposition, that the art of dyeing was suggested by the accidental staining of things by the jtiice of fruits. But this account is totally unphilosophical. All this may be tiaie, yet be insufficient to account for the fact. Accidental and infrequent union cannot originate a meaning foxmded on such union. It is not priority of the mode of doing anything, but the frequency of doing in a mode, that will confer the name of the mode on the thing effected in such mode. This is the voice both of philosophy and of fact. Thus, cano, to sing, came to signify to foretell, because prophets uttered their predictions in song. This principle operates very extensively m language. I have already exem- plified the thing in many instances. Bapto ^ to dip, comes natui'ally to signify to dye, from the frequency of dyeing by dipping. But there never was such a frequency of dyeing by sprinkling, as would, on philo- sophical principles, give the name of the mode to the thing effected in that mode. Besides, if bapto primarily signifies to pop, and if it came to signify to dye, because dyeing Avas usually performed bj^ poppAng, then dyeing must have been performed neither by pourmg nor sjorinkhng, for popping, as I have shown, is different from both. It is impossible philo- sophically to account for dyeing as a meaning of bap)to on any other principle, than that this word primarily signifies to dip). Again, if bapto came to signify to dye, becaxise that the art of dyeing was suggested by the accidental stains from the bruising of ft-uits, why did not p)op accompany its relative in this signification ? Why did not IMilton say, " coloiu's popped in heaven," instead of " colours dipped in heaven ?" There is no end to the absurdity of this fantastic theory : it is a mine of inconsistency that never cordd be exhausted. This is the necessary condition of all false theories. HoAvever plausible they may be made by the ingenuity of theii' inventors, they must contain incon- sistency that Avill sometimes pop out its head, and shoAV itself CA^en to the most indolent readers. But truth is consistent; and, although many apparent difficulties may at fij'st sight occui', they aatU graduaUy disap- pear, as hght is cast on the subject by inquiry. Even Avhen its defenders, by inadvertency, couple it Avith something extrinsic, that tends to obsctu'e and mar its CAddence, the ingenuity of opponents Avill only liaA^e the good effect of separating the chaff from the wheat. But no absru'dity can A-ie Avith that of supposing that a word of so pecuhar and restricted a meaning as pop is represented to be, shotdd be accounted so generic, that it becomes the hege lord of innumerable different sigTiifications, that do not arise the one out of the other, but hold immediately of itself. Nay, according to Mr. EA\dng's philosojihy, it might become the liege lord of half the language. Instead of originally representing a very generic idea, it is supposed primarily to signify a THE MODE or BAPTISM. 93 particiilar sound, — a small smart quick sound. It is said to be a word " formed from the sound." All its applications agi-ee to this ; and i)op itself never came to have the acceptations that ]Mr. E-ndng supposes hai^to to have. We never find this word apphed to any things, but such as are of a trifling or playful nature. We never hear of a shipwreck as a popping of the ship into the deep. This would be ludicrous. Pop, instead of being a generic word, is as specific a word as can be imagined, and never was actually extended to serious or important things, except to burlesque them. Indeed, instead of being a liege lord, conferring ample and separate territories on many great vassals, it is so very confined in its OAvn territory, that it has a domain hardly sufficient for a walk, to give it an airing. To enable it to go a httle into the world, it is obKged to take assistance fi'om the prepositions. Mr. Ewing himself cannot send it abroad, Avithout escorting it mth up or clown, hackicards or forwards, in or into, off or iq)on, &c. A word so limited in its own territories is ill fitted to become, as hege lord, proprietor of a great part of the language, — nay, of every language; for Mr. E^ving's chemistry must extract the same thought from all languages. The author, indeed, Avhile he declares that each of the vassals is independent of all the rest, and holds immediately of the Hege lord, inconsistently gives it a process from the particular sound originally denoted by it, to " the noise caused by the agency of body in motion upon body, and that in any direction ichat- ever." Here we have a process, that by gradually dropping particu- larities, and encroaching on territories not originally included in its kingdom, gives it a generic meaning. Here every step in the process is connected Avith that which precedes and depends on it. But let us look at the generic meaning Avhich Ave haA^e found by this process. It is so generic, as to disclaim all kindred Avith pojj, according to the use of that Avord in the English language. Mr. EA\dng's definition assigns this word to express " the noise caused by the agency of body in motion upon body." Now, has pop actually so generic a meanuag ? If so, Ave may speak of the popping of a cart, Avhen Ave mean to express the creaking of its wheels ; for this is " noise caused by the agency of body in motion upon body." In short, every noise from motion may be called popping. Biit AAath all the impudence of this Httle playful AVord, it has ncA^er had the boldness to pop itself into such a province. Again, if bajJto signifies primarily to pop, and if pop sigiufies primarily to make " a smaU smart qmck sound," and if aU the various meanings of bapto hold of it in this signification, then they must all be reducible to the primary signification, namely, " a smaU smart quick somid," Avithout any relation to one another. The signification to dye must be referred immediately to this particular sound, and not to the accidental bruising of fruits. Mr. EAving inconsistently makes the varioiis meamngs hold of pop in its generic meaning, acquired by process, instead of its primary, particular motion. Nay, he absiirdly makes the various meanings of bajJto hold of the English poj), and that in a meaning far remoA'ed from its primary meaning. No matter that it Avas as true that pop had the generic meaning acquia-ed by process from a particular one, as it is manifestly false ; this Avould say nothing to the processes of bapto. Instead 94 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. of tracing the progress of pop from " a small smart quick sound/' to a " sound caused by the motion of body in motion on body," let Mr. Ewing trace the progress of hcqjto itself. It is with this the controversy is concerned, and not with the mutations in the meaning of an English word. Let him show such a primary meaning in bapto, and then let him trace it throu:gh all the rivulets derived from the fountain. Can anything be more obvious, than that if bapto primarily signifies to pop, and if j'op primarily signifies to make a small smart quick sound, bapto cannot be admitted as proprietor of any other territory, till it is proved by use to possess it ? Is the harmony between bapto and p)op) hke that of the monads of the sord and body, according to the system of Leibnitz, that the one must necessarily accompany the other in all its most fantastic movements ? Can anything be more absurd, than to squeeze pop out of bapto, on the authority of sound and primary acceptation, yet in the theory founded on this, to reason not from the primary meaning of pop, but from a meaning acquired by process ? Can anything be more absurd, than to pretend to determine the different meanings of a Greek word, by the mutations of meaning in the Enghsh word derived from it ? 9. li pop originally denoted "a small smart qiuck sound," as is very likely, then there is no reason to extract p>op) out of bajjto, for bapto never denotes such a soimd, — ^nor any sound. Mr. Ewing himself does not pretend to aUege one example in which bajJto has the meaning which 2yop originally implied. On the authority, then, of the coincidence of primary meaning, no relation can be found between them. 10. The construction of the words in connexion with bapto, in many of its occiu-rences, contradicts this theory. Mr. Ewing says, " a person or thing may be either pojjped into water, or may have water popped upon or into MmP Very triie, but the same syntax will not pop Mm. into water, that will pop water upon or into him. According to Mr. Ewing, to p)op into water, is to dip. If so, the examples of dipping, as denoted by this phrase, are innumerable. Let any person examine the number which I have produced. But can Mr. Ewing produce out of all Greek literature, a single example of the phrase popping water upon a person or thing, when the verb is bapto? Baptizing loater upon a person or thing, is a phrase that never occurs. This would be the baptism of the water, not of the person. To pop) water upon a man,!^). Greek, wordd be, haptein udor ep anthroj?on, if baptein is the Greek word for pop : but such phraseology is not to be found in all the Greek language. 11. The many examples in which baptizo is apphed to great, serious, and terrific objects, contradict this theory. Mr. Ewing, indeed, has foreseen this storm ; and to prevent his theory from being overiohelmed by it, has invented a groundless distinction between what he calls the prop)er and lax sense of the Avord. " It is a word," he says, " which properly denotes operations on a small scale, and of a gentle nature : it is in a secondary sense that it comes to be apphed to the vast and the ter- rible." But can it apply to the vast and the terrible, if it does not either include the vast and the tendble in its primary meaning ; or, by forsak- ing its primary meaning, has it, by philosophical procedure, advanced to THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 95 new territories ? Words often advance to meanings very distant from their roots ; but when they do so, they give np their first acceptation, and take the new meaning as their proper acceptation. Candlestick, for instance, at first denoted a ntensil of wood ; it now denotes the utensil, without respect to the material of which it is composed : but it has forsaken its ancient meaning altogether. It cannot be said that it properly signifies an implement made of wood, for holding a candle; and in a secondary sense, the same utensil of any materials. It now as properly signifies the utensil when it is made of metal, as Avhen it is made of wood ; of gold, as Avhen it is made of an osier. In this every thing is natural, and the philosophy of the progress is intelligible to the child : but let Mr. Emng point out any philoso- phical principle that would lead haptizo from such a primary sense as he contends for, to the secondary sense which he here assigns. Is there any principle to conduct the operation in extending the word pop-gun to signify a cannon ? He does not pretend that this process has been verified in the term ^wp. To employ ^wp in this way, Avould be ludicrous. The same must be the case with hapto, if it signifies to jiop- But if there were any principle to lead to this process, when it had taken place, the first meaning miist be given up ; for they are utterly irreconcilable. Let Mr. Ewing point out any principle in the human mind that would naturally conduct this process. Let him point out any example in any language, in which a word at the same period of its history has such primary and secondary meanings. Can anything be more extravagant than the supposition, that this word properly denotes operations on a small scale, and, as a secondary meaning, things of a vast and terrific nature ? If it has the one meaning it cannot have the other. There is no philosophy in this distinction. Wliat a wild thought, that the noise of a pop-gun, and destruction by the overwhelm- ing torrents of boihng lava from the crater of a burning mountain, may be expressed by the same word ! Mr. Ewing, indeed, acknowledges that it is not usual in EngHsh to say, " he popped upon me Avith an over- whelming flood." But he might have added, that this could not be said in any language, emplo}dng a word corresponding to ptp. This Avord cannot apply to such things, from the inconsistency between them and the ideas Avhich it denotes : and there must be the same inconsistency with respect to the Avords that correspond to pop> in all languages. Mr. Ewing calls this secondary sense, "a figurative, an e.raggerated, rather than a proper and natural sense." But if it is a secondary sense, it is not a figurative sense, for a secondary sense is a proper sense ; and a figurative acceptation of a Avord is no sense of the AA'ord at all. Wlaen a word is used hyperbolically, it still retains its proper sense, and from this circumstance the figm-e has its beauty. "V\'lien the Psalmist repre- sents the mountains as leaping, the Avord leaping still retains its proper meaning, but the motion of a mountain in an earthquake is elegantly figured as leaping. The Avord leap does not here come by exaggeration to denote the motion of a mountain in an earthquake. In hke manner, when a Avild Irishman says, that he Avas killed when he had i-eceiA^ed a 96 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. severe beating, the word kill is not diminislied in its meaning, but what is not killing is, by a Hvely imagination, so called for the sake of energy. It is absui'd to speak of the exaggerated or diminished meaning of a word. The exaggeration or the diminution is not in the words at all. I have already pointed ont the true distinction between BAPTO and BAPTIZO. The former signifies to dijJ, the latter to cause to dip. Now these significations equally apply to small objects and to great ; but while the latter may be apphed to the smallest object, it is peculiarly fitted to denote the immersion of objects greater than can be hfted in the hand. Accordingly, we find that baptizo, while it is sometimes applied to the smallest objects, is much more usually than bajJto apphed to large objects. It more exactly applies to the immersion in baptism, because the baptized person is not taken up by the baptizer, but caused to sink into the water by the force impressed. It is haptizo, also, as any one may see by a look at the examples which I have quoted, that is applied to the sinking of ships, and the destruction of things not lifted out of the water. This is a distinction philosophical, intelligible, usefid, and agreeable to fact. Mr. E-\ving's distinction has nothing to recommend it but the necessity of his theory. Josephus speaks as literally when he designates the sinking of a ship by the word baptiso, as when he speaks of the immersion of the smallest object. .12. Mr. Ernng mistakes the effect that prepositions have in compo- sition Avith the verbs. He seems to suppose, that they always modify or give direction to the action of the verb as simply as the English pre- positions. But a slight examination of this subject Avill convince any one that they have a variety of power unknown to our language. Let us take one or two examples : eita thermous artous ex oinou melanos kai elaiou apobap>ton. Here it is obvious apo does not direct its force in conjimction with the verb, upon the object of the verb ; but marks the departure of the object from the thing in which the action Avas produced. The latter is without doubt the eifect of the preposition after the verb, ex oinou J out of loine. It is not " dip the loaves into the wine," but " dip them out of the twme." The point to which our attention is here called by the expression, is the departure of the object out of the thing in which the action of the A^erb Avas produced. This imphes that it Avas in the Avine, but does not express it. Now, the preposition in composi- tion may luiite AAdth the preposition after the verb, as is frequently the case, Avhen the same preposition that is used in composition is also used after the verb, as embaptizo eis thalassen, and our own phrases, the tyrant was expelled out of the kingdom, — he mfused courage into the soldiers, &c. &c. Whatever is the meaning of the participle in the above example, the preposition in composition with it cannot exert its influence on the object of the verb. We could not say, jJopping from the loaves out of the ivine. The expression is on the same principle that operates in the phrase, " shall dip his finger from the oil," Lev. xiv. 16 ; and " from the blood," Lev. iv. 17. Eis and en occur very frequently in composition with this verb ; but their effect is quite obvious: apo is less frequent, because it is only on THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 97 the above principles that it applies. E]ji is still less frequent. It does not imply that the baptizing substance was put upon the thing baptized, but that the thing baptized was put upon the baptizing substance. "Dip- ping a piece of fine linen into moist Eretrian earth," &c. Here the Unen was baptized upon the earth, and not the earth upon the Unen. Now, this is Mr. Swing's favourite compound for denoting poptism. To p)op upon must mean to pop the water on the person. But let the verb be translated as he -will, it cannot comj)ort in this example with this view. The Eretrian earth was not to be popiped iqoon the linen, for it was a mass of moist earth ; and it is npt said that tlie linen was to be baptized upon with the earth, but into the earth. Noav, Mr. Ewing sup- poses that Avhen the verb is compounded with epi, the baptizing substance is preceded by ivith. " He popped upon me with an overwhelming flood." But this is not the syntax in any of the examples in which this compound word occiirs. It is not baptize with, but baptize in or into. This is a caj)ital mistake, and the detection of it leaves him without aid from his favourite compound. To baptize upon, in the construction in which it always stands, is as inconsistent with popping, as into Avould have been. Indeed, into is in this example expressly used before the baptizing substance. If the linen was to be baptized upon moist earth, it was also to be baptized into the earth. The expression in Josephus in which this compound is used, to which Mr. Ewing seems to refer, is as little in unison with his doctrine : " This, as the last storm, immersed the young men," &c. Here the storm is not the baptizing substance, but the baptizer, and it did not pop itself upon them, for the verb is in the active voice. If, then, it signifies to piop, the popper must pop something on them. Wliat is it, then, that the storm pops on them different from itself ? To express Mr. Ewing's meaning, the syntax must be quite different. Some p)opper must " pop the young men Avith a storm," &c., or it must be, "the yoiuig men Avere popped u]Don with a storm." But instead of this the storm itself is the baptizer, and as their hap>tism Avas their destruction, it must have been immersion. Epi, then, cannot here import, as Mr. EAving's doctrine supposes, that the baptizing substance Avas p>opped upon the baptized; for the baptizing siibstance was the sea in which they perished, and the storm Avas the baptizer that sunk them. Mr. Evving's OAvn translation of the passage cannot give him relief " This, as the last storm, epihaptized or over- whelmed the young men, already weather-beaten." Noav what did the storm baptize up)on them ? With what did it overwhelm them '? With itself, Mr. EAving may say. I answer, No. The verb is in the active voice, but to express this meaning Avovdd require the middle. If the storm popped them, it must have popped them Avith something different from itself. Besides, the allusion is evidently to a shijJ sinking in the sea by a storm. The sea is the baptizing substance, the storm is the baptizer, and the effect of such a baptism is destruction. Ejm, then, is evidently intended to mark the violence of the pressure of the storm on the ship, as the force of the agent in efi^ecting the action of the verb. Again, if epibaptize signifies to pq/J upon, hoAV is it that it here imports to overwhelm ? Can any tAvo ideas be more inconsistent than that of H 98 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. popping upon, and that of overwhelming ? Can two extremes meet ? How does overwhelm hold of pop ? I have already shown that no pro- cess can account for two meanings so discordant, and that no figiare -will justify it. This is contrary to a canon as clear as any in language, — That which designates one extreime, cannot at the saime time desig- nate THE OTHER. As I have observed in another place, many words may apply to both extremes, bnt this can never happen except when they designate neither. To clip, for instance, applies to an immersed world, and it appKes to an immersed insect. But it designates neither. How ludicrous is the expression, the storm popped upon the young men! Even were we to grant for a moment, that jmj) should enlarge its signifi- cation so as to apply to the most violent storm, still it woidd express only the force of the storm, and not its effect. The translation would then be, "the storm rushed on them with tremendous violence;" but this would not import the effect of the storm, as issuing in their destruc- tion. In many ways they might escape from the greatest storm ever known. Jonah was even cast into the sea, and yet escaped. Even when the whistle becomes a tempest, it will not serve Mr. Ewing. The same observations will apply to the other example from Josephus : " That he would baptize or sink the city." How is it that Mr. Ewing has translated this as if the verb was in the passive voice, and as if Josephus himself was not supposed the baptizer? "For the city," says Mr. Ewing, " must be epibaptized or oveinvhelmed." Do not the people, in their expostulations with Josephus, in order to dissuade him from leaving them, tell him, that if he should depart, he would himself sink or epibaptize the city ? His desertion of the city wotdd be the means of its ruin. He is then represented as doing the thing that would be the consequence of his departure. But how is this, as Mr. Ewing says, an overwhelming by rushing or pouring upon ? Did Josephus, by popping off from the city, p)op upon it Avith such violence as to overwhelm it ? This surely impHes the mys- teries of transubstantiation. Josephus popped nothing on the city by leaving it, nor did he rush or pour on it with violence by flying from it. Epi, then, in this compound, can afford no countenance to the supposi- tion, that in baptism the water is popped or poured upon the baptized person. To suit the example to this purpose, Josephiis must have been represented as pouring the baptizing substance on the city. Upon the whole, Mr. Ewing labours under a capital mistake with respect to the effect of the prepositions prefixed to this verb. The Greek prepositions have a much more extensive and varied power in composition than ours have, in such compounds as pop in, pop out, &c. Epibaptize, which he supposes expressly to imply that the water is poured on the baptized, does not in one instance occur in syntax suitable to his interpretation, even although the meaning of the verb were doubtful. 13. In this theory of Mr. Ewing, we have the strongest evidence that our opponents are not themselves satisfied with any mode of defence hitherto devised. We have Mr. Ewing's own. virtual acknowledgment, that the ground on which poimng has till his time been held for bap- THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 99 tism, is not firm. Can there be a more certain sign that he himself Avas dissatisfied Avith the usual view of the subject, than his having recoiirse to so extravagant a theory ? If he has taken to sea in this bark of bul- rushes, must he not have considered the ship which he left as being in the very act of sinking ? I call on the unlearned Christian to consider this circumstance. Wliat must be the necessities of a cause that requires such a method of defence ! This theory is not only imsound, and tui- supported by the Greek language, but it is ludicrous in the extreme. Since the heavens were stretched over the earth, there has not been such a chimerical scheme emlDodied under the name of criticism. The thought that the ordinances of Christ could be squeezed out of the radical soimds contained in words, or that the actual meanmg of Avords may be autho- ritatively determined by such a species of etymology, is fi'ightfully fana- tical. Sober criticism can lend no ear to such dreams. What, then, miist be the desperate situation of that cause, that takes aid from such a theory as that of Mr. EAving ! The passages which Mr. EAving brings for Avar d in support of his theory are already mostly considered. I shall, therefore, only touch on a fcAv of his observations on them. There is one ride of interpretation which Mr. EAving prescribes to us, at Avhich I am beyond measiu'e asto- nished. Though he does not formally state it as a canon, yet he reasons on the supposition, that Ave are obliged to find an exact parallel for im- mersion, Avith all its circumstances, in the purifications of the heathens or of the JeAvs. Having quoted the passage from Herodotus, Avhich is so decisive in our favour, he endeavours to lessen its A^alue in the follow- ing Avords : " After all," says he, " there is one A^ery manifest point of difference. The person Avho adopts this summary method of purifica- tion, performs the operation for himself. The immersion of one person by another, for any purpose except that of medical treatment, or that of mirrder, I can discover in no AAT.'itings Avhatever, sacred or profane." And does Mr. EAving really think that any such authority is necessary to determine the meaning of this Avord ? Must we seek for a model for Christian baptism, either among JeAvish or heathen rites ? I care not if there never had been a human being immersed in Avater since the creation; if the Avord denotes immci'sioi) , and if Christ enjoins it, I Avill contend for it as confidently as if all nations, in all ages, had been daily in the practice of baptizing each other. Whether I am to immerse myself in baptism, or be immersed by another, I am to learn from the Scriptxu'e accounts of the ordinance, not either from the meaning of the word, or the practice of nations. The demand of Mr. EAAdng is unreason- able beyond anything that I recollect to have found in controversy. If it could not be accounted for by the strength of prejudice, it Avould indicate a want of discernment that no man AviU impute to Mr. EAving. The man Avho demands, in order to the proof of immersion in baptism, that a comj)lete model of the ordinance be found in JeAAQsh or heathen piu'ifications, must either labour under the infliience of the strongest bias, or be strangely deficient in the poAvers of discrimination. " For any purpose except that of medical treatment, or that of murder !! !''"' And is not any of these cases as authoritative as an immersion for purification ? Is not the immersion h2 100 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. of a man for medical purposes, as much an immersion, and as authori- tative to show the meaning of the word, as an immersion for superstitious purposes ? Examples are useful to settle the meaning of the word, not as a model for the^ ordinance. The dipping of the flea's foot in Aristo- phanes, is as authoritative as the immersion of a Pharisee for purification. But what heightens the extravagance of this demand is, that while Mr. Ewing calls for a complete model for Christian immersion in the purifications of Jews and heathens, he is so easily satisfied with evidence on his own side of the question, that he has found popping water on the turned up face to be the baptism of the New Testament. Here he has the eyes of a lynx, for he has seen what I believe no other man ever pretended to see in the Scriptures. But it seems, that even a complete model in heathen purifications would not serve us. Nay, if we have been condemned for want of a heathen pattern for baptism, we are also condemned for having it. " There is also," says Mr. Ewing, " a point, not of difference, but of resemblance, between this example and an anti-psedobaptist's baptism, which seem-S to have very much astonished the historian, namely, the person's plunging himself, ' -with his very clothes on.' It was evidently regarded as a singular and monstrous sort of purification by this heathen writer; and we shall meet Avith abundant evidence that it was never so seen in Israel." Here we are condemned for observing baptism according to the model, as we were before condemned for coming short of the model. Surely I may answer such reasoning in the language of Christ : " We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced ; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented." As long as the mind is in a state to make such objections, it would not yield though one should rise from the dead, A heathen thought purification Avith the clothes on, singxdar and monstrous. Must Christ's ordinance conform to heathen notions of purification ? But, Mr. Ewing, how can you assert that Herodotus regarded this as monstrous ? There is no such thing said, nor imphed. The historian does not mention the circumstance as monstrous, or in any degree improper, but as an evidence of the abhorrence that the Egyptians have for swine, and the deep pollution contracted by their touch. The thing that was singular and strange is, that the person touching the swine supposed the pollution to affect his very garments, or that it was as necessary to baptize them as himself The polluted Egjrptian bap- tized himself, with his very clothes, that he might purify his clothes, which he considered to be defiled as well as himself. The Christian is baptized with his clothes on, not indeed to imitate the example of the Egyptian, but for the sake of decency. Had Christian baptism been like Egyptian baptism, an ordinance in which every believer was to baptize himself, there would have been no need to baptize with the clothes on. The thing, then, that is strange and singular in the Egyptian baptism, is not strange in Christian baptism. It would be strange if persons bathing alone in a retired place should encumber themselves with a bathing dress ; but it would not be strange to find them using a bathing dress on a crowded strand. A httle discrimination under the influence of candour would have taken away all monstrosity from this THE MODE 0¥ BAPTISM. 101 example. There is nothing in the historian that in the remotest degree gives ground for Mr. Ewing's assertion. Is this a candid or a Christian way of representing evidence ? If men Avill indulge themselves in such liberties with the documents on which they found their report of anti- quity, no credit could be given to history. Mr. EAving here represents Herodotus as regarding the circumstance as monstrous, without the smallest authority from his words. Is not this bearing false witness ? The intention, I am convinced, is not to misrepresent evidence. Yet evidence is misrepresented, where nothing but bias could discover the supposed meaning. Well may a Eoniau cathohc see all the doctrines of popery in the Scriptures, when Mr. Ewing can find the cii'cumstance of bathing with the clothes on, designated as monstrous in this language of Hero- dotus. If, in all the passages which I have considered, I have made one such misrepresentation, let me be put to shame. I may mistake the meaning of my aixthor, but a mistake that indicates a bias, I hope no man will be able to find in my criticism. I would let baptism and the Bible itself sink, rather than force evidence. Wliat I demand from my antagonist, I will grant him in return. I will not lay down one law for him, and walk by another myself. I will do all in my power to save the IsraeHtish spies ; but if this cannot be done without a falsehood, let them perish. The same uncandid and unreasonable mode of reasoning is again resorted to in the following language. Formerly he had complained that the examples implying immersion, do not respect cases in which one person baj)tized another, but each baptized himself. " Here," he says, " it must be confessed, that in some of the cases, there are dippers as well as dipped." Now, if there is, in any instance, the model he requires, why does he complain, that in some instances it is not to be fomid ? Does he suppose that every instance must contain the full model, or that one instance is not sufficient for the purpose, even were it necessary to produce such a model from heathenism ? If, in one case, he finds a dipper, is it not enough to shoAv that the word may be applied to the ordinance of Christian immersion ? But whether a person dir)s himself, or is dijjped by another, has no more to do Avith the meaning of this word, than the name of the baptized person has. Nor can an example from heathen or Jewish piirification, that would coincide in every particular with the external form of the ordinance, be of more authority as a model, than an example of phmging a pick-pocket in the mire. To speak in the above Avay, then, is totally to misconceive the nature of the evidence on which a just conclusion can be founded. Mr. Ewing complains, that " the other cases also, are not those of voluntary plunging, but of fatal sinking." But is not immersion immersion, whether the immersed person rises or sinks ? We Avant no aid from these examples biit what they can give, Avhat they cannot refuse to give, and what our opponents admit that they give. The examples in which the word applies to sinking, prove that the Avord implies dipping. This is all Ave Avant from them. That the baptized person is not to lie at the bottom, but to rise up out of the Avaters, Ave learn not from the Avord, but from the accounts of the ordinance. We A\dsh no model in 102 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. heathenism, as an authority for the ordinance of baptism. This we have in the Scriptures. We are indebted to the heathen writers only for the meaning of the word. It is altogether astonishing that a man hke Mr. E-wing can indulge in such triiling. If all liis requirements were necessary, no ordinance of Christ could be proved. But happily his requirements are only for his opponents. They do not regulate his own conduct. He relaxes from his rigour, wherever his poiyping scheme comes to the trial. If one instance could be brought, in Avhich this dis- puted word necessarily signifies to pour or sprinkle, though it related to a person sprinlding himself, Avhat Avould he say, should I object that this was no authority for one person to sprinkle another ? Very tme, he would doubtless say, but it proves that the word signifies to sprinkle. I have other ways of learning whether baptism is a sprinkling of one's self, or a sprinkling of one by another. In like manner, the examples of invo- luntary immersion prove to me the meaning of the word. From Christ and his apostles I learn that Christian immersion is neither involuntary nor fatal. It is a grievous thing to be obliged to notice such reasoning. Mr. Emng exclaims, " Is this the pattern of haptizers and baptised T^ No indeed, Mr. E^sdng, this is not the pattern, and I never heard of any who made tliis a model. But these examples are authority to show the meaning of the word. Had IVIr. Earing produced one instance in which the disputed word signifies to sprinkle or p)Our^ and that instance referred to bespattering -with filth, what would he say were we to exclaim, " Is this the pattern of baptism by sprinkhng ?" Would he not pounce upon us with the reply : " This detennines the meaning of the word, which is aU any examples fi'om heathen writers can do. That pure water is to be used in baptism, we learn from the Scriptiu'es." And why does he not use common sense in his objections ? " Shall we illustrate the office of John the Baptist, and of the apostles and evangelists of Christ," says Mr. Emng, " by the Avork of providential destraction, or that of nuu-derers ?" We shall determine the meaning of the Avord by such examples. Nothing more can be done by any examples from antiquity. Nothing more do Ave want. I put it to eveiy candid reader, — I put it to Mr. EAving himself, whether he Avould make such an objection, if the examples were in his favour. Nay, Ave liaA-e the ansAver Adrtually expressed in the authority AA^hich he gives to the example of heathen and JcAvish purifications. While he complains of us for estabhshing the meaning of the word by documents that apply the AA^ord to involuntary and fatal immersion, his mode of reasoning in other places gives an authority to heathen models of piu-ification that they do not possess. " These examples imply," says Mr. EAA-ing, " not a mere dipping and up agai7i, an immersion immediately foUoAA-ed b}" an emersion ; but a con- tinued and peiTuanent immersion, a remaining under water." Noav, is not this mode of reasoning pei-A'erse and imjust ? If some examples are found, in Avhich this Avord is applied to the dipping of things taken immediately up, is not this sufficient to estabhsh the propriet}^ of its application to the ordinance of baptism ? Can it be necessary that all the examples refer to things taken up ? Will Mr. EAving never learn THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 103 that we are seeking, from these examples, not an authoritative model for baptism, but the meaning of a word ? If the disputed word, in some instances, appHes to things taken immediately up, and in others to things never taken up, a true critic, nay, common sense, will learn that the word itself can designate neither taking up nor lyiyig at the bottom. One instance in which the word apphes Avhen the thing is taken up after dipping, is as good as ten thousand. But though some examples of the occun-ence of this word imply a permanent immersion or clestruction, the word baptizo never expresses this. Wliether the thing is taken up, or is allowed to remain, is not expressed by the word, but is imphed by the cii'cumstances. The word, mthout one exception, signifies simply to dip. In the folio-wing extract, the reasoning is more plausible. The author seems to think that it is demonstration. However, when it is dissected, it has no muscles. " Some may think," says Mr. E■v^^[ng, " it was not necessary to use a word directly to express the emersion^ because if immersion really was enjoined, the emersion must be luiderstood to follow of course, from the necessity of the case. This is a perfectly natural thought, but it cannot help the cause of anti-pgedobaptists. According to their views, baptism is a twofold symbol, representing two things of distinct and equal importance. The immersion and the emersion are both of them parts of this symbol; the first representing the death, and the second the resurrection of Christ. Now, if this be the case, the word baptizo is a name for the one half only of their ordinance of baptism. It entirely fails them as to the other half. A word may have various meanings, but it cannot have two of them at the same time. If, there- fore, this word i^ops them down, it certainly cannot give any warrant, or suggest any literal or figiuative meaning, for \hexr p)op)p)ing up again." Now, how can we deHver ourselves out of tliis tremendous gulf ? Nothing can be more easy. Distinguish the things that are different, and place every thing on its proper e-vidence, and all difficiilty vanishes. The Avord baptizo, even applied to baptism, expresses immersion only. Yet I contend, that in baptism there is a two-fold sjnnbol. How is this ? I learn the meaning of tlie word from its use ; and I learn the meaning of the ordinance, not from the Avord, but fi'om the Scriptiue explanation of the import of the ordinance. If there Avas nothing said in Scripture about the import of baptism, I should learn nothing on the subject from the Avord that designates it. I should learn as little of its being a symbol of the death of Christ, as of his resurrection. I learn neither from the Avord; for it is possible that this Avord might liaA^e been used, Avithout teaching anything on the subject. I learn both from the Scrip- ture explanations of Christ's institution. Biit it may be said, if the Avord signifies immersion, it may be a symbol of Christ's burial; liut it is not fitted to be such a syiubol, unless it also signifies to emerge. — Now, as far as depends on what is actually expressed by the Avord, I grant that this is the case. But as in the ordinance of baptism, the emersion is as necessary as the immersion, there is nothing to prevent the institutor to make the emersion sym- bolical as well as the immersion. K the institutor had not made it 104 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. symbolical, if it was not explained as pointing to Christ's resurrection and ours, I would as soon anoint with oil and spittle, as deduce it from the meaning of the word, even though the word had expressed both immersion and emersion. The ordinance is as fit to represent emersion as immersion, though the word baptism expresses the latter only. The symbol consists in the thing, not in the name. There is no necessity that the name should designate every thing contained in the ordinance. But even granting that this is necessary, what would follow ? Not that baptism is not immersion, but that baptism is an emblem of burial only. This would do Mr. Ewing little service. If we can once jpersuade him to have himself popped into the water, it is not hkely that he will be so obstinate as to reject the half of the edification of the ordinance. Mr. Ewing says, " Now if this be the case, the word haptizo is a name for the one half only of their ordinance of baptism." But why should the name of any ordinance designate every thing that the ordinance is explained by the institutor as containing ? This is not necessary ; nor do Scripttire ordinances at all recognise the authority of such a principle. Is it not strange that Mr. Ewing should have forgotten one of the names of the Lord's supper which is hable to the like objection ? It is called the breaking of bread; yet it includes the drinking of wine. Such are the effects of intemperate zeal. It requires, in one instance, what it overlooks in another. Section XIV. — On the Baptism of the Spipjt. — The baptism of the Spirit is a figurative expression, exphcable on the principle of a reference to immersion. This represents the abundance of the gifts and influences of the Spirit of God in the enlightening and sanctification of behevers. That which is immersed in a hquid, is completely subjected to its influence, and imbued with its virtues ; so to be immersed in the Spirit, represents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit, to his influence. The whole man is sanctified. It is objected that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, and therefore, to represent the pouring of the Spirit, baptism must be by pouring. This is the grand resource of our opponents, and is more specious to the illiterate than anything that has been said. A very considerable part of the language of Scripture, in the representation of the gifts of the Spirit, is founded on the figure of pouring ; and readers who have no discrimination, or who are under the influence of bias, at once conclude that this pouring is the baptism of the Spirit. This argu- ment is drawn otit in formidable array by Mr. Ewing ; and is relied on with the utmost confidence by Dr. Wardlaw. But it is nothing but a careless confusion of things entirely distinct, and is founded on an egregiou.s blunder, as the reader wiU perceive from the following observations. First, The word in its literal sense must guide all its figurative appli- cations. The explanation of the figure must conform to the literal meaning, but the literal meaning can never bend to the figurative. The latter, indeed, may assist iis in ascertaining the former ; but when the former is ascertained, the latter must be explained in accordance with it. But the literal meaning of this word is ascertained to be that of immersion, THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 105 by a strength of evidence, and a miiltitude of examples, that cannot be exceeded with respect to any word of the same frequency of occurrence. This is a fixed point ; and in the examination of the reference in the baptism of the Spirit, nothing can be admitted inconsistent with this. The baptism of the Spirit must have a reference to immersion, because baptism is immersion, and in its Hteral sense never signifies anything else. Wlien we come to the examination of this figure, or any other of the same word, we must grotmd on this ascertained fact. As there is not one instance in the literal use of the word, in which it must signify pouring, or anything but dipping, the pretensions of pouring, as the figurative baptism, do not deserve even a hearing. They cannot legiti- mately even go before a jury, because true bills are not found. There is no ground of trial, because there is nothing in the allegations that can at all excite a doubt. Pouring cannot he the figurative baptism, because baptism never literally denotes pourhig. Secondly, This opinion is foiuaded on the egregious and blasphemous error which teaches that God is material, and that there is a Uteral pouring out of his Spirit, which may be represented by the potiring of water. Oui- opponents understand the baptism of the Spirit to be a literal baptism, and the pouring out of the Spirit to be a literal pouring out of Him who is immaterial. But though there is a real communication of the Spirit, there is no real or hteral baptism of the Spirit. Let the reference in the baptism of the Spirit be what it may, it cannot be a literal baptism, because God is not material. We cannot be hterally either dipped into God, or have him poured on us. Pouring, then, in baptism, even if baptism were pouring, could not represent the jjouring of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not literally poured. Baptism, whatever be the mode, cannot represent either the manner of conveying the Spirit, or his operations in the soul. These things cannot be represented by natural things. There is no likeness to the Spirit, nor to the mode of his operations. It is blasphemy to attempt a representation. It would be as easy to make a hkeness of God creating the world, and attempt to represent by a picture the Divine operations in the formation of matter, as to represent by symbols the manner of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and his operations on the soul. If Christians were not infatuated with the desire of estabhshing a favourite system, such gross conceptions of God could not have so long- escaped detection. This error is as dishonourable to God, as that of the Anthropomorphites. It degrades the Godhead, by representing it as a material substance. Wlien the Spirit is said to be poured, it is a figurative expression, to which there is nothing resemblant in the manner of the Divine operations. "Wliat, then, it may be asked, is the resemblance ? Why is the Spirit said to be poured, if the potmng of water does not resemble it ? The foundation of the figure is the very reverse of what is supposed. The Spirit is said to be pioured out, not because there is any actual pouring, which is represented by i^oiiring out water in baptism, but from the resemblance between the effects of the influences of the Spirit and those of ■water. Between the Spirit itself and water there is no resemblance, more than between an eye or a circle and the Divine nature. Nor is 106 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. there any resemblance between the mode of the operations of the Spirit, and that of the influences of water. The Holy Sjjirit is said to be poured^ because his influences or effects are like those of water, and because he is supposed to dwell above. The Holy Spirit is represented as poured out, on the same principle on which God is said to have come down from heaven, or to look down from heaven, or to have hands and arms. It is in accommodation to our ways of thinking and speaking, not as expressive of reality. The Holy Spirit is figured as water, not to repre- sent any Hkeness in him to water, just as God is figured as a man. If the Anthropomorphites blasphemously perverted this language to degrade God, as supposing that it teaches that he has actually the human form, it is no less a blasjjhemous perversion of the language in question, to suppose that it imports a real pouring out of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is said also to be as dew. Does this imply that there is a likeness to the falling of dew and the manner of the communication of the Holy Ghost ? Our Lord represents the Spirit as a well^ the waters of which spring up, John iv. 14. Is there also a likeness in the manner of the communication of the Spirit to water rising up out of the ground, as well as to water poured out from above? The Holy Spirit is also rejiresented as a river whose streams make glad the city of God. Is there also a Hkeness between his operations and the running of water ? In all these figures, the Spirit is represented in accommodation to natural things, and natural things are not accommodated to it. The effects of the one resemble the effects of the other ; hut as to manner, there is no likeness. A particular manner is given to the operations of the Spirit, to suit the manner of the communication of the natural object. Therefore it is that the Spirit has as- cribed to him all the various modes mentioned above. The Spirit, in every figure, takes the manner of the resembling object, but the resembling object never takes the manner of the Spirit, because nothing is knoAvn of his man- ner. Of this there must not be — cannot be any likeness. If the manner of the communication of the Spirit could be represented, one only of these modes must be employed. If his manner is pouring, it cannot be like deio, nor like rain, nor like a river, nor hke a spring-well. But if the Hkeness be merely between the effects of the Spirit and the effects of water, then the Spirit may be represented as deiv, or rain, or a river, or a spring-ivell, just as the water is supposed to be applied. It is absurd to supj)ose an ordinance to be appointed to represent the mode of the Spirit's com- munication; and as it is spoken of under all these modes, each of them might claim an ordinance as AveU as pouring. Baptism might as well represent water 7ising out of the earth, distilling in dew, running in a stream, or falling in rain, as poimng out of a cup). Each of these represents the blessings of the Spirit, by conforming the language about the opera- tions of the Spirit to a particular .state of the Avater; none of them repre- sent the mode of these operations. The Holy Spirit is said to fall ; Avhy, then, should not baptism represent falling ? The Holy Spirit is repre- sented as Avind ; why, then, is there no hloiving in baptism ? The Holy Spirit is represented hj fire; Avhy is there no fire used in this ordinance ? The gift of the Spirit was represented by the breathing of Jesus on the apostles ; why is there no breathing in baptism ? The influences of the THE MODE OF BAPTISM, 107 Spirit are represented by oil; why is not oil used in bajDtism ? Tlie reception of tlie Holy Spirit is represented by drinking luater; why is there no drinking in this ordinance ? In hke manner, curses are represented as poured out by God on his enemies, or put into their hands as a cup to be drunk. Drinking is equally an emblem of blessings and curses, because it is the one or the other according to the qualities of the Liquid. In the judgments of God on the wicked, there is no likeness to the manner of the Divine opera- tions. Why, then, shoiild such a likeness be supposed when pouring respects blessings ? Baptism, then, cannot be either pouring or dipping, for the sake of representing the manner of the couA^eyance of the Holy Spirit; for there is no such hkeness. Pouring of the Spirit is a phrase which is itself a figaire, not a reality to be represented by a figure. Baptism is a figure, not of the mode of any Divine operation, to which there can be no hkeness, but of the burial and resurrection of Christ, which may be represented by natural things, because it respects the objects of sense. In this reference it has a real apphcation, a true like- ness, and the most important use. Of the imtnersion of the Spirit, I will say the same as of the pouring of the Spirit, that it cannot represent the operations of the Spirit, or the mode of his conveyance. Behevers are said to be immersed into the Spirit, not becaiise there is anything hke immersion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit, but from the resemblance between an object immersed in a iluid, and the sancti- fication of all the members of the body, and faculties of the soid. The common way in which the powing of the Spirit has been explained, is inconsistent both with sound taste and with sound theology. It mistakes the nature of figurative language, and converts the Godhead into matter. But though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figru-ative bajjtism, to which there cannot be a likeness in literal baptism; yet as resj^ects tlie transaction on the day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. The disciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts; lint they were literally covered Avith the appearance of Avind and fire. The place Avhere they met Avas filled Avith the sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues as of fire sat over them. They Avere then completely covered by the emblems of the Spirit. Noav, though there Avas no dipping of them, yet as they were completely siu'rounded by the Avind and fire, by the catachrestic mode of speech Avhich I before explained, they are said to be immersed. This is a process exemplified Avith respect to innumerable Avords, and the principle is quite obvious, as weU as of daily application. The shepherd, Avhen his sheep are covered Avith snoAv in a glen, says that they arc buried in the snoAv. When a house faUs upon the inhabitants, Ave say that they are buried in its rmns. A general Avill threaten to bury the inhabitants in the ruins of their city. The AA'ord bury Avith us, strictly conveys the notion of chggiug into the earth, as Avell as of coA'-ering over the dead. Yet here it is extended to a case in Avhich the former does not take place. Biuial usually is performed by both opci'ations, but here the thing is performed by one; and therefore tlie Avoi'd tliat desig- nates both, is elegantly assigned to that Avhich serves the pm'pose of 108 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. both. Just so with respect to being covered with a fluid. Immersion denotes that the thing immersed is put into the immersing substance ; yet when the same effect is produced without the manner of the operation, the usual name of the operation is catachrestically given to the result. Virgil's expression, "Pocrda sunt fontes liquidi," Georg. iii. p. 529, is an exact parallel. " The hquid fountains are their cups," &c. Now, foun- tains are not cups, more than the thing referred to is immersion, yet they are called cups, because in the instance referred to they serve the pur- pose of cups. This poet suppHes innumerable examples of the operation of the principle here illustrated. Let it not be supposed that the principle which I have now illustrated is at aU akin to that unfounded fancy of Mr. E"\ving, with respect to the supposed exaggerated meaning of haptizo. Mr. Ewing in this gives two meanings to a word, at variance with each other, and while he calls it figiirative, he makes it Uteral ; and agreeably to his doctrine, it must, in the hyperbolical meaning, hold directly, and immediately, and independ- ently, of the primary meaning. The principle which I have explained is not of this paradoxical kind. I give but the one meaning to the word ; and, even when there is no literal immersion, I maintain that the word never drops its characteristic meaning. Indeed, the beauty of the figure is that the word suggests its own peculiar meaning, even when it does not literally apply. It professedly calls a thing by a name, which hte- rally does not in all respects belong to it, to gratify the imagination. Why does Virgil call foimtains by the name of cups ? Not because they were reaUy cups, or because cup signifies fountain literally, but because the human mind by its constitution is delighted in certain circumstances by viewing a thing as being what it is not, but which in some respects it resembles. The process for which I contend, I can vindicate by the soundest philosophy, — I can trace to its origin in the human mind, — ^I can illustrate by parallels without number. Mr. Ewing has not attempted to illustrate his figure, nor is it in his power to show, its foundation in the human mind, or to sanction it by corresponding examples. Mr. Booth, with a truly critical judgment and correct taste, illustrates this mode of speech by alluding to the electrical bath, " so called," says the writer whom he quotes, " because it surrounds the patient with an atmosphere of electrical fluid, in which he is plunged^ Here the writer to whom he refers, scruples not to say that the patient is plunged into the fluid which is brought around him. Indeed, the very term electrical bath is an exemplification of the operation of the same principle. Bath properly refers to a vessel of water in which persons are bathed : but by a catachresis, this term is given to a vessel fiUed with a fluid, which fluid is not for the purpose of bathing. Thirdly, There is another grand fallacy in this argument. It con- founds things that are different. Water is poured out into a vessel in order to have things put into it. But the pouring oxit of the water, and the application of the water so poured out, are different things. Water is poured into a bath in order to immerse the feet or the body, but the immersion is not the pouring. Now, our opponents confound these two THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 109 things. Because the Spirit is said to be poured oiit in order to the baptism of the Spirit, they groiindlessly conchide that the jjouring is the baptism. A foreigner might as well contend that, Avhen it is said in the English language, " Water was poured into a bath, and they immersed themselves," it is impHed that pouring and immersing are the same thing. " Then taking the resplendent vase Allotted always to that use, she first Infused cold water largely, then the warm. She, then, approaching, ministered the bath To her own king." — Cowper, Odys. xix. The ptouring out of the Spirit is as different a figure fii'om the hap)tism of the Spirit, as the infusion of the water into the bath is different from the application of the water to the object in the bath. Now, let us apply these observations to Mr. Emng's reasoning. Dis- section is not a j^leasant work, either to the operator or the spectators; but it is impossible to make an anatomist without it. General observa- tions must be applied to the subject in detail, that all may thoroughly understand their application, and perceive their justness. It is tedious, but the business cannot be effectually done without the knife. Speaking of water, air, and fire, Mr. Ewing says, " which are all considered in Scripture as elements of baptism." Air and fire were elements of the baptism that took place on the day of Pentecost, but they are not elements in the standing ordinance of Christ. In the bap- tism of the day of Pentecost there was no water at all. They who were baptized on that day in Avind and fire, had been baptized before. This was not the ordinance of Christian baptism, nor an ordinance at all. Christ himself was the administrator, and it is called baptism only in an allusive sense. If it was baptism as an ordinance, it woidd prove, that after the baptism of water, there ought to be another baptism into Avind and fire. " And in this connexion," continues Mr. E^ving, "these elements are uniformly represented as p)oured, inspired, and made to fall from above,''' Very true, but is this pouring, inspiring, falling from above, called bap- tism ? Never — never. Mr. EAving asserts, that these emblems of the Avork of the Spirit are an allusion to the creation of man. But hoAv does he find the fire in that work ? Why, was there not " the fire of life'^'''' But the fire of life is no element. This is only a figiuative exjjression. It is mere fanaticism to take siich mystei'ies out of the Scriptures. Is it not strange that Mr. EAving will allow himself to indulge so A\dld a fancy in deriAdng emblematical instruction from his OAvn creations, and that he so obstinately refuses to take that edification from the import of baptism, Avhich is obviously contamed in the apostolical explanations of the ordinance ? He says that baptism " consists in a representation of all the elements employed in our first creation." I have remarked that there Avas no fire employed in our first creation ; and Christian baptism has no representa- tion either of fire or air. Nor has the Avater of baptism any allusion to the water that moistened the clay in the creation of man. These 110 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. mysteries are akin to those that the Romish church so piously finds in the oil and spittle used in baptism. He says that the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire " was given to all the disciples." Then the promise has not been fulfilled. Wind and fire are not used in the baptism of all disciples. This baptism Avas pecidiar to the day of Pentecost. This promise can- not be supposed as hterally applying to all disciples. He says, " it belongs to them, both as it regards gracious influence, and as it regards miraculous inspiration." But the baptism of the day of Pentecost coidd not respect the spiritual birth, else there would be two baptisms repre- senting the same thing. The persons baptized on the day of Pentecost were previously baptized into water as being born again. It cordd not respect their progressive sanctification, else it might be repeated as often as the Lord's supper, and every disciple would equally need the wind and fire literally. Nor have all disciples the promise of miraculous gifts. Miraculous inspiration he understands as applying to all beUevers only in the sense of their being " built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets ; that is, their faith is fomided on the authority and energy of that Spirit by which the apostles and prophets were inspired." What an abuse of words is this ! A man is miracidously inspired, because he beUeves the doctrine of an inspired person ! ! ! Mr. Ewing derives another argument for pouring, from the expression, " horn from ahove,^'' John iii. But from above, merely designates that God is the author of this birth, without respect to any emblem appointed to represent it, though baptism is, in ver. 5, referred to as its emblem. Born from above, is perfectly synonymoiis with born of God. As little can be built on the emblem, John xx. 22. The breathing on the disciples was not a baptism, nor is it called a baptism. Mr. Ewing says, that "the mode of the baptism. Acts i. 5, is explained ver. 8." But ver. 8 says nothing of the mode of that baptism: " But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.'''' The coming is not the baptism. The influence of the Spirit when come, not the coming of the Spirit, is the baptism. The author observes, mth respect to Acts ii. 2, "that 'the sound' of the Avind was heard descending from heaven, and filling the house." Yes — ^but the descending is not the baptism. The wind descended to fill the house, that when the house was filled Avith the Avind, the disciples might be baptized in it. Their baptism consisted in being totally surrounded with the Avind, not in the manner in which the wind came. The water must be brought from the river or fountain, to fill the vessel for immersion. Does this say that the conveyance of the water is baptism ? Mr. EAving says, that " distributed flames of fire appeared like tongues, and sat cloivn upon every one of them." Though this transla- tion is warranted by the learned Bishop Pearce, it is by no means justi- fiable. The common version is perfectly exact. It is not fire cloven, or distributed into tongues, biTt cloven tongues. There were not only many tongues, to denote many languages ; but the tongues were cloven, to denote that the same individual coidd speak different languages. The THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Ill fire sat down upon each of them. The haptism did not consist, as Mr. E\ving supposes, in the sitting doivn, or the mode of the coming of the flamej but in their being under it. They were siu-rounded by the wind, and covered by the fire above. They Avere therefore bui'ied in wind and fire. It is quite obvious, indeed, that even the mode in which the house is said to have been filled with the wind on the day of Pentecost, is no more pouring than it is dijjping. The Avind is not said to be poured into the house, but to come mshing with a mighty noise ; or the somid that filled the house, was like the soiuid of a rushing mighty wind. If literal baptism has any allusion to this, the mode ought to be that of a rushing wind. If the manner of the coming of the emblem is the haptism, then baptism is neither pouring nor immersion, but rushing. But even if the Pentecost baptism were, for argument sake, allowed to be pouring, this would not relieve Mr. EAving. The whole house was filled with the sound of the wind — the emblem of the Spirit. This Avas not popping a little water with the hand on the turned up face. Wlien Mr. Ewing pours Avater on the baptized person, till the latter is covered completely Avith it, he Avill give as much trouble as if he Avere to immerse at once. In Avhatever Avay the water in baptism is to be applied, this passage teaches us that the baptized person must be totally covered. Speaking of our Lord's baptism, Mr. Ewing asserts, " the meaning of the ordinance, and the very mode of its administration, confirmed the truth that the Holy Spirit Avas about to be given." But hoAV did the meaning and mode of Christ's baptism confirm this truth ? Does not this take for granted that Mr. Ewing's meaning of the mode and import of this ordinance is just ? If the very thing in debate is granted to Mr. Ewing, no doubt he Avill prove it. He refers to John vii. 39, and Acts xix. 2, 3. But neither of these passages asserts what he teaches. He speaks also of the influences of the Holy Spirit, "visibly descending from on high, and abiding upon him.'''' The influence of the Holy Spirit did not visibly descend. It Avas the emblem of the Spiiit that descended visibly. The appearance of a dove descended visibly and abode upon him. But Avas this Christ's baptism ? The baptism Avas OA'-er before the emblem descended. Besides, the descending of the Spirit could not be the baptism of the Spirit. Jesus is not here said to be baptized Avitli the Spirit. This baptism was Hteral baptism. This extraordinary communication might indeed have been called a baptism, just as in the case of the disciples, but it is not so called here; and if it Avere so called, it would not be the descent of the Spirit, that is the baptism, but the communication of it after its descent. If the baptism consisted in the descent, the baptism was over Avhen the dove reached Jesus. Is it possible that there is any one Avho has so little of the powers of discrimi- nation, as not to be able to distinguish between bringing Avater ft-om a fountain, and the iise of that AA'ater when it is brought — betAveen pouring water into a bath, and bathing in the bath ? Yet CA'^ery one who concludes fi'om the pouring of the Spirit, that baptism must be pouring, either Avants this discrimination, or is unwilling to use it. 112 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Another passage alleged by Mr. Ewing on this subject, is Psal. xlv. 2, " Grace is poured into thy hps," &c. What has this to do wth bap- tism ? The Spirit, indeed, is here said to be poured, but did any man ever deny this ? But let it never be forgotten, that such language does not imjDly the blasphemous notion, that there is any hteral pouring in the giving of the Spirit, or that an ordinance is appointed to represent this pouring. It is quite useless, then, to refer to each of the passages which Mr. Ewing alleges to prove a descent. The descent is not the bap- tism, and cannot represent any real movement in the Spirit. The same answer will serve for all. But Mr. Ewing says, that " John supposed Jesus to receive the symbol of the Holy Spirit's descent, and presently he was seen, by miracle, to receive the reahty." And is it possible that Mr. Emng can say, that Avhat was seen after the baptism of Christ was the reahty ! ! ! The appearance of a dove seen to light on the head of Christ, the reality of the communication of the Spirit ! ! ! Surely, surely, the dove itself was but the emblem, not the reahty represented by an emblem of baptism. But was the dove j^oured out of heaven ? Is not the Spirit said to descend from heaven, in conformity to the dove, the emblem ? TJiis shoios that the descent of the Spirit is spoken of in language always suited to the emblem under which he is represented. When water is the emblem, his descent is spoken of as pouring, or as falhng hke dew, &c. When the dove is the emblem, the descent is spoken of, not as pouring, but as the descent of a bird. Such varied language is suited to the various emblems, and not to any reahty in the manner of the commtmication of the Spirit. Let any Christian attend to this observation, and he wll be ashamed of the childish, or rather heathenish explanation of this langaiage, that imphes that the Godhead is matter. Pouring is most frequently used for the sending of the gifts of the Spirit; but I have shown that the same thing is spoken of mth reference to a fountain springing up, — a running stream, — ^the rain that is said to fall, — or the dew that distils. And here the same thing is exhibited as the descent of a bird, in conformity to the dove, which is the emblem employed. Let us hear no more, then, of baptism as pouring, in order to represent the pouring of the Spirit. We may as well make baptism a flying, to represent the descent of the dove; or a blowing and a blazing, to represent the wind and fire on the day of Pentecost ; or a stream, to represent the river that supplies the city of God ; or a jet, to represent the springing of a fountain ; or a distillation, to represent the gentle falhng of the dew ; or a shoiver-bath, to represent the faUing of the rain. Biit if we are so obstinate as to resist the passages which Mr. Ewing has alleged above, the most incredulous will doubtless surrender to the "view expressly given (Acts ii. 16 — 21, 33, 38, 39,) of baptism with water, in consequence of the performance of the promise of baptism with the Spirit." " I wiU pour out of my Spirit," &c. " He hath poured out this, which ye now see and hear." " For as yet he was fallen iqoon none of them." " The Holy Ghost fell upon them aU." The reply I have given will equally apply to this. The pouring is not the baptism, though the Spiiit was poured otit, that they might THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 113 be baptised in it. The descent and the jyouring are over, before the baptism takes place. But it may be alleged, Is it not said (Acts xi. 15, 16, 17,) that the Spirit's falling on them brought to remembrance the promise of the baptism of the Spirit ? Does not this import that the baptism of the Spirit is the same thing with the falling of the Spirit ? — ^It imphes, indeed, that the baptism of the Spirit fulfilled the promise ; but it does not imply that the baptism was the falling. The falling preceded the baptism. Rain falls to moisten the earth. The moistening of the earth is not the falling of the rain ; the falling is a pre- vious process. Suppose that in a drought, a man skilled in the signs of the weather, should foretel that on to-morroiu the earth will be moistened with water, shoidd we not consider the prophecy fulfilled when we saw rain falhng ? Yet falling is not expressed by the word moistening. Just so with the pouring and the baptism of the Spirit. Let my oppo- nents bring to the subject a small portion of discrimination, and they will instantly discern that the falling of the Spirit on the disciples, fulfilled the promise of the baptism of the Spirit, though falling and baptism are two very different things. Is not falling itself different from pouring ? They are modes as different as j^oiiring and dipping. But every thing ■\viU serve Mr. Ewing that pops down. Yet strange, though he argues with equal confidence from every mode of descent^ he comes at last to the confident conclusion, that no mode of descent mil answer, but that of pouring. Though falling and flying will serve him in opposing im- mersion, yet he unceremoniously dismisses them all, when throiTgh their means he has gained the victory. Even decent and innocent sprinkling, that has held joint and unquestioned possession with its sister pour for so long a period, he turns out of doors with every mark of indignity. But with respect to the falling of the Spirit on the disciples in the house of Cornelius, how did Peter and the rest perceive the descent ? Was there anything visible ? No ; they knew that the Holy Spirit fell on them, because they saw the effect of his influences. Acts x. 46. The influences, then, of the Spirit, and not the falling, were the baptism of the Spirit. Mr. Ewing concludes with all the confidence of demonstration : " Is it credible," says he, " that a word which signifies the motion of body upon body, in any direction, should, when applied to represent both the figure and the reality of a descent from above, be meant to be under- stood of motion in an opposite DmECTiON?" &c. Stop a little, Mr. Ewing. You have said that the disputed word signifies the motion of body upon body, but you have not proved this. Nor is this word employed to represent the descent from above in any instance which you have brought forward. Wliy does Mr. Ewing substitute the word baptize here for the Avord descend"? In his premises, the words are pour, descend, fall, &c. ; in his conclusion, they become baptize. This is a trick in sleight of hand which we will not admit. It is utterly unlawful to reason from words that denote descent, and then di-aw the conclusion from baptizo. So far from its being fact that baptizo, in the passages referred to, is applied to represent both the figure and the reality of a descent, the words that are applied for this purpose do not represent the baptism, biit a process 114 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. previous to the baptism. Whether the water, or the wind, or the fire, descends from above, or ascends from below, is nothing to the baptism. The baptism is the same, in whatever manner the baptizing substance is conveyed to the place of baptizing. The authority of Milton is utterly valueless on this subject. I notice it merely to show the boldness and the rashness of Mr. Ewing's criticism. " Because Milton speaks of baptism as dispensed in a river," says Mr. Ewing, " it has been supposed that he favoured the mode of immersion ; but I am inchned to think this is a mistake. He says, indeed, of our Saviour's commission to his disciples, " 'To them shall leave in charge To teach all nations what of him they learned, And his salvation ; them who shall believe Baptizing in the profluent stream, the sign Of vrashing them from guilt of sin to life Pure ; and in mind prepared, if so befall, For death, like that which the Redeemer died.' " Well, reader, what do you think of this ? What was Milton's view of the mode of baptism ? If our Saviour commanded them to baptize disciples in the profluent stream, must not baptism be immersion ? What hardihood must that man possess, who -will dare to criticise in this manner ! But, says Mr. Ewing, "According to this account, baptism is the sign of, not immersing, but washing in a river." What egregious trifling ! Baptism is not the sign of immersing ! That is, immersing is not the sign of immersing. Very true ; for how could a thing be the sign of itself? Well, of what is baptism a sign, according to Milton ? — Of washing in a river ! So then Milton makes baptism a sign of washing in a river ! Then the sign and the thing signified are the same. Wash- ing in a river is the sign of washing in a river! Alas, poor Milton ! here thou hast a fool's cap. Illustrious bard ! perhaps thou wast a heretic, but certainly thou wast not a fool. Immersion in a river, thou hast said, is the sign of washing from guilt. O that thou hadst kno-nm the reahty as well as thou didst know the figure ! Hadst thou known the Saviour as well as thou hast known the mode of this his ordinance, thou wouldst have been great indeed. Speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, Milton indeed iises the phrase " on all baptized." But this may be accounted for by his using the word baptize as it is generally used in Enghsh. Using the word in its most common acceptation, I would not scruple to say, baptised with the Spirit, when there was no need for accuracy of distinction. Milton, also, from not closely considering the phraseology, might fall into the vulgar error, that the baptism of the Spirit was pouring, because the Spirit is said to be poured out, though water baptism Avas by immersion. This way of explaining the apparent inconsistency, I believe, is not uncom- mon. I hope I have made it unnecessary to have recourse to this resoiu"ce. Mr. Ewing quotes a passage from which it has been concluded that Milton Avas opposed to infant baptism, but from which Mr. Ewing him- self concludes that the poet was a friend both to poimng and the baptism THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 115 of infants. I need not quote the whole passage ; the marrow of it is found in the expression, " When ye had laid the purifying element upon his forehead." Now, both this and the whole passage may agree with either of the opinions, and consequently can neither prove nor refute either. Mr. Ewing is well founded in sujoposing that the disparagement may not respect the sprinkling; but he has no authority to conclude that Milton approved either of sprinkHng as the mode, or of infants as the subjects of baptism, because he calls the water laid on the foreheads of infants, a jyiirifying element. Water is a, 2:>u)'ifymg element, even Avhen appUed in the holy water of the Chui'ch of Rome. The natru'e of the water is the same, whether it is used superstitiously, or according to the appointment of God. Bu.t Milton might have gone much farther, -with- out giving ground for Mi-. Ewing' s inference. Many protestants would speak of the baptism of the Church of Rome, with all its trumpery, as true baptism. I am not sure that Mr. Ewing himself would re-baptize a convert from popery. I refer to this note mth respect to Milton, — not from any desire to have him on my side, but to manifest the utter unreasonableness of Mr. Ewing's criticism. No evidence could withstand the torture of such an inquisitor. I doubt not but Mr. E"\ving could make Milton as orthodox on the subject of the Trinity as on baptism, if he would as zealously set about the work. We have a dehcious morsel of criticisan in Mr. Ewing's explanation of the figurative baptism that was fulfilled in the sufferings of Christ. Mr. Ewing is at no loss to find edification in his mode of tliis ordinance. lie does not need the apostles as commissaries to find provision for the house of God. He gives us much edification in his explanation of this ordinance, not to be found in the-Scriptures. " We are led to conceive of baptism," says Mr. Ewing, " as the pouring out of water from a cup on the turned up face of the baptized ; and -whether he be adult or in infancy, it may thus not only wet the siu'face as a figure of washing, but be di'unk into the mouth, as the emblem of a princijole of new life, and of continual support and refreshment, — of a soiuce of spiritual and hea- venly consolation, and of a wilhngness given, or to be given, to the baptized, to receive whatever may be assigned them as their j)ortion." Here surely is a discovery. Here is edification unknown to all former ages. Had the ancients perceived this in the import of sprinkling or pouring, there woidd have been no need of the honey and milk at baptism. Mr. Ewing can obtain the same thing fi-om the manner of putting the water on the face. Mr. Ewing considers the drinking of part of the water poured on the turned up face, as an emblem. If so, then this drinking is essential to true baptism ; and if any baptized person happen not to receive a part of the water into the mouth, he is not j^roperly baptized. He wants something that belongs to the ordinance. If this is the case, a very great number are not truly baptized. Nay, it is not only essential to receive some of the baptismal water into the mouth, but it is necessary to drink it. If the child by suffocation makes an invokmtary effort to throw out the water, it is unbaptized. I think the j^robability is, that not one of a thousand actually drink any part of the water. 1 am con- vinced also, that very many who baptize by poiuing water on the face, 116 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. SO far from being aware of the virtue of drinking a part of the element, endeavour to avoid giving pain to the child by pouring the water into the mouth. If this is a part of the emblem of baptism, the nature of the ordinance is yet unknoT^m to the great body of those who practise infant baptism, and the bulk of those called Christians are imbaptized. But this drinking is not only an emblem, it is an emblem pregnant with mysteries. An emblem of a principle of new life — of continual support and refreshment — of a source of spiritual and heavenly consola- tion— of a willingness given — ay, and of a AviUingness to be given, &c. What a striking emblem of this willingness, is a child screaming and coughing to eject the water that falls into its mouth ! With what a keen appetite does its thirsty soul drink doAvn this agreeable beverage ! What pity that the apostles were ignorant of all these mysteries in baptism ! What pity that Mr. Ewing's book was not -written till the nineteenth century ! — Ah, shame ! Can it be possible that the minister of an Independent church, should indulge his fancy in finding mysteries in an ordinance of Christ, which are nowhere explained by the apostles as included in it ? Where is the passage of Scripture that explains baptism as containing these mysteries? Where is this drinking found ? The very fovmdation of these mysteries is not once mentioned in the word of God. Where is the turned up face? For anything that the Scriptures contaui on the subject, it might as well be the turned up foot. Another mighb find mysteries in the foot, as weU as Mr. Ewing has found them in the face. Mr. Ewing, however, says, " We are led to this conception of baptism, by various passages of Scripture which it will be foimd to explain." But to justify such an explanation, it is not enough that it will illustrate various passages of Scripture. Some passage of Scripture must explain the ordinance in this sense. There is no rite of superstition that might not, by a wild imagination, be alleged to illustrate some passage of Scripture, We are not yet at the end of the mysteries in the mode of baptism. '' The cup," says Mr. Ewing, " which I refer to, is the cup of nattu-e, that is, the hollow of the hiiman hand." Though the word of God says nothing at all about the hand in the administration of this ordinance, Mr, E^ving finds it under the designation of a cup. He gives us the ftdl process in the following words : " From this cup, the baptizer so pours it out on the baptized, that it shall run down his face, as the ointment did from the head of Aaron, and even to the skirts, rather to the upper border or collar of his garment. Psa. cxxxiii. 2." Not only, then, must some of the water be received into the mouth, some of it must also run doAvn on the garments. What nice adjustment is necessary in the position of the person to be baptized, that all these mysteries may be accomphshed! Would it not be an improvement if a httle oil was fldded to the ceremony ? Mr. Ewing next proceeds to caution against taking offence at the gimphcity of oriental manners, and to justify, by examples, this drinkmg out of the cup of natiu-e. But aU this is unnecessary. Coidd Mr. E-\\ang show from Scriptui'e that Ave are to drink water out of the hollow of the baptizer's hand, we would submit without a miu-mur. He himself THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 117 might have a lesson from his own achnonition. It is very applicable to his objections to immersion. But because it was customary to drink out of the hoUow of the hand, does it follow that baptism must be such a drinking ? There is no connexion between the premises and the conclusion. Let us not, however, be too rash in asserting that Mr. E-\ving has no Scriptui-e for his mysteries. He alleges several passages. Was ever the Church of Eome at a loss for Scriptui-e allusions to countenance its rites and mysteries ? In no instance is it less successful than IVIr. E-\ving. He alleges, 1 Cor. xii. 13, "baptized into one body;" and " made to drink into one Spirit." But does this imply that baptizing and drinking are the same emblem ? Does it imply that these two figures are taken from a process in baptism ? What reason is there to suppose that the last respects that ordinance ? The two figures are totally miconnected, — as unconnected as any two figures that in conjimction are apphed to the same object. That the last has a reference to drinking in baptism, is as arbitrary a conceit as anything in the mysteries of popery. Mr. Ewing adds, " There is perhaps a more ultimate connexion between a ' cup ' and a ' baptism,' as belonging to one allusion, than some readers of Scriptiu-e have as yet remarked. Matt. xx. 22," &c. These figures both respect one object, but they have not, as Mr. Ewing asserts, one allusion. They are figures as independent and as distinct, as if one of them Avas found in Genesis, and the other in Revelation. One of them represents the sufferings of Clirist as a cup of bitterness or poison, which he must drink; the other represents the same sufferings as an immersion in water. When the Psalmist says, "the Lord God is a sun and shield,''^ is there one allusion in the two figures ? Both the figures represent the same object, but they have a separate and altogether independent allusion. The sun is one emblem, a shield is another. In like manner, when the Psalmist says, " we went through ^^/'e and through water" have the fire and the water one allusion ? This criticism is foimded on a total misconception of the natui-e of figurative language. Again, if the drinking of the cup and the baptism have one alhision, that is, if they both aUude to the ordinance of baptism, why are both expres- sions used ? Is not this the same as to say, Are you able to suffer as I suffer, and to be baptized with my baptism ? It gives not two illustrations of the same thing, but merely two names. If di'inldng the cup is baptism, then there are not two figui'es. We might as well say, the son of Philip king of Macedon, and A lexander the Great. But if the drinking of the Clip and the baj^tism, conjointly, represent the same object, each exhibiting a part, then it follows that the hapitism is not bap>tism, but is part of baptisin, which is completed by the di'inking. Besides, this view places the last part of the figure first ; the drinking is before the poining Old of the cup. It may be remarked, also, that if sufferings are represented as the drinking of a cup, in allusion to the cup of natiu'e in baptism, then the ordinance of baptism represents sufferings as well as blessings. The di'inking in baptism represents not only the reception of the Spiiit, but the suffering of afflictions. The figm-e of drinking a cup, is equally 118 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. calculated to repi'esent either. But botli cannot be contained in tlie same cup. Afilictions might be represented by the diinking of a cup, but not by the cup of Christian baptism, which represents the blessings of the Gospel. The expression, " I have a baptism to be haptized wdth; and how am I straitened till it be finished," Luke xii. 50, Mr. Ewing explains thus : " I have a cup to drink of, and how am I straitened until it be finished." But it is utterly without authority to say, that baptism is a cup. This is a new meaning given to the word, with as httle foundation as to say that baptism is a sioord. Mr. Ewing refers to Matt. xxvi. 39, for support to this explanation. But this gives him not a shadow of countenance. The cup there spoken of, refers indeed to the sufferings of Christ, but the cup is not called a baptism. These figui'es respect the same thing, but they do not respect the same hkeness. What a mid idea, to suppose that tAvo independent metaphors cannot in conj miction illustrate the same object ! A hero is a lion^ is a tower ^ is a rock^ is a thousand tilings; -without supposing any identity or relation between the Hon, and the tower, and the rock, and the thousand things that represent him. It is really sickening to dissect such criti- cism. Proofs and illustrations are brought forward and exhibited Avith an importance that intimates them quite decisive, which have not the most distant bearing on the point in hand. The passages in which the sufferings of Christ are spoken of, under the figure of drinking a cup, are all mustered and paraded, as if the fact that this phrase refers to the same tiling Avith the figurative baptism of Christ, is proof that they are the same figure, or must both refer to baptism. What should Ave think of the critic who should argue that the phrase sun and shield, in the eighty-foui'th Psalm, is one allusion, because they both refer to God ? This is the A-ery criticism of Mr. EAving. Mr. EAving very justly observes, that in the Old Testament, the pimishment of the Avicked by God is represented by their being com- pelled to drink a cup. But, stu'ely, there can be nothing corresponding to this in baptism. We are not compelled to drink a cup of poison, Avhen we drink of the influences of the Holy Spirit. " This simphcity, and this httleness of the sign," says Mr. EAving, " mark its resemblance to all the other symbohcal ordinances of God, and distinguish it from those chunsy and unseemly additions, which a superstitious dependence on means, or rather on the shoAV of AA^sdom in AviU-AYorship, has rendered men so prone to adopt." If any man adopts immersion from a dependence on means, or as an invention of Avill- Avorship, I Avill give him up to Mr. EAAong's most indignant reprobation. It is the commandment of God I am searching after ; and if I find this, I Avill never use any reasoning to make the sign either less or greater than it is. " I have as httle faith," continues ]\Ir. EAving, " in the com- promise of copious poiu'ing, as in the enormity of immersion baptism." But according to some of the precedents alleged by the author himself, he is not at hberty to have little faith in copious pouring. Even granting that the Pentecost baptism was poiuing, it AA^as an immensely, it Avas an enormously copious pouring. It AA-as a pomdng that filled the THE MODE OF BxVPTISxAl. 119 whole house. It is Mr. Ewdng's business to reconcile this precedent witli his popping. But Mr. Ewing gives us reasons — Scripture reasons, for his having Httle faith in copious pouiing. " A smaU quantity of blood sprinkled once a year," says he, " by the high priest, with one of his fingers, on a Httle gold-plated seat, was, for ages, the sign to Israel, of the acceptance in heaven of the sacrifice of Christ for the whole church." Very true, because a small quantity was sufficient to perfect the figure. A small quantity of water cannot suffice for the exhibition of the hkeness of a burial and resurrection, which are declared by God to be the import of baptism. Had God commanded to sprinkle with a few drops of water, or to poui* a little water on the tiu-ned up face, for a purpose that ST;ich an emblem is calcidated to serve, it would have been impious to change this into another ordinance to represent a btu-ial and resurrection. A little blood sei'ved the piiest for sprinkling; but a little water did not serve him for his bathing. A " little gold-plated seat" served to receive the sprinkHng of the blood; but a httle water did not serve to fill the brazen sea. " A small morsel of bread, and a sip of wine," &c. No doubt of it ; but this small qiiantity is as fit to represent the thing figui'ed, as a baker's shop and a wine cellar would be. " The handfid of water," says Mr. Ewing, " on the face of the polluted sinner, confirms the good neAvs of the washing of regeneration," &c. If washing onhj were intended to be represented, this might be true : but the Spirit of inspiration has declared, that this ordinance represents the burial and resurrection of Christ, and oui- fellowship with him in these, by faith in which we are washed. Had not God instituted immersion, and explained its meaning, man could not do either. I disclaim aU ordinances of will-worship, and all human explanations of Scriptiu'e ordinances. God only can institute. God only can interpret. If Mr. EAving claims the right of inventing mysteries in the signification of baptism, I believe he will not find a fellow among those on the other side of the question. The passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea is figui'a- tively called a baptism, from its external resemblance to that ordinance, and from being appointed to serve a Hke piu'pose, as well as to figure the same thing. " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that aU our fathers were tmder the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were aU baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," 1 Cor. x. 1. Here they are said to have been baptized. There can be no doubt, therefore, that there is in their passage through the sea, something that resembles both the external form, and the piu'pose of Christian baptism. It was a real immersion — the sea stood on each side, and the cloud covered them. But it was not a Hteral immersion in water, in the same way as Christian baptism. It is, therefore, figui'atively called by the name of the Christian ordinance, because of external similarity, and because of serving the like purpose, as well ns figuring the same event. The going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being covered by the cloud, and tlieir issuing oiit on the other side, resembled the baptism of believers, sei-ved a Hke purpose as attesting their faith in Moses as a temporal saviour, and figiued the bmial and 120 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. resurrection of Christ and Christians, as well as Christian baptism. If Christian baptism is a representation of burial and resurrection, — and if the passage of the Israelites is called a baptism, we are warranted in supposing that both have the same figiu-ative meaning. It has been argued by some, that the Israelites were baptized by the rain from the cloud, and the spray from the sea. But this is quite arbitrary; for there is nothing said about rain from the cloud, or spray from the sea. It is not in evidence that any such tilings existed. On the contrary, as they would have been an annoyance, there is reason to beheve that they did not exist. The baptism of the Israehtes in ver. 2, is evidently referred to their having been under the cloud, and having passed through the sea, as stated in the first verse. Dr. Wardlaw asks in astonishment, " Ai-e our bretliren not sensible of the straining that is necessary to make out immersion baptism here ?" Not in the least sensible of any straining, I can assure Dr. Wardlaw. But we do not strain to make out a Uteral baptism, as respects an ordi- nance to be performed as an appointment of God. Surely there is no straining, to see in this fact something that may darkly shadoAV a burial. There is no strainmg to find in it something corresponding to Christian baptism, though in aU things it does not identify with it. However ridiculous this conceit may appear to Dr. Wardlaw, it is the very thing asserted by the Holy Ghost. The Israelites, by being under the cloud, and passing through the sea, were baptized into Moses. By venturing to enter into the sea, they professed and exliibited frdl confidence in Moses as sent of God to lead them out of Egypt to Canaan. " A diy baptism !" exclaims Dr. Wardlaw. Be patient, Dr. Wardlaw: was not the Pentecost baptism a dry baptism ? Christian baptism is not a dry baptism ; but the baptism of Pentecost, and of the Israelites in the Eed Sea, were dry baptisms. Immersion does not necessarily imply wetting : immersion in water imphes this. " Would our brethren," says Dr. Wardlaw, " consider a man duly baptized by his being placed between two cisterns of water, with a third over his head ?" Certairdy not. Nothing is Christian baptism, but the immersion of a behever in water, in obedience to the command of Jesus. Every thing that can be called immersion is not bajHism as an ordinance of Christ. Strange, indeed, that Dr. Wardlaw should suppose that every thing is Christian baptism, which can be denominated an immersion. To be spotted with hlood is a, sp7Hnkling : would Dr. Wardlaw consider this true Christian baptism ? In an ordinance of Christ there is something more than mode. Would Dr. Wardlaw consider a man duly baptized, when he is sprinkled with raija, or wet Avith dew ? The Spirit of God calls the passage through the Eed Sea a baptism ; a hkeness then it must have to the Christian ordinance of baptism, to which there is an undoubted reference. Surely it requires less straining to find this hke- ness from the facts stated, than from fancies supposed. The passage through the sea as much resembles baptism, as the manna does the bread in the Lord's supper. They are figures of the same thing, and therefore, though different, are similar. THE MODE 01' BAPTISM. , 121 Section XV. — Having examined the testimony of the figurative appli- cations of the word haptizo, I shall now try what hght can be obtained from its syntax, and the circumstances in which it is foimd. Matt. iii. 11 : " 1 baptize you in water." It may be siu-prising that, after all that has been said on the subject, I should still lay any stress on the prepo- sition en^ in. I may be asked, Do you deny that it may be translated with f I do not deny this, yet I am still disposed to lay stress on it. A word may be used variously, yet be in each of its apphcations capable of being definitely ascertained. Were not this the case, language would be incapable of conveying definite meaning. To ascertain its meaning here, I shaU submit the following obsei'vations : 1. In is its primary and most usual signification. Even in the mstances in Avhich it is translated othenvise, it may generally be reduced to its primary mean- ing, although it is more usual with oiu- idiom to employ other prepo- sitions. There are instances, indeed, in which Ave cannot trace the primary idea. This, however, is nothing but what happens with our 0"\vn preposition in, and with all prepositions. If the Greeks say, en cheiri ischura, (in a strong hand,) we say, they went out in arms. En is so obviously the parent of in, that Mr. Ewing says, that " it can hardly be called a translation." He considers it merely a change of alphabet. It may be true, that this was the case in the formation of the derived word, but it certainly is a translation in as full a sense as any one word is a translation of another. It is not hke baptize, which was not a word of our language. In is an Enghsh word, as truly as en is a Greek one. It is given as an equivalent to en, not because it was formed from it, but because in meaning it coincides with it. We adopted the word and its meaning also. 2. As the instances in the acceptation of this preposition in Avhich the primary idea cannot be traced are extremely few, so it cannot be admitted in a signification inconsistent with this idea, except when necessity demands it. If the words in connexion admit the primary and usual meaning, it is unwarrantable to look for another. Such a use would render the passage inextricably equivocal. The passages in which it is translated with, are, without exception, of this cast. They would not make sense in our idiom, if en were translated in. Without euch a necessity, no translator would ever think of rendering en by ivith. What is more usual than to find, when en is translated among, &c., critics explaining it as being '■'■literally inf Now, in the instance alluded to, all the words in connexion admit the primary and usual meaning of en. Even the most extravagant of our opponents admit, that haptizo signifies to dip. If, then, the word also signifies to pour, to iise en in connexion with it, would render it altogether eqiiivocal. We could not from the passage determine its meaning. I contend, then, that though en may sometimes be translated ivith, yet it cannot be so used here. For if haptizo is allowed to denote dip, and not pour, with is rejected as incongruous: if haptizo is supposed to signify either dip or pour, then to use a preposition after it, which usually signifies in, but here in the sense of with, which is rare, would inevitably be equi- vocal, or would rather lead to a false meaning. It is absui-d to suppose, 122 THE MODE OF 13APT1SM. that such an equivocal expression could be used with respect to the performance of a Divine ordinance, which is to be a precedent for all ages. 3. I have produced innumerable examples in which en is construed with this verb incontestably in the sense of dipping. K, then, we have found the disputed phrase in a situation in which oiu' opponents must admit owe meaning of it ; if the examples of this meaning of the phi'ase are numerous ; and if no example can be produced in which the phrase is used in a situation in which we must confess that it refers to pouring, or any other thing but dipping, — all the laws of language forbid the supposition of pouring. What can forbid the phrase to have its usual meaning ? What can authorise a meaning which the phrase has not necessarily in any other passage ? 4. Even Mr. Ewing's translation of hcoptizo will not constme with en in the sense of with. He would not say, / pop you with water, but / p)op upon you with water. Now, there is no upon in the verb. Mi'. Ewiug, mdeed, supposes himself at hberty to vary his word pop) by any preposition he chooses to subjoin to it. But he cannot do so without something in the original to justify the variation. I have shown that to pop, to pop upon, to pop into, &c., are all different words. To con- sider them all as contained in baptizo and in pop, is to say that a half- penny is a guinea, because in a guinea there is a portion of copper, — or that copper is brass, because brass contains copper as a part of its composition. 5. Any translation that can be given of en is inconsistent Avith the supposition that bap)tizo signifies to pour. We could not say, " I pour you with water." Pour must be immediately followed by the thing pioured, and not with the person on whom anything is poured. It is not / pour you with water, but / 2>oiir water upjon you. The syntax, then, of the word, as well as its acceptation, forbids pouring as the mode of baptism. Wliat I have fiirther to observe on this passage, wiU occur in my remarks on Mr. Ewing's attack on Dr. Campbell's note. In admitting that en may sometimes signify icith. Dr. Campbell appears to ground the fact on a Hebraism. In this sense Mi*. Ewdng understands him ; in which he coincides. " That the phraseology to which the Dr. refers," says Mr. Ewing, " does not restrict the sense to in, but absolutely recommends the sense of with, appears from the occasional omission of the preposition, the use of it in such phrases being entirely a Hebraism, corresponding vnth the Hebrew beth, which, as the Dr. owns, signified with as well as m." Now, in opposition both to Dr. Campbell and Mr. Ewmg, I maintain that en in this use is not a Hebraism, either in its meaning, or use. It signifies with in classical Greek, as well as in the Septuagint or New Testament; and just in the same circumstances. It is also as frequently used -with this verb in the heathen authors, as in the Scriptures. To convince any one of this, it is necessary only to look over the examples which I have produced, both with respect to bapto and baptizo, which perfectly coincide in their syntax. Was Hippocrates a Hellenistic Jew ? THE MODE or BAPTISM. 123 Indeed, to enlarge the meaning of a Greek preposition, tliat it may correspond with a Hebrew preposition, is a thing which, though the conceit has been sanctioned by Dr. Campbell, and many great names, is a pure absurdity. To do so, would not be to speak the Greek language. To do so, would be to mislead all the Greek nations. There is not one instance in which such a thing is done in the word of God. If the apostles used the Greek prepositions, not as the Greeks themselves used them, but as the Hebrews used theirs, they have not given a revelation of the "will of God. This view of the Hebraism of the New Testament is one of the worst things in Dr. Campbell's translation. Wliatever may be the extent of the Hebraisms of the New Testament, they cannot, consistently with the honour of revelation, be supposed to affect the sense. This supposition is the resource of those who msh to corrupt the Gospel of Christ, or, in some way, to modify a disagreeable doctrine. Equally groundless, and even equally absiu'd, is Mr. Ewing's assertion, that the fact that the preposition is sometimes omitted, recommends the sense of ivitli. If that preposition is sometimes wi'itten, and sometimes left out, it is as clear as an axiom, that the passages in which it is omitted, must agree with the passages in which it is ■written, and must be translated just as if it were present. The meaning of the passages, then, in which it is omitted, must be determined by those in which it is written. When it is not expressed it must be understood. Such an omission, then, can cast no Hght on the subject. Mr. Ewing alleges, that " our Enghsh translators, at least, being friends of immersion, wordd have been led by their system to have patronised the Dr.'s translation." But this is a fallacious argument. It is true, as Mr. Ewing says, that on this question our translators were " du'ectly opposed" to him. But what sort of friends were they to immersion? Just such as Professor Porson, and the thousands of learned men who have the candour to confess the truth, though, as they think the matter of little importance, they practise the contrary. There was then no temptation to induce them to testify for immersion. There Avas the strongest temptation to induce them to accommodate their translation to the practice of their church, not to their Adews of the original mode of baptism. Dr. Wall was so far a friend of immersion, that he would have preferred it ; yet how has he laboured to prove that it is not necessary! Mr. Ewing's friend's strictiu-es, then, on Dr. Eyland, have no weight, for they view the subject in a false light. The authority of oui" translators in our favour, is the authority, not of friends, but of practical opposers; and, as Dr. Campbell has shoAvn, real opposers, in every case that could, in their judgment, admit pouring or sprinkling. Dr. Campbell had censured our translators as inconsistent, in render- ing en udati "with water," while they rendered en to lordane "in Jordan." How does Mr. Ewing vindicate them from inconsistency '? Wliy, by alleging that the former refers to the act and elements of baptism, and the latter to the place ! Now, this might vinthcate JNIr. Emng, but it does not vindicate our translators. Mr. Ewing forgets that the conceit that lordane is not the river, but the district in the neighbourhood of the river, is of his own invention. Oiu" translators 124; THE MODE OF BAPTISM. evidently understood it of tlie river itself, as every sober reader must do. Our translators, then, remain under Dr. Campbell's censure, for any- thing that Mr. Ewing lias done to relieve them. But let us see if he can justify himself in this business. I admit that " a difference of coimexion" will justify us in "understanding the same word in a different sense." But I see no difference of connexion here. On the contrary, the word Jordan, in the sixth verse, as evidently means the river Jordan, as tvater in the eleventh verse means water. The Jordan never signifies, as Mr. Ewing supj)oses, the plain of Jordan, the valley of Jordan, or Jordan-dale. This is a figment formed for a particular purpose. Can Mr. Ewing justify this explanation by a single coiTesponding example, in which a similar phrase must be so understood ? Were we to read in the newspapers, that certain persons in Glasgow were baptized in the Clyde, should we imderstand that it imported merely that they were baptized in Clydesdale ? This is a daring perversion of the words of the Holy Spirit. It requires a hardiliood that every heretic does not possess. An Aiian or a Socinian does not require more. No Neological gloss is more extravagant. The Spirit of God tells us that our Lord did many miracles ; the Neologist forces him to say that there was nothing miracidous in the Saviour's works. The Spirit of God tells us that the people of Israel were baptized by John in the Jordan; Mr. Emng forces him to say that it was not in Jordan, but in Jordan-dale. Wliat a system is it that compels its abettors to take such liberties with the word of God ! I view such conduct, not only with disapprobation, but mth hoiTor. But Mr. Ewing says that an Evangelist exj)lains the thmg in his sense. This is high authority indeed. I wdll ask no better. If this is made good, I will bow with submission. "That it was not the water of the river, but the country on its banks, is evident from the fidler and more particular account of the apostle John. "What Matthew calls, in Jordan, John calls, in Bethahara, and expressly says, it Avas beyond Jordan." I admit the premises ; I deny the conclusion. Let the two evange- lists refer to the same thmg, yet what the one calls Jordan, the other does not call Bethabara. Matthew speaks of the river in which John was baptizing; John of the town in which he was baptizing. John is more particidar as to the part of the river in which the Baptist was baptizing ; it was in the town of Bethabara. MatthcAV is more particular with respect to the water in which he was baptizing ; it was the Jordan. Corresponding to this, with respect to the same person, one -WTiter might say, "he was baptizing in the Clyde;" another, "he was baptizing in Glasgow." Mr. Ewing himself, in asserting that John's accoimt of this matter is more particular than that of Matthew, virtually admits that it is not necessary that Jordan should be perfectly equivalent to Bethabara ; for if one accoimt may be more particular than another, Bethabara may express the place or part of the river, while Jordan expresses the water in which John baptized. Let it, however, be supposed that the expression of the one evangelist exactly corresponds to that of the other — what follows ? As Jordan THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 125 signifies Jordan-dale, so Bethahai'a must not denote the town, but the whole district supposed to be called Jordan-dale. According to Mr. Ewing himself, these two words do not correspond. He makes the one to denote the whole country ; the other, one town situated in the cotmtry. Still it may be said, if the two accounts refer to the same thing, as John is said to be baptizing in Bethabara, and as this town was beyond Jordan, so he could not be baptizing in the river, which was on one side of the town. Mr. Ewing will let us come to the margin of the stream, but the phrase, he says, will not carry us "one jot farther." This is hard enough. I Avill try to advance a Kttle into the river. This I am enaliled to do Avith the sanction of the usual phraseology in similar cases. The Hmits of a town, in speaking in a general way, are not confined to the ground occupied by the houses. Suppose, for instance, that a man is charged with having committed a breach of the peace, on a certain day of the month, in Glasgow. In proving an alibi, he alleges that he was on that day in the town of Belfast. Opposite cotmsel cries out, "My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, he is a perjured rascal, for I can prove that he was the whole of that day in a ship in Belfast harbour. He never once entered the town that day." What will the judge and jury think of such a mode of proof? Surely he was in Belfast when he Avas in the port of Belfast. And is it not the same thing with the town and port of Bethabara ? When Mr. E^ving changes his views on this subject, and comes over to Belfast to baptize his brethren in that town, it will be asked by some of the people of Glasgow, Where is Mr. Ewing ? The reply Avill be, " He is in Belfast, baptizing the Independent church of that town." This reply will be made without any reference to the situation of the water. Might it not also be said, that the people of Glasgow go down to Gourock or Helensburgh to bathe ? Yet the place of bathing is in the sea. Might it not also be said, that such a person was droAvned in Port-GlasgOAv while he was bathing in the Clyde ? In like manner, it might have been added to John's account, that the Baptist Avas baptizing in Jordan. John teas baptizing in Bethabara in the Jordan. Now, Mr. EA\ing, say candidly, am I not noAv entitled to step a little distance from the margin into the river ? Have I not demoHshed this stronghold ? But I have many other resources, had it been necessary to employ them on this point. A small bend in the river, or holloAv in the bed on one side, might have formed a basin, so that houses might actually have been nearer to the centre of the river, than some parts of the basin. A bare possibility is all that is necessary to obviate a difficulty. But sober criticism could never dAvell on such things. The common forms of speech utterly condemn such a mode of opposition. Indeed, the houses do not generally extend to the margin of the sea or river. If a toAvn was limited by the houses, the quay itself would often be no part of it. The harbour has as good a title to be included in the toAvn as the quay. But there is another aAvkward situation in which oiu* view, it seems, places John the Baptist, out of which I must endeavour to deliver him. Mr. Ewing asserts, that if John the Baptist baptized in Bethabara, stand- ing in the water of the river, then he must have been in that situation 126 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. when lie bore his testimony to the priests and Levites. Now, it is a hard thing to keep the poor man in the water during this discourse. I Avill endeavour, then, to put him on diy groimd. The argument is, that in John i. 23, all the things previously mentioned are said to have been done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing. Therefore, if he was standing in the water when he spoke to the priests, aU the things are said to be done in the same place. The answer is, aU the things were indeed done in the same place, that is, in Bethabara, but this does not imply that they were done in the same part of Bethabara. When Mr. Ewing comes to baptize his brethren in Belfast, it is Ukely he may have a fierce encounter mth the Ai'ians. The Glasgow newspapers will say, " these things happened in Belfast, where Mr. Emng was baptizing." Will the people of Glasgow imderstand that the engagement with the Arians was when Mr. Ewing was actually baptizing ? Ali, Mr. Ewing ! what shall I call such a mode of opposing immersion ? Shall I call it childish ? Or shall I call it perverse ? Were it in reality asserted, that John gave his testimony to the priests while he was baptizing, I would imphcitly beheve it. The thing is not impossible. There is not, how- ever, the smallest appearance of such an assertion. That Jordan denotes the river, and not the coimtry in the neighbour- hood of Jordan, is not only obvious from the word of God, it is expressly asserted to be the river by Mark i. 5, where the word 7'iver is joined to it. " And there Avent out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confess- ing their sins." Nothing can hmit the word more clearly than this, in the river Jordan. As if the Holy Spirit had anticipated Mr. Ewing's perversion of the word Jordan, by converting it, -without any authority, into Jordan-dale, the word river is added to it by Mark. Mr. Ewing, indeed, says, that if John i. 28, Matt. iii. 6 — 13, John x. 40, are con- sidered, they Avill explain Mark i. 5, in his sense. But I hope I have shoA'STi that these passages have no bearing on the point. It would be a strange explanation that wordd explain the 7^iver Jordan not to be the river Jordan, but something else. This would be a Neological explana- tion. There is in the passage imder consideration, other evidence that baptism was performed by unmersion. It is said that Jesus, when he was baptized, went iqj straight-\vay from the water. I admit the proper translation of apo is from, and not out of ; and that the argument from the former is not of the same natiu'e with that which is foiuided on ek, out of. 1 perfectly agree with Mi\ Ewing, that apo would have its meaning fully verified, if they had only gone down to the edge of the water. I shall not take a jot more from a passage than it contains. The Bible is orthodox enough for me as it is. How then can I deduce dipping from the phrases goi?ig doivn, and coming up from .^ My argument is this. — If baptism had not been by immersion, there can be no adequate cause alleged for going to the river. Can sober judgment, can candour suppose, that if a handful of water would have sufficed for baptism, they would have gone to the river ? Many evasions have been alleged to get rid of this argument, but it never -will be fairly answered. I have strong suspicions that these evasions are scarcely satisfactory, even to THE MODE or BAPTISM. " 127 those who make them. I am much mistaken if they are not perplexed Avith the circumstance of John the Baptist's great predilection for the neighbourhood of Jordan, and other places, where the water is the very reason assigned for the preference. There is no spot on the earth in which a human being can be found, that without any inconvenience will not afford a handfid of water. Even in a besieged town, with a scarcity of water, what would sprmkle the whole inhabitants would not be felt as a sensible loss. Mr. EAving attempts to account for the above pliraseology, by the fact that fountains and rivers are generally in hollow places. This, indeed, accounts for the phraseology, but does it account for this fact ? Whether the river was in a hill or in a valley, Avhy did they go to it, when a handful of water would have sufficed ? Mr. E^^dng himself says, " I beheve, indeed, that John frequented the banks of the Jordan, as the most convenient place of the Avilderness, not only for multitudes to attend him, but also for liaAdng Avater at hand Avith which to baptize them." But Avas there any place in Judea in which he could not find a supply of AA^ater for popping or spriyikling ? The greatest croAvd that ever assem- bled might be popped at a smaU fountain. Besides, however many the persons were who Avent to his baptism, there is no foundation to suppose that immense croAvds were always with him. The accoimt itself does not imply that there ever was at any time an immense crowd. All Judea and Jerusalem are said to be baptized by him ; but they are not said to have been Avith him at once, or even in crowds at any one time. Why should they be supposed to have staid Avith him any considerable time ? But our argument from this passage is not only that they frequented the banks of Jordan; but that, being there for the performance of baptism, they Avent down to the water. Now, if an army encamped on GlasgOAv Green in a time of war, were all to be baptized by popping^ would they bring the water from the river, or would they aU go to the very edge of the water ? Wliy did Jesus go doAvn to the Avater, when the Avater might as Avell haA^e been brought up to him ? Does Mr. Ewing take the infants to the edge of the Clyde when he is poppAng them ? This answer, then, is but an CA^asion. No reason has ever been given, or eA^er A\nll be given, to accoimt for this fact, on the hypothesis of baptizing A^dth a handful of Avater. Mr. Ewing observes that this phraseology is confined to baptisms out of doors. Very true, but in Mr. EAving's baptism, why Avere there any baptisms out of doors ? If they are popped upon Avith a handfid of water, any number might successively be popped in the same house Avith equal convenience as out of doors. ^¥lien a conveniency for baptism Avas found within doors, there was no recourse to a river ; and then there could be no going down nor coming up. When a person was baptized in a bath, the baptizer was not in the Avater at all. Mr. EAAdng says, " Rebekah went doAvn to the well — and came up." " Does this imply that she immersed herself ? No. She Avent doAAm to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up." Very true. But are the cases parallel ? Do they not differ in the very point in AA'hich it is 128 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. essential for Mr. Ewing's argument that they should agree ? This illus- tration favours us, and refutes Mr. Ewing himself. If Eebekah went doAvn to the well, she had a good en-and to the well — an errand that is not left to be supplied by conjecture, but is expressly specified, namely, to fill her pitcher. Can Mr. Ewing show such an errand in going to the edge of the river for popping '? Even the idiot that followed the Armagh coach to Dubhn, to see if the great wheels would overtake the little ones, had an errand. Btit if popping is baptism, there could be no ei-rand to the river for the performance of the ordinance. " Gideon," says Mr. Ewing, " brought down the people unto the water." " Was it to immerse them ? No ; it was to give them an opportunity of di'inking." And could there be a better refutation of Mr. E-\ving than what he gives himself? Gideon did not lead the people to the river for no purpose. The object is expressed. Let us have such a reason for John's baptizing at Jordan, and it will suffice us. i\Ir. Ewing entirely mistakes the jet of this argument. I observe also, that Matt. iii. 6, Mark i. 5, cannot admit 2Jouring as the sense of baptizo. Ehaptisanto en to lordane cannot be rendered they were poured in Jordan, nor with Jordan^ nor in Jordan- dale. The water is poured, not the people. If the chunsy expression poured upon could be admitted, it is not to be found. The upon is wanting. The people were poured upon in Jordan-dale^ would be a very awkward expression. Yet shabby as such an auxiliary would be, even that is not to be found. Let us next examine the baptism of the emiuch. Acts -riix. 36. " And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water : and the eiuiuch said. See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Phihp said. If thou believest ^vith all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I beheve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both Phihp and the emiuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away PhiHp," &c. This is as coiTect and as hteral a translation of the words as can possibly be made ; and surely it is so plain that the most illiterate man can be at no loss to discover from it the mind of the Lord on the subject. I have written some hundred pages on the mode of this ordin- ance, yet to a mmd thirsting to know the Tidll of God, and uninfluenced by prejudice, this passage Avithout comment is in my view amply sirffi- cient. The man who can read it, and not see immersion in it, must have sometliing in his mind unfavourable to the investigation of truth. As long as I fear God, I cannot, for all the kingdoms of the world, resist the evidence of this single docrunent. Nay, had I no more conscience than Satan himself, I could not as a scholar attempt to expel immersion ft-om this account. All the ingenuity of all the critics in Europe could not silence the evidence of this passage. Amidst the most violent perversion that it can sustaua on the rack, it Avill still cry out, immersion, immersion! Philip, in preaching, had shown that believers were to be baptized immediately, yet the eunuch never speaks of being baptized till he came to water. Now, this imphes immersion. Had a handfol of water been sufiicient, this might have been found in any place. Had it been even THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 129 a desert mthout water, there can be no doubt that the eiunich woiJd have a supply of water with him. When they came to the water, instead of sending down one of the retinue to bring up a Httle water, they went down to the water. Mr. Ewing supposes that our argument is founded on the mere going down and coming up. But it is upon the circumstance, that no reason can be given for the going down but the immersion. What would take them to the water, when the water could be more conveniently brought to them ? But they not only went down to the water; they went into the water. What would take them into the water, if a handful of water would suffice ? Let it be observed, also, that there is something very peculiar in the account of their going into the water. It is not only said, " they went into the water ;" our attention is fixed on the fact that they both went into the water. This, we might think, would suffice. Yet the Holy Spirit marks the circumstance still more precisely. He adds, hoth Philip and the eunuch. Can any one imagine that such a precision, such an apparent redimdancy of expression, is not designed to teach some- thing that the Spirit of Inspiration foresaw would be denied ? Had the water been deep enough at the edge, the eunuch only might have been in the water. But in this case, both the baptizer and the baptized went into the water. Now, this deterraines that the preposition eis must be rendered into^ and not unto., as Mr. Ewing would have it. Had the account related merely to the going down to the edge of the water, there would be no use in sajdng that they both went down. Could it be neces- sary to inform us that Philip, the baptizer, went to the place of baptism as well as the person to be baptized ? What would take the one down withoiit the other ? There is good reason, however, to inform us that they hoth went ijito the water ; because, in certain circumstances, it would have been necessary only for one of them to be in the water; and the relation of the fact takes away the ground of perversion. It is not only said that they went into the water, but their retui'n is called a coming iip out of the water. They could not come out of the water, if they had not been in it. This is more precise than the account of our Lord's baptism. There it is said that he came up from the water. Here it is out of the water. Let us now see how Mr. Ewing attempts to evade the evidence of this passage. Let my readers put their invention to work, and tiy what they can think of to darken this evidence. Mr. Ewing, I engage, will go beyond them. His ingenuity is luiparalleled. He destroys oiu' doctrine even by demonstration. Demonstration ! Ay, demonstration ! Jesus is said, Matt. iii. 16, to have gone up from the water, not out of the water, as our version renders it. " Now," says INIr. Ewing, " it surely will not be said that PhiHp had any occasion to go farther ■\\dth the Ethiopian nobleman than John did with our- Saviour, in order to the administration of baptism. It is reasonable, then, to understand the eis and the ek of Acts viii. 38, 39, as signifjdng precisely what is indicated by the apo of Matt. iii. 16." Now, is not this demonstration ? I may as K 130 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. well think to pierce the divine shield of Achilles as this argtiment. But I will strike. Truth is stronger than sophistry. The helmet of Goliath could not resist the pebble from a sling. I deny the first principle on which this argument is founded. It is taken for granted that apo can reach no farther than the edge of the water. Now, while I admit that this is all that is necessarily imported in this preposition, I contend that it can apply to the centre of the water, or even the farther edge of the water, as well as the edge on this side. Apo signifies the point of departure from an object,'but that point may be in any part of the object to which there is access. Whether the point of departure be the edge or the centre, or the nearer or the farther edge, depends not on the word, but on the circumstances, or other information. If the point of depar- ture be an impenetrable object, it must be from the edge ; but if the object be penetrable, the departure may be from any part in it. If a fowl on the opposite side of the river, or in the middle of it, takes wing, and, fljHing across, ahghts on a hill, we say, it flew from the river, just the same as if it had commenced its flight on this side. This is the distinction between apo and ek. The former denotes the point of depar- ture, in whatever part of the object that point is found; the latter always supposes that the point of departure is within the object. Of course apo cannot serve us in Matt. iii. 16, but as little can it injure us. It is indefinite as to the sitiiation of the point of departure. In this case, then, it is not necessary to suppose that Philip and the eunuch went farther than John and our Saviour. Though apo does not imply that the latter were in the water, it is not inconsistent -with this, if other evidence demands it. Besides, it might be on some occasions necessary to go farther into the water than on this. At some places, baptism may be performed at. the edge ; in others, it may be necessary to advance to the centre. But if apo could not reach one inch into the water, I should find no difficulty in refuting Mr. Ewing's argument. If our Lord and John were in the water, in returning they must have come from the edge of the water. They would then have come from the edge of the water, and from beyond. Though the account commences with the edge, it does not deny that there was a previous point of departure. When I say, this friend has come from Edinburgh, aU I assert is, that the point of his departure was Edinburgh. It might be the very edge ; but it might be also from the very centre. On the other hand, when I say, my friend is out of Edinburgh, it expresses that he was within the city. We might also fix a point of departure, which will apply only to a certain point, and reach no farther. Yet this will not deny a previous point of com- mencement of departure. We started at such an hour from Princess- street, and at such an hour we arrived in Glasgow. Now, this point of departure cannot be extended an inch, yet it is quite consistent that we might have had a previous point of departure from Duke-street. Thoiigh I have thus proved, that for anything to be foimd in apo, our Lord might have been baptized in the middle of Jordan, yet since apo necessarily imphes no more than the edge as the point of departure ; since we are not otherwise informed that John and He went into the THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 131 water previously to baptizing, as we are informed with respect to Philip and the eunuch, I think there is no reason to believe that John the Baptist usually went into the water in baptizing. The striking difference between the accounts of these two baptisms, leads me to conclude that John chose some place on the edge of the Jordan that admitted the im- mersion of the person baptized, v/hile the baptizer remained on the margin. The place of baptizing the eunuch did not admit this, — most pi'ovidentially, indeed, because it affords an example that cannot be plausibly perverted. If the above distinction is well foimded, there is no ground for the jest, that John the Baptist was an amphibious animal. There is no necessity at all to suppose that eis and ek are limited in Acts viii. 38, 39, by apo in Matt. iii. 16. " I am far from saying," says Mr. Ewing, " that eis does not often signify iiito, and ek, out of." And I am as far from denying that eis sometimes signifies unto. Its most usefiil signification, however, is into ; and in general apphes when the thing in motion enters within the object to which it refers. There are instances, however, in wlaich the motion ends at the object. It is, therefore, not of itself definite. But it is evident that there must be some way of rendering it definite in each of its occurrences, else language would be imintelligible. We are not to suppose that when a word is in itself indefinite, we are at hberty, in every occurrence of it, to understand it as we will. The "soimd critic is able, on all occasions, to hmit it by the connexion, or by circumstances. I observe, then, that as this word usually signifies motion to a place ending within the place, so it is always to be understood in this sense, except circumstances forbid it. I believe the few examples in which the motion does not end within the object towards which the thing in motion is directed, are all of this kind. They are such as cannot cause a moment's hesitation. But if it had such a meaning here, it would evidently be equivocal. It would as readily lead astray as inform. Agreeably to this, in the very examples produced by Mr. Ewing, from Gen. xxiv. 16, Judges vii. 5, where the motion ended at the margin of the river, this preposition is not used. It is not eis, but e2Ji ten pegen ; not eis, hut p?'os to udor. This obsei'vation is confirmed by the circumstance, that eis is appHed to the river Jordan, when the motion ceases on the banks, in an instance that can create no doubt. 2 Kings vi. 4 : " And when they came to (e/s) Jordan." Here the object of the journey determines the extent of the meaning of the preposition. But I utterly deny stich an indefiniteness in the meaning of ek. In opposition to Mr. Emng's assertion, I say that it always signifies out of. I say this while my eye is upon all the examples alleged by him and his learned friend. " Now," says Mr. Ewing, " wherever eis and ek correspond to each other, the extent of the one must measure the extent of the other. The point of departure to retiu-n, cannot be different from the point of arrival in going. In other words, if eis signify to, then ek must, in the same connexion, signify nothing more than from..^'' "Wliat can be more mathematical than this ? It is as clear as that twelve inches and a foot k2 132 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. denote the same measure. The demonstration is perfect, if the axiom on which it is founded be granted. The demonstration is drawn from the hypothetical proposition, "if eis signify to." But I deny that in this instance it signifies to. Mr. Ewing himself admits that it often signifies into. Why, then, is it taken for granted that it cannot so signify here ? To do Mr. Ewing any service, eis miist always signify to. It cannot be employed to measure ek., if it is itself indefiioite. It is very true that the progress into the water cannot be less than the progress out. All depends on the distance advanced. Now, though eis might be used, if the advance was only to the margin; yet as it can be used, if the advance were to the centre, it cannot restrain eh to its own lowest extent. On the other hand, I will reverse the demonstration, on the principle that ek always signifies out of^ which I will prove. Ke^ always signifies out of, as one of these prepositions, when they correspond to each other, must measure the other, then, though eis is in itself indefinite, ek renders it definite in this instance. As ek signifies out of, eis must here signify into. Now, I deiy ingenuity to reftite my demonstration. If an elastic chain is twelve inches at the stretch, but only ten when relaxed ; and if the same measiu'e is called a foot, in the same connexion, then we are to make the foot determine the extent of the chain, in the instance referred to, and not the chain to determine the number of inches in the foot. The definite must limit the indefinite. Dr. Wardlaw concurs with Mr. Ewing, in thinking that nothing can be learned from en, and eis, and ek, the prepositions usually construed with baptizo. "It is truly surprising," says he, "that so much striess should be laid on the firequently vague import of a Greek preposition." I ask Dr. Wardlaw, what preposition in any language is perfectly univocal ? Are there many words of any part of speech, except those expressive of mode, which are perfectly univocal ? Are the above prepositions more vague than the prepositions that correspond to them in oiu" language ? Does it follow from a word's having two significa- tions, that no stress can be laid on itself, in determining on the evidence of its meaning in any particular situation ? If a word is sometimes used in a sense difierent from its usual one, are we at hberty to under- stand it in such unusual signification at random, as often as it may suit OUT argument ? Were this the case, every sentence we utter would be a riddle. Every time we open our lips, we use words which are as vague as any Greek prepositions, yet the most ignorant are not misled by the circumstance. It is only when the observation apphes to dead languages, that it imposes on those who do not trace arguments to first principles. En may sometimes be translated ivith ; but there must be laws that regulate this matter, else human langaiage could not be sufii- cient for testimony. Eis, in rare cases, may be translated unto ; but if this vn\l justify us in assigning this meaning to it when it suits our purpose, nothing could be definitely expressed in human speech. Yet this is the resom'ce of Dr. Wardlaw, in evading the evidence of immer- sion ; — a resource which, if used with respect to EngHsh, would expose the critic to derision. I have pointed out some of the laws that deter- mine in such cases ; and whether I have been successful or not, such THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 133 laws must exist, if human language is an adequate evidence of human thought. This I hold as an axiom. But I will venture to appeal still farther to the common sense of my readers. Admitting all that is demanded for this supposed vagueness, is it not utterly incredible that, -with respect to this ordinance, each of these three prepositions should assume, as it were in concert to deceive us, its most tmusual signification ? Can we ascribe such a miracle of delusion to the Spirit of truth ? Now, that in is the most usual signifi- cation of en ; into, the most usual signification - of eis ; and out of, the most usual signification of ek, I suppose no one will be hardy enough to deny. I could easily prove that the exceptions to this, with respect to the two former, are much fewer than they are generally supposed; and Avhen I come to Mr. Ewing's Appendix, I AviU. show that, A\dth respect to ek, there is no exception at all. But I am here taking for granted all that our opponents demand; and allowing the vagueness to be as great as they suppose, is it not absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit would use the three prepositions all in an unusual sense, when there were other prepositions better stuted to the piu'pose ? The absurdity is still heightened by the consideration that these prepositions are used in con- nexion with a verb, which the hardiest of our opponents cannot deny as importing, at least in one of its senses, to immerse. The usual sense of the whole three prepositions is in our favour: the verb admits oiu- meaning, even according to Mr. Ewing ; but according to the great bulk of the most learned of our opponents, this is its primary meaning: judging, then, even from their own admissions, is it credible that the Holy Spirit would use language so calculated to mislead ? Could there be any reason to pitch iipon such phraseology, except to deceive ? If pouring or sprinkling had been appointed, there loere loords which univo- calhj denote these meanings. Why, then, should the Holy Spirit pass by these Avords, and pitch upon a Avord that, according to over opponents, has perhaps a dozen of significations ? If there are prepositions that Avould, in their usual acceptation, express the meaning our opponents attach to the three prepositions in question, why should the latter be employed in an unusual sense ? There never AA-'as a greater specimen of Jesuitism, than that Avhich Dr. WardlaAV here charges on the Holy Spii-it. But this mode of reasoning carries its condemnation in its very face. If the controversy Avere in a language of which Ave were entii'ely ignorant, and on a subject to Avhich we were bitterly strangers, Ave might hold it as a self-evident truth, that the man Avho screens himself under the vagueness of Avords, and argues at random, on the supposition that on any emer- gency it is fair to take a word in any signification that in any situation he may find attached to it, has either a bad cause, or does not knoAv hoAv to defend a good one. As no one aat.11 charge our opponents AAith the latter, the cause which they defend must be incapable of a soimd defence. But after Ave have beaten them doAvn the hill, and pushed them to the very verge of the stream ; nay, after Ave have diiven them into Jordan up to the chin, these obstinate enemies of immersion Avill not pop down their heads into the ivater, but Avill pojJ the Avater upon the head. Both of these writers declare resolutely that they would not suiTender, even 134 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. in the midst of the river. " Let it be supposed," says Mr. Ewing, " that the baptizer led the person to be baptized, not only to the water, but into it ; the question returns, what did he do with him there ? " Dr. Wardlaw also expressly refuses to submit, even were it granted " that the parties were in Jordan when the ceremony was performed." Wliat shall I do now ? Of what service is all my criticism ? Can I put them imder the water either by the verb or by its syntax ? I will first try to disciphne them a little with common sense ; for if I cannot succeed on this point, it is in vain to appeal to the laws of language. I admit that it is possible to sprinkle or pour water upon a person in a river, as well as in a church or parlour. But in the awful presence of the hving God, I ask Ml'. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw, if they think it credible that John the Baptist woidd take into the water the multitudes whom he baptized, for the purpose of pouring a Httle on their faces ? K they can answer this in the affirmative, I have no more to say on that point. I must appeal to the common sense of mankind. What other purpose could there be in going into the water, but to be immersed ? Turks, Jews, and Infidels, declare yoiir judgment. Every other mode might have been observed, with much greater convenience, out of the water than in it. I know it is possible for Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw to take every infant baptized by them, with all the nurses and attendants, down into the river Clyde, and pop them there ; but verily, if I read in the news- papers, that they did this, I shoidd be convinced that they were deranged. Madness or fanaticism would universally be supposed to be the cause. Upon such evidence, could the Lord Chancellor refiise an act of limacy against them ? And shall they ascribe to John the Baptist and the Saviour, conduct that in Great Britain would prove lunacy ? It is use- less to reason with persons so obstinate. Neither argument nor criticism can reach such extravagance. As Dr. Campbell, in reference to the class of first principles which he ascribes to common sense, says, that to deny them, does not imply a contradiction, — it impHes only lunacy; so to assert that John the Baptist led the multitudes into the river Jordan, in order to pour a little water into their faces, does not imply an impossi- bihty, — ^it implies only that they were all mad. However, as I have now, by their own admission, got them into the water, I will try to force them under it, before I let them out. Dr. Wardlaw asserts that eis ton lordanen may be translated at or in Jordan. To this I reply, 1. At and in are not senses of eis. 2. There is no reason to bring them to the water, or place them in the water, but the intention of immersing them into the water. 3. A multitude of examples might be produced, in which eis is construed with baptizo, in which the signification is without doiibt immersion. I appeal to those I have given. No one example can be prodiiced in which eis in construc- tion with the verb, signifies either at or m. The plirase, then, cannot be supposed to have a signification here different from its usual signifi- cation ; and which there is no single proof that it ever has. I will force them down, then, by the verb and the preposition separately, and by both united as a phrase. I defy them to produce, out of Greek Uteratui'e, one instance in which the phrase has the meaning contended for by them. THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 135 Dr. Wardlaw partakes with Mr. EAving in liis astonishment, that an argument should be drawn from going down and coming up. If my astonishment had not been entirely exhausted with the Jordan scene, I should be mightily astonished that both these writers so far mistake the jet of the argument. The going doivn and the coming up are not supposed to refer to the act of immersion. As pouring water into a bath is necessary m order to immersion in the bath ; so going down to the river is necessary in order to dipping m the river. We do not confoimd the going into the water with the immersion in the water. This would show the same want of discrimination that confounds pouring with baptism. But Mr. Ewing overtiuns all our arguments and criticisms with a difficulty. " If the act of baptizing," says he, "had consisted of immers- ing the subject in water, there would sui'ely have been some allusion to the lowering of liis body in that supine direction, which is, I believe, commonly observed for the purpose of bringing it under the surface: some allusion, also, to that stooping attitude, which is at the same time necessary on the part of the immerser. But there is notliing of this kind to be found in aU the Scripttu'es, either in the accompanying phraseology, or, as we have seen, in the name of the ordinance itself." Now, if the surely was a real surely^ the conclusion would be undeniable; for I do not know a single reference of the kind demanded. But what makes this surely necessary ? Wliy, it is necessary to keep Mr. Ewing's theory from sinking ^ but this is its only necessity. K no information is given about the way of putting the body under water, then no part of the meaning of the ordinance depends on one way more than another. We are then at liberty to do it in the most convenient way. But this requirement is very strange in one who maintains baptism to be a pop- ping of a handful of water out of the ciip of nature, or the hoUow of the hand, upon the turned up face of the person baptized. Each of these things is a necessary part of baptism, yet I am so stupid as to be unable to see a glimpse of any of them in the Scriptui'es. I shaU now examine the example in Mr. Ewing's Appendix, alleged to prove that ek sometimes signifies merely from^ as perfectly synony- mous with apo. I have admitted that en may, in certain circumstances, be translated ivith, and that eis sometimes denotes motion to a place, that ends on this side of the object, without occasioning any confusion or ambiguity. But I have denied that ek is ever used when the object departing is not supposed to have commenced its departiu-e within the object from which it departs. Now, Mi\ Ewing's very learned friend, who writes the Appendix, in reply to some obsei-vations by Dr. Eyland, steadily abides by his first position; and by a number of instances alleges, with the utmost confidence, that the use of the Greek language proves the supposed laxity in the use of ek. The general acquaintance of this gentleman with Greek literature, entitles liis opinion to the highest respect; and I am AviUing to allow him to be in all respects what Mr. Ewing represents. I take the utmost liberty in exposing false reasoning and false criticism, even in those whom I respect. God's truth is a paramomit object, and whatever tends to pervert it must be cut down. The extensive readhig in Greek Awitcrs, which this gentleman 136 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. possesses, is a qualification of indispensable importance to a critic ; and that he is conversant in the philosophy of language, is obvious at a glance. I stand upon ground too firm to make me fear the talents of my antagonist, and I should feel ashamed were I conscious of xmder- ratiug these talents through dread of them. No man unjustly disparages the abilities of his opponent, who is not conscious either of having a bad cause, or of his inability to defend a good one. The learned writer of the Appendix says : " The truth is, that though apo and eh were originally distinct, in the progress of the language they came to be used indiscriminately, and Avhile apo encroached on the province of ek, ek in return usurped part of the temtories of apoy Now, on the very face of this observation, I pronounce it unphilosophical ; and I would confidently do so, had the assertion respected a language of which I do not know the letters. It is contrary to the first principles of language, that prepositions appointed to express different relations, should be used to express the same relation. Were this the case, the prepositions would be two only in sound; one of them would cumber rather than enrich the language. There is a sense in which one word may be said to encroach on the territories of another • that is, it may be used in a situation which another usually fills. But this is not properly an encroachment. So far as it properly goes, the territories are its own. The territory occupied by both, belongs exclusively to neither. It is common, and either may be used at pleasui-e. But consistently with this joint reign, each may have a pecuhar territory, into which it is usurpation in the other to enter. Were it true, according to the learned Avriter, that apo and ek at random usurp each other's territories, it would be impossible for criticism to ascertain anything from their use. Lan- guage would be incapable of definite meaning. From my account of them, it is clear that in a vast multitude of instances, they may be used in the same place, optionally. But even here, it is possible to discrimi- nate them. Each of them has in every instance its own distinctive meaning. I may say in English, this friend is out of Glasgow, or from Glasgow, yet out of and from are not the same. The one expression denotes that the point of departure was in the city ; the other may have its point of departure either in or at the city. There are cases also in which the Enghsh preposition could not be used in the same situation. In a besieged city, the expression, " this soldier has come out of the city," is very different from "this soldier has come from the city." I assert, then, that the fact that these prepositions may be used often in the same situation, is no evidence that they have not their characteristic meaning ; and far less is it e-vidence that they are in all things indiscriminate. While they have a common territory, each has a province of its own. Even when apo is used where ek might be used, there is this difference, that the former is not definite, and does not mark the idea which the use of the other would have marked. I call the attention of critics to this distinction as one of vast importance, and one which has been universally overlooked. It has been hitherto taken for granted, that if two words are interchangeable in any situation, they may, at the pleasure of the critic, be supposed interchangeable. I maintain that THE MODE OV BAPTISM. 137 two words with meanings characteristically distinct, may have in other things a common province, while there are laws to ascertain the extent of the common province, and to limit each within its pecuHar boimdary. I maintain even farther, that in the common province each expresses its own meaning. They reign without interference even over the common territory. Now, if I am well founded in these observations, they will be of vast advantage in ascertairdng definitely the import of language. Instead of being a nose-of-wax, as critics in general have made the Scriptures, temerity will not be able to deface their features. With respect to the prepositions apo and ek, though they may often be used interchangeably, yet the latter always imphes intusposition ; the former the point of departure in general. But the writer of the Appen- dix has alleged a number of examples to prove, " that ek may be, and often is, made use of to express removal, distance, or separation, merely where previous intusposition neither was, nor could be in Adew." Now, if his examples prove this, let him have it. That none of them do so, I am quite confident. His first example is from Thucydides. Speaking of a promontory, he says, " which was steep from the sea, and not easily attacked from the land." The example has not the colour of opposition to oiu* doc- trine. Were I lecturing on the passage to students, I should remark as a beauty, the distinctive import of ek, which this writer's criticism teaches him to overlook. The promontory is supposed to rise out of the sea below, as a tree grows out of the grormd. The imagination views the object commencing at the bottom of the sea, and rising a vast height above its surface. Do we not ourselves speak of a rock rising out of the ocean ? There is nothing here said in Greek, but what we ourselves say in Enghsh, yet out of Avith us is never from. As to the example alleged, there is no real motion, or point of departure, whether apo or ek is used. The point of departure is merely in the view of the imagina- tion. While examples of this kind still preserve the original distinc- tion, yet examples most decisively to the point must be taken from real motion, and a real point of departiu'e. It is with these that apo and ek are connected on the subject of baptism. The writer remarks : "The historian sru^ely never meant to convey the idea, that the steep part of the rock had formerly been within the rock." This surely is granted, but the observation is surely so absurd as to need no answer. When we say that " a rock rises boldly out of the sea," do we mean that the top of it rose from the bottom ? But there is here an intusposition : the rock commences below the water. But if we are able to manage the first ek, he asks us what we will do with the second. This he thinks altogether refractory. However, it costs me no more trouble than the first. A glance discovers its bearing. " Would Dr. R. maintain," says the writer, " that Thucydides meant that the promontory, if attacked on the land side, must then be under- stood as having come out of the land ?" No, indeed, Dr. R. could not make such an assertion, — ^nor is any such assertion needed. It is not the promontory that comes out of the land ; it is the assault that comes out of the land. Wlien attacked on the land side, does not the assault 138 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. come from the interior of the land ? I am surprised at such an obser- vation from such a writer. What is most strange is, that the same question might as well be asked if apo had been used. In that case, would the writer suppose that the promontory was represented as coming from the land ? The promontory is not, as this writer absurdly supposes, here represented as the point of departure, whether ajJo or ek is used. The promontory is the point of arrival. The assailants come out of the country on the land side, and direct their assault, not from the promontory, but upon it. Never were witnesses farther from serving the cause of the party who summoned them. The next example is, " The road f7'om Abdera to Ister." I say, literally, " the road out of Abdera to Ister." The road is supposed to commence within Abdera. Does the road out of Edinburgh to Leith commence at the extremity of the city ? There might be as much of the road within the city as without it. Tliis example is clearly on my side. But what shall I do with Alexander's mound ? Surely I cannot bring it out of the continent. Yes, I will bring a machine that will force it out of the land. Let us see the words of the author, " he resolved to carry up a mound from the continent to the city." I say, literally, " otit of the continent." " But," says the writer, " the rampart never had been within the continent, but merely commenced at it." I say the rampart, according to Arrian, commenced within the continent. The point of commencement was not without the land, but within it. As the foundation of a house is more secure when it commences under- ground, so a mound is more secure when it commences within the land. I was not, it is true, present on the occasion when Alexander com- menced this work ; but I know where Ai'rian fixes the commencement. We could say that the mound of Edinburgh rims out of Bank-street into Prince's-street. The point of commencement is within the street above, the point of ending is ivithin the street below. Mr. Locke, in one of his letters to Mr. Molyneux, speaks of his letters written out of Holland. The letters were written in Holland. What sort of a critic would he be, who should say that this imphes that Mr. Locke was not in Holland when he wrote the letters ? Yet tliis is the principle on which many criticise on dead languages. My opponents are in error in their canons of criticism. The next example is, — " a line is said to be dra-\vn from the pole of a circle." " It is impossible," says our author, " for a line to be within a point." Very true ; and did not the writer see that it was equally impossible for the whole line to be at a point '? And if its point of commencement could be at the edge of a point, might it not also be within the point ? This is the thing said. The line is supposed to commence within the pole. The atithor adds : " in other propositions of the same book, apo is made use of to denote precisely the same idea." Say, is made to fill the same situation. This is quite in accordance with my doctrine. We ourselves do the same thing with from and out of, yet they do not signify precisely the same idea. Another example is, — " She led him from the gate to the iimer apartment." " Though he came from the gate," says the writer, " he THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 139 could never be supposed to have come out of it." Certainly not out of the wood or metal of the gates, but as certainly out of the gates. Who is so ignorant as not to know that gates denote, not merely the gates strictly, but the place in which they stand, and that whole assembhes are said to meet and sit in the gates ? We speak in hke manner of a door. He stood in the door — ^lie came out of the door — ^he came from the door. But out of the door is not perfectly the same as from the door. There is not the shadow of difficulty in such examples. Another example brought by this writer is : " Who forming men f7'om the extremity of the foot, making a statue." The writer remarks, " forming out of the extremity of the foot, would convey either no meaning at aU, or a very absurd one; ek in this passage is completely synonymou.s with apo.'''' To suppose that the upper parts of the statue proceeded out of the foot, would indeed be absurd. And to suppose that they proceeded from the foot, would be no less absurd. But if the meaning is, as without doubt it is, that the foot was the point of commencement in the making of the statue, it may as well be said that this point was within the foot as at the foot, and that the work com- menced out of the foot as from the foot. Nay, it seems to be the very intention of the expression to include the foot ; for if he made the statue only from the foot, he did not make the foot. The expression is not only intelligible on the supposition of the peculiar meaning of ek, but is more definite than it would have been had -apo been used. The next example alleged is from the Periegesis of Dionysius : " From the SiciHan mountains the sea is extended far to the east." "No one," says the writer, " I think, will contend that ek here implies anything but the point of departure, — certainly it was not meant to denote, that the sea was ever within the mountains." Nothing, indeed, but the point of departure, or rather the point of commencement. But that point is within the mountains, either really or in the imagination. Is not the sea within the moimtains in every bay formed by mountains ? What is meant by " the sea within Lybia ?" — an expression used by Dionysius, a few Hnes above the passage quoted by this writer. But in this place I do not imderstand the point of commejicement, as respecting the place where the sea touches Sicily, but the place of the spectator. Wlaen viewed out of the SicUian mountains, the sea of Crete extends far to the east. On no supposition, however, has the expression any appearance of opposition to my doctrine, with respect to the distinctive meaning of ek. Another example is, — " Rising from her seat." " Not out of it, cer- tainly," says the writer. Yes, out of it, certainly, say I. Thrones or chairs of state were of stich a construction, that persons were said to sit down into them, and to come out of them, — -just as we should say that a gentleman comes out of his gig. Indeed, we might say oui'selves, that the old man rose out of his arm-chair. This is a most unfortunate example for our author. The phrase in Matt. xx. 21, is eUiptical; and its explication depends on a knowledge of ancient ciistoms, which may not now be attainable. The word thrones, or seats, or places, may be imderstood, and from their construction and situation the application of ek might have arisen. But of this I am not bound to say anything. 140 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. I obsei-ve, however, that in some way the idea of out of must have been implied, because ek is used. Every professor of Greek, in speaking on these phrases to his pupils, if he was not a disgrace to his chair, would say, " hterally, out of right hand (seats), and out of left hand (seats), — on my right hand, on my left hand, are our phrases, but they are not a translation." But did not the gentleman perceive that these phrases are as hard to be accotmted for, on the supposition that ek signifies from^ as on the supposition that it signifies out of? Could we say, "to sit from my right hand," more than "to sit out of my right hand ?" If it is said, that the point of the sitting commences at the right hand, I reply, that it may also commence ivithin the right hand places. "We are at liberty to supply any word we please, for it is evident that the substantive to which dexion is related, is not hand. It is possible to sit within right hand places, or right hand seats. The phrase, from my youth, has no difficulty. The commencing point is within his youth. It did not commence in the outer verge of yoiith, or at the very edge of youth, but within it, far -ndthin it. Philo- sophically, then, as weU as hterally, it is out of my youth. In like manner, from the beginning, is literally out of the loeginning. The com- mencing point is supposed to be within the beginning, not where the beginning ended. He knew it in the beginnmg. The distinctive meaning of ek is visible even in these phrases. It is no proof of the contrary, that in some of them we have no idioms to correspond to them. If aU languages had corresponding phrases perfectly alike, what would be meant by idiom ? There is not one of the phrases alleged by this writer, in explaining which, a Greek scholar would not say, " literally out of." In some of them, our idioms may be from ; the Greek idiom is not from in any of them. I have followed the wiiter through all his examples, and have wrested them out of his hands. But this was more than my cause required. There is not one of the examples that corresponds to the subject of our debate. Our contest respects a case ui which there is real motion, and a change of position from one point to another. It respects departure and arrival. Now there is no example to the purpose in which there is not a change of place. The preposition ek might be used -with respect to other things in which the primary idea could not be discovered ; while, with respect to real change of place, the distinction might be universally preserved. But there is not one of the author's examples that respects cases similar to the case to be illustrated. Not one of them relates to real motion, either fi^oin or out of. These are the examples that must decide the matter. Though I could not analyse one of the examples brought by this writer, I would still contend that ek, as signifying point of departure, or motion from one point to another, is more definite than apo, since it always imphes that the point of departure is within the object, and not without it. From this there not only is no exception,, but there is no colour of exception. I conclude, then, mth all the authority of demonstration, that Philip and the eunuch were ivithin the water, because they came cut of it. I have already obsei'ved, with respect to other examples in which baptizo THE MODE or BAPTISM. 141 occui'S, that it will not construe mth the signification pour. I observe the same thing -with respect to Acts viii. 38 : " What doth hinder me to y/^ be baptized ?" It conld not be translated, " what doth hinder me to be poured ?" It is not the baptized person, but the water, that is poured in the observance of this ordinance by poiu'ing. Phihp baptized the eunuch. If the word, then, signifies to pour, it was the eimuch he poured, and not the water on the eunuch. Now the same thing may be observed, with respect to aU the passages in which this word occui's. Not one of them wiU con- strue on the siipposition, that it signifies to pour. The same thing is true to a certain extent, with respect to sprinkle, and every other meanuig that has been given to this Avord. Some of the passages may construe on that supposition ; biit many of them vdll not. I need not waste time • in going over all the examples, and applying to them aU the meanings that have been given to the word in qiiestion. This has been done by many, and must, at a glance, be obvious to aU. It merely may be stated as a canon, that whatever this word signifies with respect to the ORDINANCE OF BAPTISJI, AVLLL TRANSLATE IT IN EVERY PASSAGE IN WHICH IT REFERS TO BAPTISM. There can be no exception to this, even though it should be supposed to admit a difierent syntax, in other meanings ; yet, as referred to the same ordinance, it must, without doubt, have the same meaning. This canon, then, excludes the pretensions of pour and sprinkle, and every other meaning that invention has given to it. Immerse or dip is the only word that can stand this ordeal. This I have shown can bear the test, not only with respect to this ordinance, but vdth respect to every instance in which the word is used. Can there be any rational doubt, then, in determining on the pretensions of the different claimants ? Let the unlearned reader prove this, by running over the passages in which the word is found, and applying the various words which have been given as translations of the original. The reason alleged, John iii. 23, for baptizing in a particular place, imphes, that baptism is immersion. " And John also was baptizing in jSlnon near to Sahm, becaiise there was much water there; and they came, and were baptized." But when Mr. Ewing reads this, he " can see nothing concerning immersion." Strange, indeed, that the same object should have an appearance so different to different eyes. Mr. Ewing sees here, Avith every one else, that the Holy Spirit assigns a reason for John's baptizing in ^non, and that this reason is, the cii'cum- stance of the convenience of water. As to my purpose, I care not whether it is translated " mxich water," or " many waters." Does not this imply, that the water was for the purpose of baptizmg ? The people came there, and were baptized, because of the sidtableness of the place for baptizing. This is the meaning that luidoubtedly will present itself to every candid reader, who has no system in his mind as to the mode of baptism. Let the language be submitted to persons utterly lonacquainted with Christianity, and among a thousand there will be but one judgment. Instead of being diSicidt to be discovered here, I ventvure to say, that there is scarcely any mind that has not some diffi- culty in keeping itself from seeing it. This is the laboui-: this is the difficulty. A person having made up his mind on the mode of baptism, 142 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. when lie comes to this passage, may succeed in satisfying himself with some view of the matter which has been created by Ms own fancy; but I am much mistaken, if it is not always with some diificulty. That the water was for the piu-pose of baptism, is to my mind the very testimony of the Holy Spirit. When I say, that in such a district, there are many bleach-greem, or many grist mills, because there is there a fine river, would not every person understand that the water was necessary for the bleaching, and for turning the wheels of the mills ? What wotild be thought of the critic who should deny this, and argue that the water was not necessary for the mills, or for the bleaching, but for the accommoda- tion of the persons who are employed about them ? Just such criticism is it, that denies that this passage makes the water here mentioned, necessary for baptism ; and finds out some other use for the water. But if Mr. Ewing will not see what these words so evidently imply, he makes ample amends by his quicksightedness in seeing here what is not here at all. He sees here " a plain reason why two large companies, which it was not the intention of God ever to unite together, except in the way of gradual transference, should nevertheless have been attracted to the neighbourhood of each other, where they might act without inter- ference, while separately engaged in making the same rehgious use of Avater." Here Mr. Ewuig can see very clearly, that the water referred to, was not for baptism, but for the Jewish purifications. He sees then what is neither said nor suggested. It is not in evidence at all, that Jewish purification was an object of this water. Mr. Ewing sees two large companies. I cannot see one large company in the passage, nor in all the history of John the Baptist. Mr. Ewing sees two companies not uniting. I can see no such thing among the Jews. Nor can I see such a separation between the disciples of John or of Christ, and other Jews. But that this reason exists only in Mr. Ewing's imagination, is clear from the fact, that Jesus went every where, and every where was attended with crowds immensely great. I care not what were the crowds attending John ; much water was not necessary for the purpose of accommodating hearers. This invention of Mr. Ewing is nothing better than that of his predecessors, who employed the water in giving drink to the camels. Mr. E^ving thinks that the expression refers not to ^non only, but also to the land of Judah. If there were such a plenty of water in aU the land of Judah, it would be no loss to us. But it is as plain as lan- guage can be, that the many waters spoken of were in ^non only. Having considered the syntax and connexion of the word baptizo, I shall next proceed to ascertain how far any hght can be obtained from the Scripture explanations of the ordinance, and the occasional allusions to it. It is a most providential circumstance, that the mode of this ordinance is determined not only by the word that designates it, — ^by its syntax, and words in construction with it, — ^but also by direct explanations. Section XVI. — Evidence from the Scripture Explanations of the Ordinance. — Examination of Rom. vi. 3.™ The apostle Paul, having THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 143 strongly and folly stated salvation to the guiltiest of men, through grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal hfe by Jesus Christ our Lord, anticipates, in the beginning of the sixth chapter of his epistle to the Eomans, the objection that in every age has been made to his doc- trine: " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ?" He refutes this objection by the fact, that from our union with Christ by faith, we have died along with him. And that Ave have died along with Christ, he proves from our baptism. " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death '?" Some- thing is here supposed to be imphed in baptism, of which no Christian should be ignorant; and that thing is, that aU who are baptized, are by that ordinance exhibited as dead along with Christ. To be baptized into Christ's death is not merely to be baptized into the faith of his death, but of oiu- own death with him. For if our death along with him is not imphed in being baptized into his death, then this would be no proof at all of our OAvn death. But it is our own death with Christ, that the apostle is proving by our baptism into Christ's death. The third verse would be no proof of what is asserted in the second verse, if our baptism into Christ does not imply our death in his death. " Therefore we are buried with him, by baptism, into death." As in Christ's death, we have died with him ; so in baptism, we are figuratively put into the grave along with him. Words cannot more plainly teach anything than these words declare, that in baptism we are buried with Christ. Baptism, then, must not only contain a hkeness to burial, but that hkeness is emblematical. There may be resemblance between two objects, and to exhibit that hkeness in words is a beauty hi language. But if the hkeness is merely accidental, it is only a figure of speech, and can teach nothing. To found an argiunent on such ground, would be the extravagance of fanaticism. Homer compares the falling of his heroes headlong fi-om their chariots, to the diving of water-fowl. But this resemblance is merely accidental, and the victor had no intention of giving an emblem of diving ; nor could any argument be groiinded on the likeness. When a person dips in bathing, he might be said to be buried in the water ; and there would be as good a likeness in this to Christ's burial, even as in baptism. But the hkeness is only accidental, not emblematical. No argument could be di'awn from this, to prove a dying with Christ. This would be a metaphor. But baptism is not a figure of speech ; it is an emblematical action. The hkeness is inten- tional, and the action performed is symbohcal. Were it not so, the apostle might as legitimately argue from the bath as from baptism. This distinction is self-evident, and we shaU find that it is of decisive import- ance. From not vmderstanding it, some have said that we have as good a right to find in the meaning of baptism, sometliing corresponding to planting, as to burial. Planting is a metaphor; there must then be a Hkeness, but no emblematical import. " That hke as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Here we see that baptism is an emblem also of the new life of the Christian. He dies with Christ to sin ; he rises with him to a new hfe of holiness. There 144 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. must, then, be sometlimg in baptism, that is calculated to be an emblem of a resuiTection, as well as of a burial. Immersion is a mode that ansAvers both; and immersion is the only mode that can do so. "For if we have been planted together in the Hkeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." In our baptism, then, we are emblematically laid in the grave with Christ, and we also emblematically rise with him. It is designed to point to our own resurrection, as well as the resurrection of Christ. In baptism, we profess our faith in. the one as past, and in the other as future. What simpHcity, what beauty, Avhat edification is contained in this ordinance ! How have all these been overwhelmed by the traditions of men ! How clearly does this ordinance present the truth that saves the soul ! How admirably is it calculated to recall the mind to a view of the grormd of hope, that is calculated to silence unbehef ! How is it that a vile sinner can escape the wrath of God, and obtain eternal life ? How is it that Chi'ist's work is available for him ? Why, when Christ paid our debt, we ourselves have paid our debt, for we are one with Christ. We have died with Christ, and have risen with Christ ; Christ's death is omt death ; Christ's burial is our burial ; Christ's resurrection is oux resur- rection ; Christ's sitting in heavenly places, is our sitting in heavenly places. This clear testimony of the Holy Spirit, Mr. Ewing endeavours to set aside, by a mode of criticism certainly the boldest and most violent that I recoUect ever to have seen from the pen of a man of God. The gross- ness of the perversions of those who know not God, is not astonishing. The extravagance even of Geologists, may be accounted for. But that one who knows and fears God, should take such liberties Avith his word, is more than I was prepared to expect. Indeed, there is nothing more extravagant in Neologism, than in the manner in Avhich Mr. Ewing explains the burial of Christ. Had I been informed merely of the result, without knoAving anything of the author, I should have at once concluded that it was the offspring of Neology. But the character of Mr. EAving, as Avell as the document itself, gives full eAddence that it is the work of sincerity. Indeed, while I must say that it is one of the most mischievous perversions of Scripture that I have ever met from the hand of a Christian, I am fully conAonced that the author considers that he has conferred an important benefit on the world, by his dis- covery in criticism. His AAold conclusions are speciously drawn from premises hastily adopted, and utterly unsound. He begins by saying, that " the great, and, as it appears to 'me, the only original reason why baptism has been thought to imply immersion, is the expression which occurs in Eom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12." I shall not answer for the dead, but for my oaatq part, the word by which the ordinance is designated, is perfectly sufficient for me, AAdthout a particle of eAddence from any other quarter. Yet I am disposed to set as great a value upon the eAddence of these passages as any Avriter can do. I value the eAddence of these passages so highly, that I look on them as perfectly decisive. They contain God's oaati explanation of his oAvn ordinance. And in this, I call upon my unlearned brethren to admfre THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 145 the Divine Avisdom. They do not understand the original, and the adoption of the words baptize and baptism can teach them nothing. Translators by adopting the Greek word, have contrived to hide the meaning from the unlearned. But the evidence of the passages in question, cannot be hid, and it is obvious to the most unlearned. The Spirit of God has, by this explanation, enabled them to judge for them- selves- in this matter. "Wliile the learned are fighting about baptizo, and certain Greek prepositions, let the unlearned tiu'n to Eom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, &c. Mr. Emng, speaking of the reasoning of the apostle in this passage, says: "He then infers, that since baptism has so immediate a i-eference to the death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be comiected also with his resurrection ; and that, as in the former view, it teaches the regene- rated the abandoning of the old life of sin, so, in the latter, it equally teaches them the habitual, increasing, and permanent pursiiit and progress of the new Hfe of righteousness." By no means, Mr. Ewing. This inference is not legitimate. Baptism might have a reference to burial, Avithout being by consequence connected wath his resurrection. Has not the Lord's supper an immediate emblematical reference to Christ's death, without any emblematical reference to his resurrection ? These tAvo things are quite distmct ; and it is possible for an ordinance to represent the one, Avithout representing the other. The Lord's-day is a memorial of Christ's resiurection, but is no emblem of liis burial. If there Avas nothing in baptism that is fitted to be an emblem of resuT' rection, baptism does not become an emblem of resurrection by conse- quence from being an emblem of burial. But baptism is here explained as an emblem of resiuTcction, as Avell as of burial ; there must, therefore, be something in the emblem, that Avill correspond to resiUTection as well as to burial. There is such a thing in immersion^ but there is no such thivig \T\ pouring ; nor is there any such thing in applying AA^ater as an emblem' of sepulchral rites. This, then, OA-^erturns Mr. EAviug's system altogether. He confesses virtually in this quotation, that the apostle infers that baptism is connected AAdth the resiurection. If so, as there is nothing in sepulchral rites, that is, in Avashing and embalming the dead, that corresponds to resurrection, Avashing and embalming the dead cannot be the burial referred to, — and pouring Avater as an emblem of washing and embalming the dead, cannot be baptism. Nothing can be more decisiA^e than this. Indeed, so far from arguing that resurrection must be implied in baptism, because that baptism represents Christ as dead, Ave could not knoAV that either death or resruTCction Avas referred to in that ordinance, had not inspiration given the information. It is possible that an ordinance, performed either by immersion or pouring, might have had no instruction in mode. The instruction might haA^e been all in the water. That there is any meaning in the mode, we learn merely fronl the inspired explanation. Here Mr. EAving takes the half of his edification in this ordinance, from a source that does not contain anything on the subject. There is nothing in the emblem, according to his vicAV of it, that corresponds to a neAV hfe, or resurrec- tion. Has Avashing the dead any likeness to resurrection ? HaA^e L 146 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. sepiilchral rites, or embalming, any likeness to resurrection? Mr. Ewing was so tender in the conscience, that he scrupled to give the name to this ordinance from immersion, if it also denoted emersion, though these two things are necessarily connected, and both explained as belonging to the ordinance. He does not scruple to make the emblem of death, an emblem of life by consequence, "It is a common remark," says Mr. Ewing, "that the apostle is treating in this passage, not of the form of baptism, but of its object, its design, and its actual effects." Let its form be what it may, this passage treats of its object as known from its form. " On this account," says he, " many are of opinion that no inference can be drawn from his language, concerning the form of baptism at all." No inference is necessary. The apostle has drawn the inference himself. We could not have drawn the inference which the apostle has drawn. Had not the apostle explained this ordinance, we should have had no right to do so. But even if baptism had not here been explained as a symbolical burial, — had it been alluded to as a burial merely in metaphorical language, it would have been equally decisive of form, though not of meaning. If baptism is a burial merely by a figure of speech, there must be a Hkeness between baptism and burial, to justify that figiu'e. "Perhaps," says Mr. Ewing, "it would be more coirect to say, that he is here treating of the connexion between the justification and the sanctification of Christians." True — ^but he is treating of these things as they are implied in baptism. He is treating also of more. He incidentally treats of the resurrection of believers as imphed in their baptism. "And that in doing so," says Mr. Ewing, " he makes three distinct allu.sions, to baptism, to grafting, to crucifixion." He makes no allusion to grafting at all; and whatever is the meaning of the phrase planted together, it refers to baptism. Crucifixion does not aUude to baptism. We come now to the examination of Mr. E wing's account of " the scriptural meaning of 'being buried.' " Here we shall find the mysteries of the critical art. By a learned and laborious process, Mr. Ewing endeavours to prove that Christ was not properly buried at all; and that burial in Scripture is not burial, but washing or embalming the dead. Now, on the very face of this allegation it contains its own con- demnation. Burying, in the Scripture meaning, must be the same as burying in the common meaning, otherwise the Scriptures are not a reve- lation. This is a canon — a canon which is self-evident. If the Scrip- tures do not use words in the sense in which they will be understood by thosd*who speak the language, they do not instruct, but mislead. I overturn the whole system, then, by taking away the foundation on which it rests. It assumes what is not true in any instance. " By biirying," says Mr. Ewing, " we commonly mean the lowering of the dead body into the grave, covering it Avith earth, and so leaving it under ground." This, indeed, is in general our way of burying. But we should apply the term to burying in any way. We should say that a person was buried in a vault, where he would lie exactly as Christ lay, — ^without lowering, without a covering of mould, &c. If a person was THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 147 deposited in all respects as Christ was deposited in the tomb, we shordd say that he was huried. The difference is merely in circumstances ; the things are essentially the same. Besides, the immersion of a believer, is equally suited to aU kinds of biu-ial. No part of the figure depends on any peculiarity in age or nation. " In Scripture," says Mr. Ewng, " to bw'y, not only includes all the preparations of the body for interment, but is the expression used in cases where our method of interment was not practised, where no inter- ment followed at the time, and where no final interment followed at all." Neither in Scripture nor any where else, is the word used for pre- paratory rites alone, or where the body was not truly and properly interred. What does Mr. Ewing mean by final interment ? Does he mean that Christ was not finally interred, because he rose on the third day ? Then none of us wiU be finally interred; for we shall all rise again. Does he mean that the disciples did not consider him as truly interred, and that they designed to bury him better ? They had no such design. They intended to cover him with more spices, but not to take him from the place where he was buried. He was as truly buried as if he had been in the ground till the resurrection. What does Mr. Ewing mean ? Does he deny that Christ was truly buried ? If he was not buried, the Scriptures are false. And if he was truly buried, though he had lain but a moment, our baptism may be an emblem of his burial. But it seems Mr. Ewing has Scripture proofs for the meaning that he assigns to burial. Let us then take a look at these. In Gen. i. 26, where the Hebrew says, they embalmed Joseph, " the Septuagint," says Mr. Ewing, " has ethapsan, they buried him.'''' Very true. But does this imply, that by ethapsan the translators understood embalming ? No such thing. Had they used the word in this sense, they could not have been understood by those who spoke the Greek language. This translation is not a proof either that the Septuagint understood embalming to be the meaning of burial^ or that they did not understand the true meaning of the original. It is only proof of what occurs in this translation a thousand times, and what occasionally occiu'S in every translation, namely, careless and loose rendering. Their text said, he was embalmed : they content themselves with saying, he was biuied. " The rites of burial were," says Mr. Ewing, " fi-om the very com- mencement, a proof that the attending friends had ascertained the fact of the decease." Indeed, it is obvious enough, that they would not com- mence these rites till after the death of the person ; but these rites never were designed as proof of this. Above all, the Scriptures do not require such a mode of ascertaining the fact of decease. He adds, " and that among all behevers of revelation, the zeal and the solemnity with which these rites have ever been performed, ought to be considered as the effect, not merely of personal attachment, but of rehgious principle, and particularly of the hope that God will raise the dead." Wliatever may have been the origin of these rites, nothing can be more certain than that they were used by persons who had no notion of resurrection, — nay, by many who denied it. Above all, these rites were not a Divine l2 148 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. appointment for reminding of the resurrection. Nothing can be built on this. " It is our happiness to know," says Mr. Ewing, " that our blessed Saviour never was finally interred." By finally interred here, ]\Ir. Ewing must mean that he was raised again, and did not he hke the other dead. Eor, as far as concerns our salvation and comfort, he might as well have been kept in a common grave for the period of three days, as have been buried in a rock. But may he not have been truly buried, though he had risen in a moment after being deposited ? " Preparations of his body for burial were made," says Mr. Ewing, " both by anticipation, and after the event of his death had taken place. In both cases they are called ' his burial.' " How can Mr. Ewing say so ? The preparatory rites are never called hunal. The passages referred to, have not the smaUest appearance of confoimding embalming ■with haying. John xii. 3 represents Mary not as burying our Lord by the act of anointing him, but as having anointed him as preparatory for burial. She anointed him by anticipation; but she did not bury him by anticipation. Is it said that she buried him ? The woman, Matt.xxvi.l2, is represented as doing what she did, not to buiy him, but to embalm him, or prepare him for burial. She did to him, when ahve, what is usually done to persons after death. She embalmed him by anticipation. EntapMazo is used for embalming, but thapto never. " After our Lord had given up the ghost," says Mr. E-wing, " the rites of bui'ial were renewed by Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus." This was strictly and properly the embalming. But is this called a burial ? Had they done nothing but this, Jesus would not have been buried ; and the Scriptures Avould not have been ftdfiUed. He adds, " and were intended to have been finished by the women which came up with our Lord," &c. These rites, then, were not finished; and if they are burial^ Jesus was not buried. INIr. Ewing, then, has iitterly failed in his attempt to jjrove, that in Scripture, preparatory rites are called burial. Not one of his examples has a shadow of proof. I ^vill noAV make some general remarks on this strange opinion. First, The word thapto signifies to biai/, and is never appHed exclu- sively to preparatory rites. This is as true, Avith respect to Scripture use, as it is with respect to the use of the classics. Mr. Ewing gives a meaning to this word, not confirmed by use, but merely to suit his purpose. In hke manner sunthapto, the word here used, signifies to bury one thing or person with another, — never to embalm one thing Avith another. The opinion, then, does not deserve even a hearing. Secondly, Thapto apphes to all kinds of burial. No doubt, originally, in all countries, burial was by digging a pit, and covering the dead with the mould. But when repositories were built for the dead, or were scooped out of rocks, the same word was still used. This, in fact, is the case with our own word bury. We apply it to the depositing of a body in a vault, as well as the common burial. This process in enlarging the meaning of words, may be exemplified in a thousand words. The idea that is common to all burying, is that of covering the dead, or sur- THE MODE OF BAPTISM. I-IQ rounding them with something to keep them from violation. It is quite a waste of time, tlien, for Mr. E^ving to discuss the situation and pecu- liarities of our Lord's sepidchre. He Avas buried as many others are buried; and to this burial there is a likeness in our baptism, when we are buried in water. Thirdly, Biurial and embalming are often distinguished as quite different things. Josephus speaking of the magnificent manner in which Herod biuied Aristobulus, says, " And as for his funeral, that he took care should be very magnificent, by making great preparation of a sepidchre to lay his body in, and providing a great quantity of spices, and burying many ornaments with him," &c. Here the embalming and the burying are distinguished. It was the laying of him in the sepulchre that was the burial. It may be noted also, that here is a magnificent sepulchre, built as a house for the dead, in which the corpse lay on a bier or couch; yet the person is said to be biu-ied. If Christ was not truly buried, Aristobulus was not truly buried. We have here, also, not only su7ithapto, but sughatathapto. The ornaments that were buried together with Aristobulus, were deposited in the tomb with him, — not washed along with him by preparatory rites. These ornaments were buried down luith him, although he was laid, hke Christ, in a sepulchre above ground. Yet this is as tridy burying as the common way of burying; though the sepidchre should have been on the top of the highest mountain in the world, the corpse is buried under a covering, as truly as if it were deposited in the centre of the earth. Moschus, describing a funeral, represents the burial as taking place after all the rites were finished. Meg. i. 35. Patroclus, notwithstanding all the embalming he receiA^ed, appears to his friend Achilles, and calls for burial. Tliapte me, " bury me.'''' The dead body of Hector was washed regidarly by the maids of Achilles, yet it was not buried tiU long after. The passage produced by Dr. Cox from Herodotus, is most decisive. The embalming is designated by taricheuo,'' the burying by thapto. But it is useless to be particular in disproving a thing that has not even the colour of plausibility to support it. No tAvo things can be more distinct than washing or embalming the dead, and bunjing the dead. Indeed, in the burial of Jesus itself, these tAvo things are distinguished. They fii-st roUed him in spices, Avhich Avas the embalming : then they laid him in the sepulchre, Avhich is the burying. What is laying in a sepulchre, but burying ? But Mr. EAving says, that the body of Christ " Avas neA'cr finally deposited in the tomb ; but, after being Avoimd up Avith about an hundred pounds weight of spices," &c. No matter hoAv short a time it was in the tomb ; in the tomb, it Avas buried like any other dead bodA^ The disciples had no intention of ever removing it from the tomb. Tile women Avho came with more spices, had no intention to unbury it, or take it elscAvhere. To giA'e more spices, Avas not to complete the burying, but to complete the embalming. Were a person in ' Edinbm-gh to visit the grave of a friend every day, and eA^eu open both graA^e and cofKn, to ascertain Avhether the body Avas removed, this Avould not affect the biu-ying. Wliy shoidd preparatory rites be called the burying of Jesus, 150 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. seeing he was actually laid in the sepulchre ? No fancy can be wilder than this. Fourthly, The representations of Scripture suppose Jesus to have been truly buried. " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly ; so shall Ae Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," Matt. xii. 40. Mr. Ewing himself allows that this was fulfilled by his being laid in a sepulchre. And what is laying in a sepulchre, but burying? Besides, this removes all Mr. Ewing's objections with respect to the situation of the tomb of Jesus. In this sepulchre, Jesus was in the heart of the earth. It is usual for a ridge of rocks to have earth on the top. The Saviour was under the earth here as well as if he had been buried in a pit at the bottom of a vaUey. Again, Christ's being buried, is taught as a part of the gospel, 1 Cor. XV. 1. To allege, then, that he was not truly buried, is to caU in question the truth of the gospel. " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached tinto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I declared unto yoti first of aU, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." Here, what was in the evangelist caUed three days in the heart of the earth, the apostle calls being buried; for he is said to have risen on the third day. The third day from what? The third day from his being buried. He is here considered as being three days buried, for he rose on the third day from his being buried. His resurrection here, is also opposed to his being buried; it niust then be burying, in the proper sense of the word. Fifthly, The very basis of this doctrine is a mere assumption, namely, that the dead body of Jesus was washed. It is not in evidence that he was washed at aU ; and nothing can be deduced from a mere supposi- tion. Mr. Ewing, indeed, endeavours to supply what is wanting in the history. He alleges, what no one will deny, that it was usual to wash the dead. But does it follow from this, that Jesus must have been washed? "We shotdd not have known that he was embalmed, had not the history given us the information. It is not necessary that the dead body of Jesus shoTild receive all the usual rites, nor any of them, except those that prophecy foretold. The proof, then, that it was usual to wash the dead, is no proof that Jesus was washed. *[ndeed, I perfectly agree with Dr. Cox, that it is probable Jesus was not washed at aU. So far as the history goes, this is the obvious conclusion. I acknowledge, indeed, that many things might have taken place, that are not mentioned in the history. If any other part of Scripture said, or impKed that Jesus was washed, as well as embalmed, I would argue that the omission of the fact in the history is no evidence to the contrary. But if the washing is not recorded, nothing can be built on it ; because it might not have taken place. The washing of Jesus is an apocryphal washing, of no more authority than the story of Tobit and his dog, or of Bel and the Dragon. I admit no argument but what is founded either on Scripture, or self- , THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 151 evident truth. Had Mr. Ewing been obviating a difficulty, — had he been proving that some part of Scripture asserts that the dead body of Jesus was washed, and had any one alleged the silence of the history as evidence of the contrary, I would take part with Mr. Ewing. The silence of history is not to be alleged against proof. To remove a difficulty, it is stifficient that the thing alleged is possible; to be an argument, the thing alleged must be in evidence. This distinction is self-evidently obvious, when it is considered ; yet it is a thing that Hes hid from most controversial writers. But Mr. Ewing says, " as far as the preliminary process went, we are told it was conducted, as the manner of the Jews was to bury." No, Mr. Ewing, we are not told this. Had this been said, it would settle the question ; for undoubtedly, it was the maimer of the Jews to wash the dead. But we are not told that, as far as the prehminary process went, all the usiial rites were observed. It is the winding in the hnen cloth with the spices, that is said to have been, " as the manner of the Jews is to bury." Mr. Ewing alleges the state of the body, covered with blood, &c., as making washing necessary. All this, however, is no evidence that it was done. Had it been necessary to fulfil anything in Scripture, there is no doubt it would have been done. But there is no necessity to fulfil national customs. The burying of Jesus with his blood unwashed, marred not his sacrifice, nor left any prophecy unfulfilled. It was customary for all friends to escort the body to the grave ; it was customary to keep the corpse some time after death, yet Jesus was carried imme- diately to the grave Avithout any funeral pomp. Sixthly, Is it not above aU things absurd to suppose, that an ordinance in the church of Christ should be instituted as an emblem of a thing that is never once mentioned in his history? If the washing of the dead body of the Saviour was a thing of so much importance, is it credible that it woidd not have been mentioned? How is it that the spices are mentioned, yet the washing, which was the principal thing, omitted? Seventhly, Mr. Ewing supposes, that the washing, as a part of the embalming, is put for the whole. Wliy does he make such a supposition? "Was there not a word to signify embahning? Why then use a word that denotes only a part of the thing? Can he produce any instance to give authority to such a supposition? Was it usual to denote the whole process of embalming by the word ivash .? If not, why does Mr. EAving make the arbitrary supposition? Again, the washing was no part of the embahning. It was a part of the rites of burying, and as such, when embahning was used, washing of course first took place. But it is evident, that the washing and the embalming Avere different things. Besides, many were Avashed Avho were not embalmed. If so, it Avas impossible to designate embahning by washing. This Avould have im- plied, that all Avho Avere Avashed were embalmed; AAdiereas multitudes were washed Avho were not embalmed. This theory, then, is not only founded on an arbitrary supposition ; but that supposition may be proved to be false. It is an axiom, that Avashing cannot stand for embalming, if many who were washed Avere not embalmed. 152 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. Eighthly, This theory makes baptism an emblem of the embalming of Christ. This is a new viev/ of the import of baptism, that must be as unexpected to those who baptize by pouring, as to the friends of immer- sion. From the days of John the Baptist to the present hour, was ever such a thing heard of but from Mr. Ewing? K this is true, there has not been one properly baptized till the time of the author. For this discovery, Mr. Ewing is midoubtedly entitled to a patent. Till his time, the baptized person was never embalmed. This is a new mystery in baptism. But how does this consist with the other mysteries that the author has found in the same ordinance? The baptized person drinks from the cup of nature as emblematical of a host of blessings ; and from the same cup he is washed and embalmed for funeral. No popish ordi- nance can vie mth this ordinance of IVIr. Ewing, in fertility of mysteries. The mystery of the five woimds has as good a foundation; but it is not so pregnant in multifarious meaning. If all these things are contained in baptism, it is a most heterogeneous ordinance; and I am sure, that of all the miUions Avho practise it, there is not one in every thousand that understands it. The Eoman Cathohc chro-ch has done much better. She has a multitude of mysteries in baptism, but she has a corresponding multitude of emblems. The oil, and the spittle, and the breathing, &c. &c., entitle her to enlarge the meaning of her ordinance. But Mr. E^ving, by the management of one handftd of water, contrives to couch the most discordant meanings. But if washing stands for embalming as a part for the whole, then it cannot, in this situation, stand simply for itself, without the other parts of the process of embalming. In baptism, the water must signify not washing only, nor chiefly, but also and especially the spices, &c. The principal part of the mystery must be in the anointing -with oil, and the use of the spices, for these were the principal things in the embalming. Now, Mr. Ewing overlooks all but the washing; which is only the previous step to the embalming. He first makes the embalming the principal thing, tlmt he may have some plausible foundation for getting rid of true burying, by substituting the embalming in its place. Then, when this is effected, as he has no need of embalming, but finds it rather cumbersome, he contrives to dismiss it, retaining only the part that fits him. Washing is brought in only in the right of embalming; but when- ever it po2?s its head into this situation, it takes care to displace its principal. Accordingly, washing is the only thing that is made emblem- atical. The oil and spices have no mystery. Is not this unjust to the chief parts of the embalming ? Surely the anointing ought to have a place in baptism, if baptism is an emblem of embalming. Spices also cannot be dispensed ^vith. Even if they are not used, as they are the chief thing in embalming, they must be chiefly considered in baptism, which is an emblem of embalming. The Chiu'ch of Rome "will thank Mr. Emng for the oil, which he does not seem forward to use ; but the spices, by a very little ingenuity, might serve his system effectually. As embalming preserves the body from putrefaction, so baptism may not only be an emblem of the washing of a corpse, but of the resurrection. Ninthly, Mr, Ernng complains of the want of hkeness between Christ's THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 153 burial and immersion ; yet he makes a handful of water an emblem not only of washing a corpse, but of the whole rites of embalming. Surely there can be nothing more unlike burial rites, than the popping of a handful of water into the face of an infant. But the complaint of Avant of likeness in immersion to the burial and resurrection of Christ, is quite unreasonable. It is as striking as any emblem can be. It ought, how- ' ■^ ever, to be remarked, that the ordinance is merely emblematical — not ^ dramatic. In the former, there is no need of that exact and minute likeness that the latter requires. The former could not be known to be a Hkeness of something else, if it were not explained to be such. The latter is, by its very appearance, known to be an emblem. The sacrifices of the Jewish law could not, from mere external appearance, have been known to represent the death of Christ. But the dramatic burying ,/' of Charles V. declared its own object. Let it be considered also, that in the emblem of a btu'ial, there is no need of a Hkeness in the laying down of the body of the person bap- tized. The emblem is in the actual state of the body as being covered with the water. The hkeness to the resurrection consists not in the very manner of being taken up out of the water, but in the rising itself. Nothing coiild afford a resemblance of the way of the raising of the dead. There was no likeness between the way of killing the sacrifice and the manner of Christ's death. There was no likeness between the manner in which Jonah was swallowed by the whale, and again thrown out, to the way in which Christ was carried into the tomb, and in which he came out of the tomb ; yet Jonah in the whale's belly was an emblem of Christ as being three days in the heart of the earth. Surely Mr. Ewing should have attended more to the nature of an emblem, and have distinguished what is the point of resemblance, before he ventui'ed to question the likeness between the baptism of behevers and the buiial of Christ, which is asserted by the Holy Spirit. If the Baptists set ' any value on the manner of putting the body of the baptized person v under water, in my opinion they come under the same censure. Mr. Ewing's whole dissertation on the Jewish manner of biu-ying the distin- guished dead, has no bearing on the subject. Between immersion and burying in any manner, there is a hkeness. It is nothing to our purpose to make that likeness dramatic. Mr. Ewing is of opinion, that verse 5 does not refer to baptism. But whatever is the true meaning of the word translated " planted together," it is evident, that it must have its reference to baptism. It is a distinct figure, and the manner of introducing it, evidently shows that it, equally Avith burying^ refers to baptism. " For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resiu-- rection." The conditional statement is here evidently foimded on what precedes. "If we have been planted," &c. He does not pass on to a new argument to show that we are dead Avith Christ, leaAangthe subject of baptism; but having shoAvn the biu'ial of the Christian in baptism, he goes on to shoAV that resiuTection is equally important. If Ave liaA-e been buried Avith Christ, so shall Ave rise Avith him. Had he quitted the subject of baptism, and introduced a neAv argument, Avhich had no 154 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. reference to baptism, he would not have stated it conditionally. When he says, " For if we have been planted," it is impHed that he had been saying something expressing or implying that they had been planted. Whatever is the meaning of sumphutoi, it must have a reference to baptism. Mr. Ewing thinks that sumphutoi here signifies grafted, and of course can have no likeness to baptism. On the contrary, for this very reason I say that it cannot signify graftirig, because it is expressly said, that we have been sumphutoi in the likeness of Christ's death. If, then, there is in grafting no likeness to death, the word cannot mean grafting. What- ever is the meaning of sumphutoi, it must suit the supposition of a likeness to death. Even if this word had no reference to baptism, it must refer to a Hkeness of death. We have been made sumphutoi in the likeness of his death. But independently of the connexion altogether, I mauatain that the word does not signify grafted. Mr. Ewing produces no authority from use to establish this meaning. When it refers to trees, it does not desig- nate the operation of grafting, or of inserting a part of one into another ; but to the planting of trees in the same bed. The trees of a grove are sumphutoi. Gh-afting is, indeed, one of the figures employed to repre- sent the union of Christ and his people, and some excellent observations on this subject are contained in Mr. Ewing's dissertation on this verse. But they have no apphcation to this subject. A house, a temple, the human body, the husband and wife, are all figiu-es of this union. But they are not the figures used here. No more is grafting. It is a fine figure ui its own place ; but it is no likeness to death, and therefore has nothing to do with baptism. If the allusion is here to planting, as it is expressly said to have a hkeness to death, and refers to baptism, the resemblance must be found in the burying of the roots of the plants. The hkeness is sufficiently obvious to justify a metaphor. Mr. Ewing's attempt, then, to find in pouring a handful of water on the face, a hkeness to the burial of Christ, has utterly failed. It is as forced as anything that the wildest imagination ever conceived. Nothing but the necessity of a favourite system could send a man on such a perilous expedition. It is most astonishing, that any man who allows that Jesus Christ lay three days in the tomb, should attempt to find his burial in the washing or embalming of his body. This attempt of Mr. Ewing to force a hkeness between baptism and the rites of embalming, and to make the biuial of Christ, not his being laid in the sepulchre, but his being washed as a corpse, is of great importance as a document on this subject. It testifies in the strongest manner, that in Mr. Emng's judgment, the evidence from Eom. vi. 3, and Col. ii. 12, that baptism contains a hkeness to burial, is so obvious, that he could see no way to explain these passages otherwise. Had any other explanation seemed to him possible, certainly he would not have had recourse to so wild a thought, as that Christ's burial was not his interment, and that hury in the Scriptures relates to rites preparatory to interment. It is seh'-evident, that no man would have fled to such a refuge, who could have found any other. I appeal to common sense for THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 155 the truth of this observation. Mr. Ewing not only had no temptation to find a hkeness to burial in these passages, but his cause would have been much better served, could he have proved that these passages con- tain no such hkeness. Since, then, in such circumstances he has confessed a hkeness, and since to divert this likeness to another object, he was obliged to have recourse to so violent an expedient, we have a right to say, not only that his judgment is in favour of hkeness, but that aU his ingenuity could not explain the passages in a manner satisfactory to himself, without the supposition of hkeness. But what Mr. Swing's intrepidity and ingenuity did not attempt, Dr. Wardlaw has undertaken. He explains the passages on the supposition that baptism has no hkeness to burial in any sense. Now, in this we have Dr. "Wardlaw's judgment virtually, but clearly pronounced, that Mr. Ewing's attempt is a failure. We have a right then to say, that Mr. E^ving's explanation of these passages is unsatisfactory to the most sagacious of his own party. But Dr. Wardlaw's opinion of the insuffi- ciency of Mr. Ewing's explanation, has the more value, when it is considered, that by refusing to adopt it, he is obhged to have recourse to an expedient as violent, and as wild, as that of Mr. Ewing itself. To - assert, that there is here no likeness impUed between baptism and burial, does as great violence to language as can easily be conceived. If, there- fore, Dr. Wardlaw is so convinced of the insufficiency of Mr. Ewing's explanation, that he ventures on one so extravagant, his opinion of Mr. Ewing's failure is entitled to the greater weight. It was his interest to coincide with Mr. Ewing's explanation, had he conceived that it was at all tenable. He would not have ventrued to come ashore upon a plank, had he not found Mr. Ewing's leaky boat sinking under him. Dr. Wardlaw complains of the mode of controversy that argues from discrepancies between those on the same side. I admit that the argu- ment may be abused. But if he complain of my argument on this point, he does not see its bearing. Persons on the same side of a con- troversy, may differ with respect to the explanation of many passages, without any detriment to their common cause. But the difference here is about a thing which must in itself be obvious, namely, whether a certain phrase imphes the hkeness of one thing to another. About this there cannot in reahty be a ground for controversy among those who understand the words. The difference, also, is of such a natui-e, that each must look on the other as giving up the common cause. As Mr. Ewing is so fully con- vinced that it is impossible to deface the likeness, he must look upon those who do not agree with him in finding it in preparatory rites, as giving up the passage to his opponents. As Dr. Wardlaw cannot explain the passages on the supposition of likeness without admitting immersion, he must look upon those who admit hkeness, as yielding the doctrine in debate. On the other hand, we may differ aboiit the mean- ing of sumphutoi, without the least danger to our common cause. One may say, it is '■'■planted together,^'' another, that it is '■'■joined together^'' without overturning the common doctrine. My argument is founded, also, on the extravagancies to which each of these writers is obliged to 156 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. have recourse, in order to defend liis opinion. Each of them mnst have strong reason of dissatisfaction with the opinion of the other, when, rather than embrace it, he has recourse to an opposite point of extrava- gance. One sees likeness so clearly, that rather than deny it, he endeavours to find it where sobriety of judgment never could look for it. The other sees the extravagance of this attempt so clearly, that, rather than adopt it, he mil deny that the passages contain any likeness. But let lis now take a glance at the process of ejectment by which Dr. Wardlaw has dispossessed likeness out of these passages. "To be ' baptized into Christ,' " says he, " is to be baptized into the faith of him as the Messiah," &c. And again, " The simple meaning of the expres- sion evidently is, that by being baptized into the faith of his death, as the death of our surety and substitute, we become partakers with Mm in it.'''' Now, what is here said to be evidently the simple meaning of this expression, is evidently not its meaning at all. We do not become par- takers in the death of Christ, by being baptized into the faith of his death. "We become partakers in the death of Christ, by faith, before baptism, and without baptism ; and should have been equally so, had baptism never been instituted. In baptism, this participation with Christ is exhibited in figure, just as we are said to wash aujay our sins in baptism. Sins are washed away by faith in the blood of Christ, but they are symbohcally washed away in baptism. Just so we become partakers in the death of Christ the moment we believe; in baptism, this participation is exhibited by a symbol. Dr. Wardlaw, by this mode of interpretation, considers faith in Christ'' s death, and baptism into his death, as equivalent expressions. But to be " baptized into his death," is more than to " believe in his death." Baptism into his death, not only imports that we believe in him as our substitute, but marks our death in his death. To be baptized into his death, is the same as to be buried into death. In reality, we die with Christ the moment we believe ; but this is not expressed by the phrase, faith in Christ's death. It is learned from other parts of the Scriptiures. Now, herein lies the importance of the mode of baptism. It marks, in a figure, the way in which we become partakers in the benefits of Christ's death. This is by our being, by a Divine constitiition, one with him. His death is a proper atonement for us, because we die with him, so that in reality his death is ours. This is not necessary in aU cases of substitution. To have a debt discharged by another, there is no neces- sity to become one with him. But it is not so in crime. Justice is not satisfied, except the criminal himself suffers; and by the Divine constitution, that makes all beUevers one with Christ, they are all con- sidered as having died with him. The criminals have suffered, since he who suffered was one with them. Baptism, then, marks this circum- stance. It shows, in a figure, that union with Christ in his death, burial, and resiu-rection, which we have by faith. According to Dr. Wardlaw's way of explaining these passages, there was no occasion to mention baptism at aU. If the apostle is speaking of the real oneness with Christ, without considering it as exhibited in a figure, he might as weU have said, " Know ye not, that as many as have THE MODE or BAPTISM. 157 believed in Christ's death, have died along with him ?" This would express all that Dr. Wardlaw takes out of the passage ; and it w^ould express it definitely. Why, then, does the ajiostle bring in baptism at all ? Again, if baptism implies burial only as implying faith in Christ's death, then the Lord's supper, or anything that implies faith, might have been referred to on this occasion, as well as baptism. We might as well say that we are biu-ied by the Lord's supper as buried by baptism. We might as well say that we are crucified by baptism. But such phraseology is never used in the Scriptures. The only reason, then, that baptism is here brought forward at all, must be that it is a figure of burial. That baptism has a likeness to death, is put beyond question in this passage, from the phrase, buried ivith him through baptism into death. Here is a burial by or through the means of baptism. What buries us into death ? It is baptism. But the death into which baptism buries us, must be a figirrative death. It is faith that buries us truly into Christ's death. But the death and burial here spoken of, are effected, not by faith, but by baptism. This phrase refutes Dr. Wardlaw's asser- tion, that though a likeness might be fancied between immersion and burial, no Hkeness to death can be found in it. The phrase, buried by baptism into death, imports that we die Avith Christ in baptism, as well as we are biu^ied with him. Nay, it is by burial Ave die. We are supposed to be buried into death. And the figiu-e is well fitted for this purpose. To immerse a hving man, affords an emblem of death as well as of biu-ial. The baptized person dies under the water, and for a moment lies biu-ied with Christ. Christ's own death was spoken of under the figure of a baptism. Dr. Wardlaw, indeed, asserts that the phrase, buried with him by baptism into his death, merely directs the attention to that into ivhich they were baptized. But the passage says nothing of the doctrine into Avhich they were baptized, in any other way than as it is contained in the figiu-e. As I observed before, it is by baptism, and not by faith, they are here said to be bui-ied; and, therefore, the burial must be a figura- tive burial. The phrase in Col. ii. 12, is different, but equally express. It is buried with him in baptism. This biu-ial, then, takes place, not in believing, but in baptism. We are bmied with him when we are bap- tized, and by the act of baptizing. The two exj)ressions, when taken together, make the thing more definite. One of them expresses that it is in baptism that we are buried; the other, that it is by baptism that we are buried. Dr. Wardlaw speaks of this passage, as containing " a beautiful illus- tration of the spiritual connexion of believers with Christ." Now^, how is this an illustration, if it is not by containing a likeness to the thing illustrated ? Is it not absurd to speak of illustrating by things in which there is no resemblance to the principal object ? Dr. Wardlaw cannot consistently look on this as an illustration. He sets out with supposing, that the passage refers merely to the participation that believers have in Christ's death, burial, and resiurection, by faith, wdthout any Hkeness to these things in baptism. Now, if this is the case, death, biu'ial, and 158 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. resurrection, are here not an illustration of connexion, but an exemplifica- tion of connexion. By calling these things an illnstration, the author gives up his doctrine. Indeed, these things are so obviously an illustra- tion— ^the passage so evidently considers death, biu-ial, and resuiTection, as figiu'ative, that it is not easy even for the most determined enemy of immersion, to speak much about the passage, without using language that admits this. "To be dead with Christ ^^^ says Dr. "VVardlaw, " and to he buried with Christ, are the same thing." Certainly not. Death is different from burial, though burial includes death. Were they not different, they would not both have been mentioned here. It is a distinct part of the gospel testimony, that Christ was buried. His biuial was as distinct from his death, as his resurrection was. " The latter of the two phrases," says Dr. Wardlaw, " appears to be used in the fourth'verse, chiefly for the sake of completing the apostle's figure." This assertion is most injurious to the language of the Holy Spirit, and totally iinfounded in the lawfal use of figures. I am bold to assert, that there cannot be an instance of what the author asserts, with- out a serious trespass of the laws of figui'ative language. It is true, indeed, that in allegory there may be some points in the figure which have nothing to correspond to them in the thing illusti'ated, because the unity of the resembhng object carmot be broken. But to add burial to death, is to add one figure to another without any necessity. K, then, there is no distinct meaning in burial, to add it to death is vicious in taste, and childish in argument. The only reason why burial is men- tioned, miist be that it has a distinct meaning. To suppose that the apostle would bring it in merely for the purpose of stidnging one figure to another, is not only an affront to the Holy Spirit, but would be an impeachment of the good sense of the apostle, if he had ^vritten without inspiration. Plato, indeed, goes over the Avhole human body, and brings out of it a chain of metaphors. He makes the head a citadel, the neck an isthmus, &c. This is sufficiently childish, but it is manly compared with what the apostle is supposed to do. Plato gives some meaning to each of his figures ; but the apostle strings one figure to another, not for the sake of additional illustration, but out of the puerile conceit of completing his series of figau^es. It Avould have been an improvement, had he inserted the embalming between death and the bui'ial, and added the funeral procession to the series. But what shall we say of the apostle's figure ^ Is there, then, a figure in the apostle's language ? Are this death, burial, and resurrec- tion, figurative ? If the death, burial, and resurrection in baptism are figurative, they must have a Hkeness. Is there any figiu-ative death without a hkeness ? There is a common proverb, that murder -tvUl never He. The murderer will sometimes discover himself even by talking in his sleep. Dr. Wardlaw has murdered this passage most barbarously, and it is no wonder if he informs against himself. While he has assassinated the hkeness in baptism to death, biuial, and resur- rection, he speaks oi illustration, figure, and resemblance. " As it was necessary," says Dr. Wardlaw, " in order to Christ's THE MOPE OF BAPTISM. 159 rising, that he should be laid in the grave ; so in the figure, it is neces- sary that we should be viewed as buried with him, in order to our rising with him to newness of life." Certainly, it is necessary that we should be viewed in the figiire of baptism as buried with Christ. But if the author means that we are buried -with Christ by faith in him as a substitute merely by a mode of speaking, it is a most serious error. Does the author say that it is in a figurative way of speaking that the believer dies -with Christ ? If he does, he has a very inadequate view of the behever's one- ness with Christ. The believer is one with Christ, not by a peculiar mode of speaking, or a particular way of viewing the subject, but by a real union. He is one with Chiist as triily as he is one with Adam. He dies with Christ as truly as he fell with Adam. Christ's work is his, as truly as Adam's sin is his. By a Divine constitution all Adam's posterity are one in him, and so his first sin is really and truly theirs. By a similar Divine constitution all Christ's people are one with him, and his work is as really theirs, as if they had themselves performed it. When it is said that Christians have died with Christ by faith, there is no more figure than when it is said that they have died in Adam, or that they shall die themselves. But this view of the subject overturns the apostle's reasoning alto- gether. Dr. Wardlaw understands the apostle as speaking of the connexion that beUevers have with Christ by faith ; and that they are here said to be dead with him, buried with him, and to be risen with him, not by a Hkeness to these things in baptism, but merely by faith. Now, if he ascribes to them this death, burial, and resurrection, as a mode of viewing them, or as a figurative way of speaking, he wrests the apostle's argument out of his hands. If this death is the death by faith, and yet nothing but a figure, then our security against Hving in sin, according to the apostle, is nothing but a figure. A figurative death is no security against sin.- An actor Avill die on the stage to-night, and act to-morrow. If it is only in a certain way of speaking that we rise with Christ by faith, then there is from that figurative resurrection no security of a holy life. The spirit of the apostle's reasoning on this verse would be, " How can they, who are said by a figui'e to be dead to sin, Hve any longer therein ? Know ye not that as many of us as have beheved on Christ, are figuratively viewed as having died mth him ?" This figiu-e would be a weak security against Hving in sin. It must be a real death that will seciu-e against sin. Now, how difi"erent is the apostle's argu- ment, on our view ! " How shall we, that are dead to sin, Hve any longer therein ?" This must be real death, otherwise there is no argu- ment. How then are we dead ? By faith in Christ we are dead. But in baptism this truth i^ exhibited in figure. "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?" To be baptized into Jesus Christ imports the being baptized into the faith of his death as our substitute ; But to be baptized into his death imports, that by baptism we are exliibited as dying along with him. The death in baptism is a figui-ative death, founded on the real death by faith. If baptized into his death does not import our death with Christ, this verse is not proof of what is asserted in the former; 160 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. and if baptism is no figurative burial, it is no proof of death, and there- fore would be only an incumbrance in this place. The Clxristian has a real death, burial, and resurrection with Christ by faith. He has all these also in baptism by figure. Baptism is a proof of death, because it has no meaning otherwise. Hence it is used as an argument here: and hence the great importance of understanding the import of baptism. It gives, by a striking figTu-e, a conception of the union of behevers with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, that has escaped, we see, the most sagacious Christians who are ignorant of the ordinance. " The simple meaning," says Dr. Wardlaw, " is this : since, in our being baptized into Jesus Christ, we were baptized into his death, — into the faith of his death as the death of a siu^ety ; we niay be con- sidered as, by faith, partaking yvith him in lais death." I reply, this partaking is a real — not a figurative partaking. If baptism is not a figure of this, there was no occasion to allude to it at all. The author continues: "as buried ivitli Mm; and that mth the special end of otir rising with him, in a spiritual resemblance of his resurrection, and 'walking in ne^vness of life.' " But does not Dr. Wardlaw see that we are not here said to be buried with him by faith, but buried with him by baptism into death? This biu-ial is not merely a biu-ial by faith, but a burial by baptism. The language imports, also, that baptism has a reference both to Christ's resm'rection, and our new life. "We are buried vnth him by baptism into death ; that Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so Ave also shoiild walk in newness of life." This is stated as the end of baptism — ^not as the end of faith. As baptism does not effect these things, it must be viewed as a figiu-e. Baptism makes us die, buries us, raises us, only in figtu'e; therefore as we are said to die, to be buried, and to rise in baptism, baptism must contain a likeness to these things. It is not said that Ave are buried by faith, that we may rise, &c. ; but that Ave are bviried by baptism into death, that we may rise, &c. All these things are connected Avith baptism. But except as a hkeness or figiu'e, it has no connexion Avith them at all. Any other ordinance might have been equally mentioned. Rather, there Avas no need for the mention of any ordinance, on the supposition that there is no likeness. But that baptism contains a hkeness to death, is in this passage expressly asserted: "for if Ave have been planted together, or imited, with him in the likeness of his death." Here we see that this death is a symbolical death. It is a hkeness to death. Now, the participation in Christ's death, that the belicA^er has by faith, is not a hkeness to death, but a real death. It is, by the Divine constitution of the tmion that subsists betAveen Christ and his people, his OA^pi death. Hoav, then, is there in baptism a likeness to death, if that ordinance is not by immer- sion? Our future resurrection is also figm-ed in baptism: "avc shall be also in the Hkeness of his resurrection." In Col. ii. 12, also, we are said to be risen Avith Christ: "Buried with him in baptism; Avherein, or in which, also ye are risen Avith him." Dr. WardlaAv asks. How is it we are said to be "risen AAdth him?" Undoubtedly throiigh faith. Without this there is no rising to neAV life, nor Avill there be to glory. But THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 161 this resuirectioii is "notwithstanding said here to be in baptism. It must then be in figure. Dr. Wardlaw supposes that these things are ascribed to baptism ; " because it was the first pubhc declaration or the faith of the converts." But baptism is not necessarily a public declaration of faith; nor is it necessarily the first public declaration. There may be many instances in which a pubhc declaration of faith is made, before there is any opportunity of being baptized. Besides, this is an apocry- phal reason. The Scriptui^es do not assign it ; and as a matter of fact, q. . it is no more connected with salvation than the Lord's supper. It is not in baptism, nor by means of baptism, that we die with Christ really, or are made spiritually alive. This death and this life take place before baptism. Baptism, then, can have these things ascribed to it only in figure. " It is on the same principle," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that they are spoken of as in haptism ' washing away their sins.' " All these things are doubtless spoken on the same principle. But that principle is, that baptism is a figure. Baptism washes away sins, not because it is the first ordinance, but because it is an emblematical washing of the body with water. Does not Dr. Wardlaw hold, that baptism is an emblem of washing away sin ? Hoav then does he explain the phrase, washing away sin in baptism^ on the principle of baptism being the first ordinance ? We wash away sins in baptism, just as we eat the flesh of Jesus in the Lord's supper. " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the commtmion of the body of Christ ?" How is the cup the commu- nion of Christ's blood ? How is the bread the communion of his body ? In figure. And when the figiu"e is observed in faith, the real commu- nion is effected. Just so baptism washes away sin. Just so in baptism we die, we are biu'ied, and we rise. But the truth of the emblem is effected, not by baptism in any sense, but by faith of the operation of '^ God. It is absurd and ridiculous to suppose, that an ordinance can wash away sin in any other than a figui'ative sense. Was it not in this way that Jewish rites were said to make an atonement and to cleanse from sin ? The first ordinance observed, has no more to do with these things than the last. The death, burial, and resurrection, which are ascribed to baptism, take place in haptism, and hy means of baptism. The washing away of sins, ascribed to baptism, is effected by baptism. This washing, this death, this burial, and this resurrection, then, cannot be the washing, death, burial, and resurrection, which are effected by faith, and Avhich take place before baptism. If the washing away of sins, the death, burial, and resurrection, ascribed to baptism, were effected previously, and by other means, the Scriptui-es are not true, that speak of them as effected in baptism, and by baptism. The reality has already taken place, but it is represented in figure as taking place in the ordinance, and by means of the ordinance. " In Eom. vi." says Dr. Wardlaw, " the language of the whole passage is figurative." And what suppose it were figiu-ative ? Would this imply that there is no likeness ? Wlien death, burial, and resurrection, are iised figuratively, they must of necessity have a likeness. Will Dr. Wardlaw show what kind of figure he supposes to exist here ? M 162 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Will he show any figure that ■will justify the ascription of the washing away of sin, of death, burial, and resurrection to an ordinance, because it is the first ordinance observed ? This figure he ^vvill look for in vain, either in the writings of rhetoricians, or the practice of any language. The principle on Avhich I hold that these things are ascribed to bap- tism, I have verified by example, and justified on princij)le. But will Dr. Wardlaw recollect, that this death, burial, and resurrection, he has, in setting out, considered as effected by faith ? He cannot, then, speak consistently of this language as figurative. But though he talks of the simple meaning of the passage, there is evidently a jumble in his own conceptions of this meaning. There never was a paragraph farther from simphcity, than that which he has employed to show the simple meaning of Eom. vi. 1. The fact, however, is, that in the expression ivasli away sin by bap- tism, death, burial, and resurrection in baptism, there is no figui^e. It is a figurative action, not a figm-ative expression. A symbol is not a figui'e of speech. And I have shown, that as Dr. Wardlaw has in the commencement explained death, burial, and resurrection, as the death, burial, and resiuTection which Ave have by faith in Christ, dying as our surety, to speak of these things now as figurative language, is to overturn the apostle's argument, and to deny real imion with Christ in his work. We are not one Avith him by a Divine constitution, as we are one AAdth Adam, biit merely one Avith him in a figurative way of speaking. Dr. Wardlaw, then, ejects immersion out of Rom. vi. only by virtually overtiu-ning the Gospel, or denying real oneness with Christ. " The same principle of interpretation," says Dr. WardlaAv, " accord- ing to which the expression ' buried luith Chrisf is explained, as referring to the representation of interment by the immersion of the body under water, should lead us also to understand the phrase Avhich immediately folloAvs, '■ p)lanted together in the likeness of his death,'' as referring to an emblematic representation of planting, which, accordingly, some have stretched their fancy to make out." If the word sumphutoi is to be translated planted together, there must indeed be a likeness between baptism and planting ; and it requires no stretch of fancy to discover a likeness between the burying of the roots of plants and immersion in water. But even on this supposition, the word is metaphorical, and while it equally with a symbohcal action requires likeness, it does not imply that baptism is an emblem of planting. Let Dr. Wardlaw con- sider the difference between a figuratiA^e Avord and a figurative action, and he Avill Avithdraw this objection. Baptism is here explained as a symbohcal action, representing death, bmial, and resiu-rection. The likeness to planting is iUiTstrative, not symbohcal. The phrase, planting together, proves the mode of baptism ; but it does not imply that there is in it anything emblematic of planting. Dr. WardlaAV continues, " or the phrase, crucified ivith him, to some similar exhibition of cruci- fixion." But does not Dr. WardlaAv perceive that we are not said to be crucified with Christ in baptism ? We are indeed crucified Avith him — really and truly crucified AAdth him — not in baptism, but by faith in, his cross. We were nailed to the tree, Avhen he was nailed, because by THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 163 the Divine constitution we are one with him. But, according to Dr. Wardlaw's explanation of this passage, we might as well be said to be crucified in baptism, as buried in baptism. * If there is no allusion to burial in baptism, more than to crucifixion, why are we not said to be crucified in baptism ? If we are really criicified with him by faith in his cross, why might we not, on Dr. Wardlaw's principle, be said to be crucified in Isaptism, and by means of baptism, because it is the first ordinance in which we profess faith in the cross of Christ ? But there . is no such absiu'dity of expression in the Scriptures. After all the labours of Mr. E^ving and Dr. Wardlaw on this passage, I could safely rest my cause on a candid reading of it by the most unlettered good sense. To a reflecting mind, nothing can more strongly prove the impossibihty of diverting these words fi'om giving their testi- mony in favoiu- of immersion, than that one of these learned and inge- nious writers could find no other Avay to efiect his purpose, but by forcing burial to denote embalming or washing the dead ; and the other by denying that the passage implies any likeness between baptism and burial. These extravagances are so enormous, that every sober mind may see that the cause that requires them is desperate. I ask any man who fears God and trembles at his word, is Christ's burial merely the washing of his corpse, and not his being laid in the sepulchre ? I ask, does the phrase " huried ivith bcqjtism by deaW import no likeness between baptism and burial ? Dr. WardlaAv observes, " according to our Baptist brethren, wasldng or cleansing^ so far from being the exclusive, is not even the principal, but only a secondary meaning of the rite." In this he is mistaken. Death, burial, and resurrection, we do not consider as the primary meaning of baptism ; and Avashing away sin, as a secondary meaning. It takes both together to make one meaning. The ordinance has one meaning only. It not only signifies washing away sin through faith in the blood of Christ, but denotes that such sins are washed away by oiu* felloAvship with him in his death. Washing aAvay of sin is the thing which it always signifies : but this is not the whole of its meaning. It is then to no purpose that Dr. Wardlaw insists that sjyrinhling and pouring may be an emblem of cleansing. They are no emblems of death, burial, and resurrection, Avhich are figured in baptism. Another passage that favours our view of the mode and import of baptism, is 1 Cor. xv. 29. " Else what shall they do Avliich are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then baptized for the dead ?" There must be an argiunent here, and this object of baptism must be a scriptural object, otherwise it could not be an argu- ment. Indeed, though to us the passage may be difiicult from difference of circumstances with respect to those immediately addressed, yet it is evident that the apostle considers the argaiment as very obvious and con- vincing. Now, to consider the expression to be a reference to the mode and import of baptism, as implying an emblem of the resui'rection of belicA^ers, will afford a natiiral meaning to the Avords, and an important argument to the apostle. Baptism is an ordinance that represents our burial and resurrection Avith Christ. We are baptized, in the hope Hiat M 2 164 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. our dead bodies shall rise from the grave. Now, if there is no resurrec- tion, Avhy are we baptized ? On that supposition, there is no meaning in baptism. It is absurd for any to be baptized, baptism being a figure of a resurrection, if they do not believe in a resurrection. Heb. x. 22, is on both sides allowed to have a reference to baptism ; and to me it appears evident, that the whole body was covered with water. " Let us draw near with a true heart, in fall assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an eAol conscience, and our bodies washed Avith j)iu-e water." Here the heart is said to be sprinkled in allusion to the appli- cation of the blood of the sacrifices ; and the body, in allusion to the bathings imder the laAv, is said to be Avashed in pure water, referring to the ordinance of baptism. Now, the poui'ing of a httle water in the face is not a washing of the body. I admit, that sprinkling a Httle water on any part of the body might be an emblem of piuification; but this would not be called a Avashing of the body. The passage AA^hich Mr. Ewing brings to justify his view of this verse, is not parallel. " For, in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial," Matt. xxvi. 12. " This instance," says Ml:. Ewing, " of calhng Avhat was pora-ed on the head, a pouring on the body, illustrates Avhat is said of baptism which is in itself a pouring on the face only, but which, being a figure of washing, is called a washing of the body." Our Lord's expression is quite literal, and has no emblem. The smallest quantity of water povu-ed on any part of the body, is as truly poured on the body as 'if the whole body was covered. Water is Hterally poured on the body, if poured on any part of the body. But when the body is said to be washed, it implies that the Avhole body is washed. Washing a part of the body, is not washing the body. Let us have an example in Avhicli the poiiring of a little water on a part of an object, is called the washing of the object. The bodies of the priests were washed on entering on their office. Shall Ave say that this may have been the pouring of a httle water on thefr head ? Though I do not agree Avith Dr. Campbell, that louo cannot be applied to a part, yet it is so generally appropriated to the bathing of the Avhole body, that in medical use it is employed AAT.thout a regimen in that sense. If any part is not to be bathed, it must be expressly excepted, as except the head. " Except a man be born of water and the Spirit," John iii. 5, is another expression AAdiich is admitted to refer to baptism ; and has its explanation most intelligibly in emersion out of the water in that ordin- ance. To emerge out of the water, is like a bu-th ; and to be horn of water., as distinguished from being horn of the Spirit, is to be born of the truth represented by the Avater. We are regenerated both by the Avord and Spirit. We are born into the kingdom of God by the agency of his Spirit, through the behef of the word that testifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and our death, burial, and resurrection Avith him. Christ, therefore, is said to have given himself for his church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it Avith the icashing of ivater by the word, Ephes. Y. 26. The washing of water is by the word, which is figura- tiA^ely done in baptism. In hke manner, we are said to be saved " by the Avashing of regeneration, and reneAving of the Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 165 "We are also said to be " washed and sanctified," 1 Cor. vi. 11, in reference to the cleansing from sin by faith in the blood of Christ, as well as to the renewing of our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Section XVII. — Strictures on Mr. Ewing's Miscellaneous Remarks ON the Hypothesis of bniERSiON. — I have, in a great measure, anticipated anything that I judge necessary on Mr. Ewing's Miscellaneous Remarks on the Hypothesis of Immersion. I cannot, however, dismiss the subject ■without more expressly entering my protest against the grounds of his reasoning in this part of his work. They appear to me both false and dangerous. Immersion he considers as indecent and indelicate, and in several cases he attempts to prove its impracticability. " The immersion of one person by another," says Mr. Ewing, " except in cases of necessity or mercy, seems to be contrary to decency, and to the respect Avhich we owe to one another." Mr. E^wing commences very properly, by saying, " I feel it incumbent on me to enforce my conviction on others, by every consideration which the examination of the Scriptures on the subject has suggested to my mind." By all means, let us have every thing that the Scriptiu'es suggest on this subject. Pray now, Mr. Ewing, was it the Scriptures that suggested this objection ? This is an appeal to oiu- pride against the law of Christ, — an appeal, however, that is Kkely to have more weight with some, than an appeal to the word of God. But is there more dignity and dehcacy in pouring water into a person's turned up face, out of the hand, so that some of the water must be swallowed ? Had Mr. Emng, however, established this from the Scriptui'es, he Avould have heard no objection from me on this ground. I would not take the responsibility of this argument for all the wealth of the city _ of Glasgow. Let Mr. Ewing take care that he is not enhsting the corrup- tion of the Christian's heart against the appointment of Jesus. Does not Mr. EAving see that the respect we owe to one another has no concern in the question? If it suits the wisdom of Christ's appointments, that one person should be immersed by another, eA^en were it a real humiliation, it is to Christ we stoop. That God's institutions cannot foster any of the corruptions of oiu" nature, is self-evident; but that they should consult our sentiments of dignity and dehcacy, is a thing that no one acquainted with the Scriptures ought to assert. Has Mr. Ewing never read the Old Testament? Did he never hear of such a thing as circumcision? Has he forgotten the transaction in Abraham's house on the institution of that ordinance? Was there more dignity in that operation, with respect to the father of the faithfvd, and the males of his house, than there is in immersion in water? What shall we say of the transaction at the HiU of Foreskins? Wliat shall we say of many parts of the law of Moses? Wliat shall we say of many parts both of the Old Testa- ment and the New? Try them by Mr. Ewng's test, and they must be expunged from the book of God. Infidelity here may have a plausible handle, though no just ground of objection. But in immersion, vnth. respect both to males and females, there is none. Mr. Ewing's caricature of the immersion of females, is so much in the spirit of the means by which the Church of Rome keeps the higher ranks from reading the 168 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Scriptures, that I have no langiiage strong enough to express my feelings of abhorrence. " Shall you permit your Avives and daughters," say the enemies of the Scriptiu-es, "to read the indelicate statements of the Bible ?" It is said that there is no more usual argument to dissuade the higher classes in France from reading the Scriptures, than their indehcacy. They are told that the Bible, on this account, is the very worst of books that can be put into the hands of youth. And shall the man of God blow the triunpet of Satan in the camp of Israel ? If immersion is an ordinance of Clirist, it is a fearful thing to oppose it by such an engine. It is not the first time, however, that Jesus has been rebuked as a sinner. In the estimation of the Pharisees, he broke the sabbath ; he was charged as a wine-bibber and a glutton ; and it is not strange that the msdom of this world should find indelicacy in his ordinances. Mr. Ewing thinks himself very strong, with respect to the argument from the scarcity of Avater ; and no doubt he Avill appear so to a numer- ous class of his readers. Biit the argument, instead of having weight, cannot be admitted to a hearing by any one Avho imderstands the nature of evidence. All the information that can be collected at this distance of time, cannot assure us that there were not other resources of Avater, of Avhich Ave have no account. Mr. EAving may say that the pool of Bethesda may have been sufficient only for one person to go down at a time. Well, if my cause obliged me to prove that it admitted two, I grant that I could not prove it. But I am not bound to proof. I may say that it may have admitted a hundred to go doAvn at once, and the bare possibihty is enough to remove the objection. Neither of us can prove the dimensions of it. If, then, there had been no water in Jeru- salem but this pool, I am at Hberty to suppose that it might have sufficed. The pool of Siloam may have been only sufficient to Avash the eyes, but it may have been sufficient to float a ship. This is quite enough for me. If immersion is not impossible in some of the places Avhere baptism was performed, no man who imderstands reasoning A\ill object on this ground. Were I engaged Avith Mr. EAving, even in an historical controversy, Avith respect to the supply of Avater in JeiTisalem in the days of the apostles, I coidd easily shoAV that his conclusions are unwarranted. He depends on the accounts of modern traA^ellers. I would admit their statements, and deny the consequence. Must the supply of water be the same now as it Avas then ? Aqueducts and reservoirs may have then existed, of Avhich there are no remains. Herod, at gxeat expense, brought water to the city by aqueducts, from a considerable distance; and the pools, and fountains, and rivers, cannot now be estimated. The supply of water to the city of God, could not be inadequate to the Avants of the inliabitants, and to the use of it in legal pirrifications, which required abundant resoiu'ces. Shall we judge of the supply of water in the days of the apostles, by that of the present time, when Jerusalem is suffering under the curse ? Hoav much depended at that time iipon rain ? Is there reason to think that the supply is equal at present ? Earth- quakes alter the course of rivers, and often seal up foiuitains. In the year 1182, as Goldsmith relates, most of the cities of Syria, and the THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 1(57 kingdom jof Jerusalem, were destroyed by an earthquake. Mr. Gibbon makes a like objection to the Scrip tiu-e account of the fertility of Judea. The present barrenness of that country, he considers as proof of the falsehood of the accounts of its ancient fertihty. This, which may appear to many very sage, is in reality very shallow. There are many possible ways in which the fertility of a country may differ at different times. The peasants of Switzerland draw waUs of stone across their declivities, to keep up the mould which industry has brought to the noiu-ishment of their vines. If these Avere for a few years neglected, the rains would sweep away all their labours, and there would be nothing in the place of luxuriance, but barrenness and naked rocks. Must the brook Kedron have been as scanty as it is now ? Mr. Ewing tells tis that, Hke other brooks in cities, it was contaminated. Did the filth rim up the stream ? and could they not baptize where it entered the city, or upwards ? The very attempt to prove, at this distance of time, that there could not be water in or near Jerusalem for immersion, is absurd. I would hold this, were the question merely an historical one. But if the Holy Spirit testifies that the disciples were baptized on beheving the gospel, and if I have proved that this word signifies to immerse., then, though there were real difliculties on the subject, I am entitled to suppose that there must have been in some place a supply of water. John the Baptist had enough of water in the Jordan ; but if there is enough of water, there are, it seems, other wants. " In the course of his ministry," says Mr. Ewing, " he drew his illustrations, hke his Master, who came after him, from the objects suiTomiding him at the time. But he says nothing of the stream, of its depth, of its rapidity, of its strength, of its ovei'flowings, of its biUows, of its quahties of purification." Was ever anything so childish put upon paper ? Can any mind suppose that there is argument in this ? Did ever John the Baptist iUustrate his subject by allusions to popping ? Is the absence of any such aUusions, to be received as evidence that there was not immersion m baptism ? " As a teacher," says Mr. Ewmg, " you never find him in the river." Does this say that, as a baptizer, he might not have been in the river ? Such arguments are not only tuisound, but absiurd. Whenever they have any weight, there must be an indistinctness of vision, as to the nature of evidence. I Avill not go out of my way to look for water to immerse the disciples of Sychar in Samaria. If Mr. E-wing knows that they Vv^ere baptized, from the usual practice, I know they wei'e immersed, from the meaning of the word. Had I no other resoiu'ce, I would make Jacob's well supply me. But as it is not said where they were baptized, I will make them conduct Christ and the apostles on their Avay, till they come to water. I care not where the Avater is to be found ; if they Avere baptized, they were immersed. Mr. Ewing, as well as Dr. WardlaAV, learns from Peter's jihraseolog}-, " can any man forbid Avater ?" that the AA^ater Avas to be brought to the , place. And if this Avere certain, it affects not the question. Must the observance of the ordinances of Christ never put us to trouble? But the expression imports no more, than " who can forbid baptism to tlie 168 THE MODE or BAPTISM. persons who have abeady received the Holy Spirit ?" without any respect to mode. The phraseology of Ananias, it seems, forbids immersion: — "Arise, and be baptized." Where is the proof here ? Why, there is no going down to the water, nor coming np from it. Is there any man so frantic as to suppose, that this phraseology mixst apply to every baptism ? Baptism in a bath, is as good as baptism in the Jordan. But Paul was baptized after a three days' fast, before he had received either meat or strength. "Would this have been done," we are asked, " had his baptism been immersion ?" It was done, yet his baptism was immersion. From this, let us learn that baptism is not a thing to be trifled with, but ought to be performed as soon as possible after the behef of the truth. It would give me great pleasure, if Mr. Ewing would make this use of the circumstance. He has certainly delayed his baptism much too long. But the jailor — How shall we find water to immerse the jailor ? " The argument," says Mr. Ewing," that there was a bath in the jail at Philippi, because there is a very fine tank at Calcutta, and ahvays is one to be found in an eastern jail, may be illustrated in this manner: There was a stove in the jail at Philippi, because there is a very fine one in the jail at St. Petersburgh, and always is one to be found in a northern jail." Does Mr. Ewing suppose that his opponents are bound to prove that there must have been a bath in the jail at Phihppi ? That there may have been one, is quite sufficient for our purpose. Even this is not necessary. Any vessel that will hold a sufficient quantity of water, will serve us equally well. Besides, for any thing in the narrative, the baptism might have taken place in any part of the town. It is madness to suppose that immersion was here impossible; and if it was not impossible, the objection is not valid. There might have been a thousand ways of obtaining water of which we are ignorant. To suppose that it is necessary to produce, from the history, an actual supply of water, in the case of every baptism, implies a radical error with respect to the first principles of evidence. The jailor and his household were baptized, therefore they were immersed. What sober mind will go in quest of the water, in a foreign country, at the distance of nearly two thousand years ! CHAPTER III. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Section I. — Having ascertained the mode and the meaning of this ordinance, I shall now inquire who are the subjects of it. If our minds were uninfluenced by prejudice, this inquiry would not be tedious. We have the answer obviously in the words of the apostolical commission : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matt, xxviii. 19. It is well known that the word corresponding to teach, in the first instance in which it occurs in this passage, signifies to disci2Jle, or make scholars. To disciple all nations, is to bring them by faith into the school of Christ, in which they are to learn his will. The persons, then, whom this commission warrants to be baptized, are scholars of Christ, having believed in him for salvation. If this needed confirmation, it has it in the record of the commission by Mark: " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that beheveth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Here the persons whom Matthew calls disciples, Mark calls believers. According to this commission, then, none are warranted to be baptized but disciples or believers. But our opponents affect to treat this pas- sage as not at all to the piirpose; alleging, that though it commands beUevers to be baptized, it does not exclude the infants of believers. They consider this as common ground, and as teaching a doctrine which they do not deny, without opposing the peculiar doctrine which they hold. Accordingly, they run over this commission with the greatest apparent ease, and are amazed at the want of perspicacity in their oppo- nents, who see in it anything unfavourable to the baptism of infants. Now, this evidence strikes me in so very difFei'ent a hght, that I am willing to hang the whole controversy on this passage. If I had not another passage in the word of God, I would engage to refute my oppo- nents from the words of this commission alone. Dr. Wardlaw thinks he has shown as clear as a sun-beam, that the words of this commission have no bearing on the subject. I will risk the credit of my under- standing, on my success in showing that, according to this conunission, 170 THE SUBJECTS OE BAPTISM. believers only are to he baptized. It is impossible that a command to baptize believers, can be extended to include any but believers. We need not say that this cannot be done by inference ; I say it cannot be done by the most express command or explanation. No command, no explanation, can bring tmbelievers mto the commission that enjoins the baptism of believers. Even if I found another command, enjoining the baptism of the infants of beUevers, I should not move an inch from my position. I should stih say, this is not included in the apostohcal com- mission. This is another commission, and cannot interfere Avith the former. This would estabhsh the baptism of infants, indeed; but it would not be according to this commission, nor included in it. It would be another baptism, far more different from the baptism of this com- mission, than the baptism of John was from that of the apostles. This command to baptize the infants of behevers, would not be according to the command to baptize behevers. There would then be two baptisms, on quite different groimds ; the one on the grormd of faith, the other on the ground of descent. Talk not, then, of the Abrahamic covenant, and of circumcision ; if a baptism, or any other New Testament ordinance, must be found to correspond to these, it cannot be forced into the bap- tism commanded in this commission. I AVOuLd gainsay an angel from heaven, who shoidd say that this commission may extend to the baptism of any but believers. His assertion woidd imply a contradiction. It would imply that the same persons may be, at the same time, both believers and unbeUevers. Here, then, I stand entrenched, and I defy the ingenuity of earth and hell to drive me from my position. This COJDnSSION TO BAPTIZE BELIEVERS, DOES NOT INDEED I3IPLY THAT IT IS BIPOS- SIBLE THAT ANOTHER COJLAnSSION fflGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO BAPTIZE INFANTS, BUT, BY NECESSITY, IT EXCLUDES THEM FOR EVER FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THIS COMMAND. If EsfFANTS ARE BAPTIZED, IT IS FROM ANOTHER COMMISSION ; AND IT IS ANOTHER BAPTISM, FOUNDED ON ANOTHER PRINCIPLE. But not only does this commission exclude infants from the baptism it enjoins : if there were even another commission enjoining the baptism of infants, when these infants, who have been baptized in infancy, according to this supposed second commission, beheA^e the gospel, they must be baptized according to the commission, Matt. xxAoii. 19, Avithout any regard to their baptism in infancy. The com- mission commands aU men to be baptized on belieA'ing the gospel. Had there been even a divinely appointed baptism for them in infancy, it cannot interfere Avith this baptism, nor excuse from obedience to the command that enjoins behevers to be baptized. The command of Jesus to every behever to be baptized, stands engraven in indehble characters in this commission. TiU the trumpet soimds for judgment, it cannot be effaced. I caU on aU behevers, on their allegiance to the Son of God, to submit to this ordinance of his kingdom. Heaven and earth AviU pass away, before it Avill cease to be a duty for behevers to be baptized. I maintain that it is impossible for any explanation, or any express com- mand for another baptism, to excuse them from this. Is there any power on earth to abrogate this command ? Who can alter it, or substi- tute another baptism for it ? Till the end of the Avorld, it avlU remain a THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 171 duty for all believers to be baptized. "Wlao is lie tliat dares to substitute infant baptism for tlie baptism of believers ? Whoever he is, he is the man vs^ho, by his tradition, makes void the law of God. Our Lord charged the traditions of the Pharisees, not only as the commandments of men in the things of God, but also as making void the commandments of God. He alleged one instance in which the command of God was made void by the traditions of the Pharisees. God commanded the children to support their parents if they needed it; but the Pharisees, by an invention of their own, eluded this command. Just so Avith infant baptism. It has usurped the place of behever baptism ; and, as far as it is received, sets the ordinance of God aside altogether. So it happens, that this great law of the kingdom, that Jesus has connected so promi- nently with the truth itself; this ordinance, that, in so lively a mamier, exhibits that truth in a figiu-e to be observed immediately after its reception, is now generally set aside. Behever baptism is virtually abohshed, and expressly explained as fit only for the first reception of Christianity in every country. Wliy, my brethren, do ye make void the law of God by yoiu^ traditions ? But Dr. Wardlaw Avill say, " the reply to this is simple and satisfactory." " Suppose," says he, " the ordinance of circumcision had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms : — ' Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father,' &c. Had such language been used, we shordd have knoAvn that children were to be the subjects of the prescribed rite, as well as their parents : the previously existing practice Avould have ascertained this." I deny it, Dr. WardlaAV. I Avill not be driA'en from my position by circumcision more than by baptism. Had such a commission been given to circumcise, it would have excluded infants iitterly. Could a command to cii'cumcise believers, include a command to circumcise any but behevers ? This is impossible. No matter what was the former practice with respect to circiuncision. If the apostles are commanded to circumcise behcA^ers, they cannot, in virtue of that commission, circmncise any but behevers. I Avill say, also, that if we met in another part of Scripture, a command to circumcise the infants of believers, it Avoidd not be included in the apostolical commission. A command to circumcise believers, can extend to none but believers. But Dr. WardlaAv Avill say, Ave know that the Jews did cii'Cumcise infants. We do indeed knoAvthis; but are Ave to do every thing that Avas enjoined on the Jcavs ? This commission to circumcise behevers, AVOidd exclude the circumcision of infants; because it extends to none but believers. The JcAvish practice as to circum- cision, coiild not show what must be the Christian practice as to this rite, had it been appointed as a Christian ordinance; and no practice could reduce infant circumcision to a commission enjoining belicA-er circumcision. I stand then to my position as well if a JcAvish ordinance is adopted, as if a ncAV ordinance is introduced. A command to beheA^ers to observe any ordinance whatever, can ncA^er imply any but believers. This is as clear as the light of heaA^en. It is a first truth. The denial of it implies a contradiction. "Would they," (the apostles) saj's Dr. Wardlaw, " certainly have inferred from it, that, although the same rite 17.W THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. was to continue, there was to be a change in the subjects of it ?" There is no need of any inference on the subject. That behevers, in such a supposed commispion, are the only subjects of the rite enjoined on believers, would be self-evident to all who are capable of understanding the terms. What inconsistency woidd they see in the continuation of the same rite, while the subjects of it were changed ? Had the paschal lamb been continued instead of the Lord's supper, would it imply that all who among the Jews ate the passover, should eat it among Christians ? Suppose the government gives orders to the colonel of a regiment, to fill up a certain company with men six feet high. The colonel sends out his recruiting officers with instructions accordingly. When the recruits are brought to the standard, they are found in general to measure only five feet eight inches. Have the recruiting officers fuffilled their com- mission ? Did not the instructions that mentioned six feet high as the standard, forbid all under that measure to be erJisted ? It is not possible to bring into the commission any who come short of that measure. What can justify those who have been guilty of such a neglect of orders ? Wliat can screen them from the displeasure of their colonel ? They have wasted the king's money, they have suffered the time appointed to elapse, and what is worst of all, they have disobeyed orders. But a flippant recruiting sergeant, instructed by Dr. Wardlaw, stands forward in his defence. " Stop a little, colonel, I will prove to you that our conduct is entirely justifiable. Nay, except you had positively forbidden us to enlist any under six feet, Ave were warranted to conclude that we were not hmited. It is true, that our commission mentions six feet as the standard, but did we not know that in the company for which we were enhsting, there have hitherto always been m any men not more than five feet eight ? Now, good colonel, were we not bomid, in interpreting your instructions, to avail ourselves of our previous knowledge of the practice in the company ? I can assiure you also, colonel, that we have the sanction of the Independent churches for this way of reasoning, though they profess the strictest adherence to the Scriptures. Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw explain their Lord's com- mission to baptize, in the very way in which we have explained our commission to enlist. If they treat the commission of the Lord of heaven in that way, it surely cannot be blameable in us to treat your commission in a similar manner. We reasoned from the former practice, and thought from this, that we were not boiuid to what was specified in oiu- orders." "You thought, Sir!" says the colonel, "you reasoned! Who authorised you to reason on the subject ? Your business, Sir, was to obey. Your orders were so plain that they could not be mistaken. You had no right to reason, whether you would obey them or neglect them. Yoiu- conduct is unsoldierly, and would subvert all discipline. Drop your swords, take up your muskets, and return to the ranks." And does Dr. Wardlaw expect a "weU done, good and faithful servant," for conduct that would degrade a recruiting sergeant ? Cease, Dr. Wardlaw, to per^^ert the word of the Lord: cease to teach his children how to evade his injunctions : cease to justify as an institution of Christ, THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 173 the inventions of men: cease to force a commission enjoining the baptism of behevers, to sanction the baptism of infants: cease to loose the subjects of Jesus from the first law of his kingdom. With reference to Mark x\i. 16, Mr. Ewing says, "From this text some infer, that a person must actually believe, else he cannot be baptized. With as much reason they might infer, that a person must actually beheve, else he cannot be saved." Certainly; if there were no way of saving children but by the Gospel, this conclusion would be inevitable. The Clospel saves none but by faith. But the Gospel has nothing to do with infants, nor have Gospel ordinances any respect to them. The Gospel has to do with those who hear it. It is good news ; but to infants it is not news at all. They know nothing of it. The salvation of the Gospel is as much confined to believers, as the baptism of the Gospel is. None can ever be saved by the Gospel who do not believe it. Conse- quently, by the Gospel no infant can be saved. It is expressly, with respect to such as hear it, that the Gospel is here said to be salvation by faith, and condemnation by unbehef. " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creatru-e. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here the salvation and the condemnation respect those to whom the Gospel comes. Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by the Gospel — ^not by faith. Adults are saved by faith, not from the virtue of faith, but it is of faith that it might be by grace. Infants who enter heaven must be regenerated, but not by the Gospel. Infants must be sanctified for hea- ven, but not through the truth as revealed to man. We know nothing of the means by which God receives infants ; nor have we any business with it. The salvation that the Gospel pjoclaims to the world, is a salvation through the belief of the truth, and 'Sfene have this salvation without faith. The nations who have not heard the Gospel, cannot be saved by the Gospel, because the Gospel is salvation only through faith in it. They are not condemned by the Gospel ; for it is condemnation only to those who do not beheve it. To them it is neither a benefit nor an injury. They will be judged, as we are assured in the Scriptiu-es, according to the law written on the heart. I admit, then, that the salva- tion of the apostohc commission, is as much confined to behevers, as the baptism of that commission is confined to such. The man who would preach infant salvation out of the apostohc commission, or attempt to prove that the commission may be explained^© as to include it, I should gainsay, on the same ground on which I resist the attempts to include in it infant baptism. None can be saved by the Gospel, but such as beheve the Gospel; none can be baptized with the baptism of the Gospel, but such as beheve the Gospel. There is no exception to either. But that believers only can be baptized by this commission, is clear from that into which they are said to be baptized : " Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is into the faith and subjection of the Father, Son, and Hoh^ Ghost, that men are to be baptized. Siu-ely none can be baptized into the fliith and subjection of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but adults. Infants cannot believe, nor express subjection. Aboiit the glorious doctrine imported 174 THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. ill tliese words, we have no dispiite. On this all important point, we have one mind. And I joyfully profess that I embrace as brethren in Christ all who are xmited with me in that doctrine, and the truths im- ported in it. While, therefore, I use the siirgical knife wdth an -unspar- ing hand, to remove the morbid parts of the reasoning of my brethren, I love them for their love to that truth ; and I cut only to heal. My brethren love the thing imported by baptism, while I lament that they spend so much zeal in endeavouring to estabHsh a baptism not instituted by Christ. In doing so, they injirre thousands and thousands of their brethren, and carmot but injure themselves. It is impossible to fight agamst God on any point, Avithout being wounded. I acknowledge I was long in the same transgression. Many infants have I sprinkled; but if I know my own heart, I would not now jmmx water into a child's face in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, for the globe on which I stand. Ah, my brethren! it is an awful thing to do in the Lord's name, that which the Lord has not appointed. Who has required tliis at yoru" hands ? You may explain, and reason, and sup- pose, but, till the trumpet soimds, you wiU never force this commission to include your baptism of infants. You may conjure up difficulties to pei'plex the weak; youi* ingenuity may invent subterfuges that may cover error; but you will never find an inch of soHd ground on which to rest the sole of yotir foot. Yoiu- work "will never be done. You are rolling the stone of Sisyphus, and the farther you push it up hill, with the greater force wiU it rebound on your 0"nm heads. The laboiu's of Hercules are but an amusement compared with your task. Ingenuity may put a false system plausibly together ; but no ingenuity can give it the sohdity and hfe of the truth. It may satisfy as long as persons do not inquire deeply and earnestly into the question. But it will not satisfy when the mind begins to say, " Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do ?" That behevers only are included m the baptism of this commission, is clear also fi-om the command to teach the baptized: " Teaching them to obsem^e all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Here the per- sons baptized are supposed to be capable of being taught the other ordinances enjoined by Christ. Children then camiot be included. Never was a commission more definite. Never was a commission violated with less excuse of ambiguity. Yet the arrogance of himaan wisdom has totally reversed the ordinance here enjoined. It has ordered infants to be baptized, who, by the very terms of this commission, are excluded from this baptism: and it leaves unbaptized, believers whom only Jesus hath commanded to be baptized. Is not this the very spirit of Antichrist? Christians, how long -will ye suffer youl^selves to be deluded by the inventions of the mother of harlots ? How long wiU you obsen^e the inventions of men as the institutions of God ? Will the antichristian leaven never be piu-ged out of the chui'ches of Christ ? Whj will ye deprive yourselves of the edification and comfort to be derived from the true ordinances of your Lord ? Wliy -ndll ye continue to seek evasions with respect to a law that is designed to enrich you ? Why tarry ye, my brethren ? arise and be baptized, and wash away THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 175 your sins, calling on the name of tlie Lord. As long as ye remain ignorant of this ordinance, miich of the treasm^es of Divine knoAvledge are locked up from you. The baptism of John was in two points essentially different from the baptism of the apostolic commission; but in mode and subjects it was perfectly coincident. John did not baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : he did not baptize into the faith of Christ as come, but as about to be made manifest. As far, however, as concerns our siibject, the two baptisms correspond. Let iis then examine the evidence to be derived from the baptism of John. " John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out imto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the ri^'er of Jordan, confessing their sins," Mark i. 4. Here we see John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, in order to remission of sins. It could not, then, include infants who cannot repent, and Avhose sins, when they die in infancy, are not remitted on repentance, arising from the behef of the truth, but through the blood of Christ, apphed in a way of which we can learn nothing from the Scriptiu-es, and with which we have no concern. Some, indeed, reply, that it is not impossible for God to give faith to infants. Dr. D^vight himself says, that John the Baptist had faith from, the womb. If John the Baptist was a man when he Avas a child. Dr. Dwight in this is a child when he is a man. It is astonishing how silly wise men will become, when they attempt to force the word of God. It must be a Divine judgment, that when his servants use his word as an instrument to lead his people astray, the Lord gives them up to speak foolishly, so as to put them to shame. Infants have faith! Wliere does their faith go, when they begin to speak ? Can they have faith without knowledge ? And did. any one ever hear of the knoAvledge of infants ? But this observation is founded on deep ignorance. It proceeds on the supposition, that as faith is necessary to the salvation of adults, it is necessary in infants also. The necessity of faith to salvation, they must consider as a necessity of nature, and not a necessity of Divine appoint- ment. They suppose that God himself cannot save infants, Avithoxit giving them that faith that he requires of all Avho hear the Gospel. Noav, there is no such necessity. Faith is necessary to those who hear the Gospel, because God has absolutely required it. But it is not at all necessary to infants, because he hath not required it in infants. The atonement through the blood of Christ is the same to infants as to belieA^ers ; but it is not apphed to them in the same AA^ay. John the Baptist is not said to have had faith when an infant. He is said indeed to be sanctified from the womb, but this was not a sanctification through behef of the truth. Adidts are sanctified by faith, but infants are not sanctified by faith. If infants beheve, we should hear them, as soon as they begin to sj)eak, talking of the things of God, Avithout any teaching from the parents, or the Scriptures. "Was ever any siich tiling heard ? Can there be any surer evidence, on the very face of the question, that the Scrip- tures know nothing of infant baptism, than that the Avisest of its defenders should utter absurdities so monstrous in order to proA^e it ? But AA-ere 176 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Ave even to grant that John the Baptist had this infant faith, does it follow that all the children of believers have it also ? Is it not mentioned as a thing extraordinary, that John v^j^as sanctified from the w^omb ? Let them baptize none in infancy, but such as they have reason to believe are sanctified from the vi^omb. I will go farther. Had God made faith necessary to the salvation of infants, and had he appointed to give faith to dying infants, this would not imply that he. gives faith to those who live. Were this the case, they would all be behevers before they hear the Gospel. I am sure Christian parents cannot receive such doctrine. They know that their children are ignorant of God, till, by the hearing of the Gospel, he shines into their heart, to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Can any absurdity exceed that of the opinion that infants are baptized on the supposition that they have faith ? If it can be fairly made out that the circumstance of being born of Christian parents is evidence that infants have faith from the womb, I have no objection to baptize them. To defend infant baptism on this ground, is virtually to give it up. It acknowledges the necessity of faith in order to baptism; biit outrages common sense, in order to find it in infants, when they are born. Christians, is the man worthy of a hearing, who tells you that uifants have faith as soon as they come into this world; yea, and before they come into the world ? Can siach nonsense be worthy of refutation ? Were it not that the names iinder which such absurdities are ushered into the world, have a weight with the public, these arguments woidd be unworthy even of being mentioned. The baptism of John was not only a baptism on repentance for remission of sins, it was also a baptism in which sins were confessed. He baptized them in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Now infant faith will not do without infant confession. Can infants confess their sins ? If not, they were not baptized by John. It was the per- ception of this difficulty that first appointed sponsors, who believe, and repent, and confess for the infant. Unhappily our Independent brethren have not this resoiu"ce. The points in which John's baptism differed from that of Christ, may be seen, Acts xix. 1 : " And it came to pass, that, while ApoUos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Ploly Ghost since ye beheved ? And they said unto him. We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them. Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heai'd this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Here we see that John did not baptize into the name of the Holy Ghost, for they did not know that this distinction in the Godhead exists. Besides, John bap- tized into the faith of the Messiah about to be manifested: Christ's baptism must confess that Jestis is the Christ. This is an essential difference. Accordingly, " when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." John's baptism did not serve for Christ's THK SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 177 baptism. Human Avisdom will correct the Scriptures here, and because it cannot see why John's luxptism Avill not serve for Christ's, the words have been tortui'ed to make them say, that they were baptized into Christ by being baptized l:>y John. No ground, however, can be found in the passage for this conceit. No force can extract it from the Avords. It is man's scripture — not God's. John's baptism, then, did not serve for Christ's. If so, infant baptism, even if such a thing had been instituted by Christ, would not serve for the baptism in Christ's commission, which is believer baptism. Paul baptized the disciples of John the Baptist, because they had not -been baptized into the faith of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and because they had been baptized only in the faith of the Messiah to come. Surely then, they who are baptized in infancy upon any pretence whatever, must be baptized when they come to the faith of the Gospel. But if John's baptism implied repentance and confession of sin, how could Jesus submit to it ? This apparent inconsistency struck John himself so forcibly, that he even presumed to forbid him. " But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee; and comest thou to me '?" Jesus did not deny this ; personally he had no sins to confess ; yet still there Avas a propriety in his submitting to the baptism of repentance. " And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It Avas neces- sary for Jesus to observe all the Divine institutions incumbent on his people. But if this was necessary, there must be a propriety in the thing itself, it must not be to Christ an unmeaning ceremony. If he submits to the baptism of repentance, there must be a point of view in Avhich it suits him. And what is that point of view ? Evidently that, though he is himself holy, harmless, and undefiled; yet, as one with us, he is defiled. Just as, by our oneness Avith him, Ave can say, " Avho shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect V" so by his being one Avith us, he can confess himself a sinner. The oneness of Christ and his people, then, is not a figurative Avay of speaking ; it is a solid and con- soling truth. By it we die in Christ's death, and are acquitted as innocent ; by it Chiist is made sin for us, Avho, in his OAvn person, kncAV no sin. Christ's baptism, then, is no exception from Avhat is implied in John's baptism. It has the same meaning, as well as the same figure to him as to lis. In Christ's being buried in the waters of Jordan, Ave have a figure of the Avay in which he Avas acquitted ft-om the debt he took on him. It represented his death, burial, and resurrection. If Ave are guilty by being one with Adam, Christ was in like manner guilty by becoming one with us. The object of John's baptism was exhibited in the immersion of Jesus. It is odd, however, in Avhat a different light the same evidence strikes different people. In the account of the baptism of John, I can see nothing ])ut the immersing of persons professing repentance: Mr. EAA'ing sees with equal clearness, that the business Avas done by pouring Avater on the tTU-ned-up face ; and that infants Avere popped as Avell as their parents. Keally it is strange, if the AVords of the Spirit are like an oracle of Delphi, that can be interpreted in two opposite senses. Upon Avhat ground can Mr. EA\nng conclude, from this accoimt, tliat N 178 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. John baptized infants ? Here is the proof, and surely it is demon- stration itself! "Consider," says Mr. Ewing, "the very general and comprehensive terms in which the people are said to have come to be baptized. Matt. iii. 5,6:' Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' This account," says he, " most naturally admits the supposition, that the inhabitants of those places came, usually at least, with their families." The account does not import even this. If the whole question depended on the presence of a child, the history cordd not prove it. But what if it coixld be proved that children accompanied their parents ? Would this prove their baptism ? " The general and comprehensive terms.'''' Plow are the terms general and comprehensive ? Are they so general and comprehensive as to include infants ? They are not so, Mr. Ewing. However numerous they were, they all confessed their sins. " The disciples," says Mr. Ewing, " there went out to meet John, as the disciples at Tyre did to take farewell of Paul." Who told you so, Mr. Ewing ? This is apocryphal. Even this you cannot learn from the history. And if it were expressly stated, it would not serve you. How easily is Mr. Ewing satisfied with proof, when it is on a certain side of the question! The whole Greek language could not pro- duce a phrase that his criticism would admit as conclusive evidence of immersion. But that infants were present with their parents at John's baptism, and baptized along with them, he admits without evidence, with the docility of a child. If his obstinacy is invincible on some points, he makes ample amends by his pliancy in others. No man was ever more easily satisfied with proof of his own opinions. " The same latitude of language," says Mr. Ewing, " is always used respecting the administration of baptism by the disciples of Christ, John iii. 25, 26 : ' There arose a question between some of John's dis- ciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and aU come to him.' John iv. 1 — 3 : ' When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.' " Now, reader, is there anything here about the subject of infant baptism ? Is it not mere dreaming, to quote these passages in proof that Jesus baptized infants ? Yet, in Mr. Ewing's estimation, this is proof. " The two foregoing passages," says he, " evi- dently imply that baptism was dispensed in the same extensive manner, by the disciples of Christ, as it Avas by John the Baptist." There is no doubt but John's baptism and Christ's were equally extensive. But is this proof that either of them extended to infants ? The passages import, that a great multitude came for baptism both to John and to Christ; but that infants were brought for baptism, is not hinted. On the contrary, those baptized by John, are baptized on a confession of sin ; and it is said that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. The disciples of Jesus, then, baptized while he was with them, disciples only. But not only does Mr. Ewing find infants baptized by John; he also THE SUBJliCTS OF BAPTIS.M. 179 makes provision for tliem in tlie apostolical commission itself. Now, really, if he can do this, I shall not despair of j)roof for transiibstautiation. Well, let us hear him. " We have to add," says Mr. Ewing, " that there is ample room for sujoposiug family baptism to be included in the comprehensive terms of our Savioiu''s final commission. Matt, xxviii. 18." Room, ay, " ample room." I have measured it, and I maintain, that, if there is truth in axioms, there is not room for infants in this com- mission. How is the language in this commission comprehensive V Does Mr. Ewing find a place for the infants in the all nations? I cannot persuade myself that this is the refuge which he has provided for them. Does he deny that it is disciples that the commission enjoins to be baptized ? Does he make infants disciples ? Does he deny that the commission, as recorded by Mark, makes the disciples in Matthew xxviii. believers ? Wliy did not ]\Ii-. EA\ing show how this commission comprehends infants ? Why did he pass over this with a mere assertion ? If he could do this, he certainly would not have concealed the process by which he has come to the conclusion. That commission commands beheA^ers to be baptized; and except both sides of a contradiction may be true, it can never include unbelievers. " When we consider," says Mr. Emng, " how many things there are which Jesus himself did, which are not written in the Gospel histories, (John XX. 30, and xxi. 25,) we caimot wonder at the brevity of the accounts of the subordinate jjractice of the disciples in dispensing bap- tism to believers and their hoiises." But does Mr. Ewing suppose that we are so unreasonable, as to look for long histories of all instances of infant baptism, on the supposition that it was practised ? We look for no such thing. Were they included in the commission, we should not look for a single example in practice. And if there was an instance of the baptism of but one newly-born child, we shoidd esteem it as valid as a million; vaKd, however, not to prove that infants are included in the commission, — for nothing coidd prove this, — but vaHd to prove another baptism, not interfering with the baptism of beUevers. Were a thousand baptisms found in the New Testament, they could not all serve for the baptism of the commission; nor relieve the believer from his obligation of being baptized on the beHef of the truth. John's baptism, we have seen, could not serve for the baptism of the apostolical commission. Though, therefore, no evidence could con-\dnce me that it is possible to reduce infant baptism to the commission, I am willing to examine the practice of the apostles, to find whether they used another baptism with respect to the infants of believers. I have no hope that we shall find any such thing ; for the apostle tells us that there is but one baptism, as well as one faith. Let us try, then, whether the apostle has told the truth in this matter ; or whether his practice gi-\'e the lie to his assertion. How did the apostle Peter preach baptism on the day of Pentecost ? Did he preach infant baptism ? No, he preached a baptism connected with repentance for the remission of sins. Let us hear the account given of his doctrine on this subject by the Holy Spirit, Acts ii. 38 ; " Then Peter said uiito them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the N 2 180 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. gift of the Holy Gliost." Here baptism is connected with repentance aiid remission of sins. This baptism, then, cannot extend to infants. If infants have a baptism, it must be essentially different from this, — more different than John's baptism is from Christ's. Well, a number of them did repent, and Avere baptized. But were any infants baptized with them ? Not a word of this. " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." This does not express infants, nor can it include them. No explanation could make this account extend to infants. It may be said, that it is possible that infants were baptized at the same time. This is possible, just in the same way that it is possible that the apostles administered honey and milk to the baptized persons. It is not in evidence, either expressly, or by implication. Infants are ex- cluded from the number who are said to be baptized ; because they only are said to have been baptized, who received the word gladly. The next accoimt of baptism occurs in Acts viii. 12, " But when they beheved Phihp preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Here, also, only they who believed are said to have been baptized. But it is remarkable, that the accoiuit specifies ivomen. Had the account said nothing of women, yet it would have included them as believers ; and the commission would have extended to them. But to make the thing palpably clear, women are not only included, but expressly included. Now, is it not remarkable that the Holy Spirit should be so precise as to women, yet not say a word of infants ? This is imaccountable, if they were baptized. How many volumes of con- troversy Avould the addition of a word have prevented ! How liberal was the Spirit of Inspiration as to the information about the baptism of women ! But on the supposition that infants were baptized, how parsi- monious with respect to the baptism of infants ! The baptism of Simon proceeded on the supposition of his faith ; and though he was not renewed in the spirit of his mind, he was baptized on the same ground with all others. " Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized," &c. The baptism of the eunuch was on the same principle. These examples illustrate the commission, as requiring baptism on the beHef of the truth. True, indeed, it is possible that faith might be required in adults and not in infants. But the former is the only bajDtism included in the commission, and the only baptism that these examples ilhistrate. The baptism of Paul, Acts xxii. 16, shows that baptism is a figure applicable only to those who are washed from their sins. " Be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Paul's sins were abeady washed away, by faith in the blood of Christ. Yet he is commanded here to Avash them aAvay in baptism. This sIioaa's that baptism is a figiu-e of washing aAvay sins, Avith respect to those Avho are akeady washed. To infants, it can be no such figvu-e. Even if all the infants of all behevers, were assuredly to be brought to the knowledge of the truth, yet this is not done in infancy. Infant baj)tism, then, and believei- baptism, are not the same ordinance. To the former, it would be a sign that their sins Avould hereafter be washed away ; to the latter, that their sins Avere already, by THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 181 faith, Avashed away. But who will say that there is any evidence that all the children of all believers Avill ever come to the knowledge of the truth? But sui'ely the households Avill settle the business. Here is a Avord comprehensive enough for including infants. This battery, then, we cannot take. Well, I once talked of the households myself, and shel- tered myself here as long as I could fire a gun . But my owaa conscience obliged me to give iip the battery at last. I maintain that it is impos- sible to defend the cause of infant baptism by this battery. It cannot point one gun on the enemy. Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw have made the best of it, yet theii' fire is quite harmless. The noise of their guns may startle the inexperienced soldier; but if he can command as much nerve as will enable him to examine the direction of their fire, he will soon get under it. I shall begin with Dr. Wardlaw. «l " In the /rs^ place, then," says Dr. Wardlaw, "there is one point of fact undeniably clear, namely, that the apostles baptized households or families.'''' Granted; bvit it is as clear that these Avere helieving house- holds. This fact signifies nothing. A household may include infants, and it may not include them. It cannot, then, giA^e evidence on this point. In such a case, the extent of the baptism must be determined by the commission. Nay, if I Avere assiu^ed that there were infants in every one of the households, I should Avith equal confidence deny that they Avere baptized. According to the commission, they could not be baptized; and such phraseology ahvays admits exceptions, Avith respect to those knoAvii to be excluded from the thing spoken of. Wlien I say that such a man and his family dined with me, I am knoAvn not to include infants. In like manner, as the baptism of the commission cannot possibly extend to infants, even if they had been present in the families, they are not included among the baptized. I Avill go a step farther. I Avill suppose, for sake of argument, that the apostles did baptize infants ; even then, I Avill deny that the infants Avere baptized according to the commission. It must have been a different baptism, and Avould not prevent the same infants from being baptized Avith be- liever baptism, as soon as they should believe. If one instance of infant baptism is proved, I loill baptize infants ; but a million of such ej:amp)les would not set aside believe?-" baptism. "It shoidd be noticed too," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that a man's house most properly means his chikfren, his offspring, his descendants, — and is generally used to denote these even exclusiA-ely." This Avord as properly, both from its origin and use, includes all domestics as chilcfrcn. It properly signifies all the residents in a house. It is capable, indeed, of being limited to descendants, Avhen the connexion or knoAAm circum- stances require it. It is, therefore, very often iised Avith resj)ect to them exclusively. It is also often used to denote, not only descendants, but ancestors and collateral relations. But in all these instances, it does not mean residents at all. The passages to AA'hich Dr. WardlaAv refers, respect descendants Avithout respect to abode, 1 Kings xiA-. 10, &c. That it also Avith equal propriety includes all domestics, is clear from its nsQ, 1 Kings iv. 7 ; v. 9, &c. It must then be the connexion or circum- stances, that, in each occurrence of the Avord, Avill declare its extent. I 182 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. will allow Dr. Wardlaw to limit it, when, from the connexion or circum- stances, lie proves his limitation. He mtist hkewise allow me to limit it by the same principles. If it may, by the connexion or circumstances, be limited to descendants, it may also be limited to adults, by the neces- sity arising from the commission. Dr. Wardlaw, in reasoning on these hoiiseholds, seems to forget the difference between answering an objection and formding an argument. It may he so, is enough to estabhsh anything as an answer to an objec- tion; it may not be so, is enough to overturn it as an argiiment. When I attempt to prove behever baptism, I must produce arguments to estabhsh it ; and my opponent will succeed, if he can show that these arguments do not estabhsh my point. In obviating an objection, I succeed, if I can show that there is any way of understanding it con- sistently with my doctrine. Now, with respect to the households, we merely stand on the defensive. It is our business to reply to the objec- tion grounded on this fact. As our opponents iise the fact as an argu- ment, they must prove that their doctrine is in it. It is enough for us to prove, that this fact is consistent "with our doctrine. K they do not prove that infant baptism is necessarily here, the passage is useless to them. If we prove that infant baptism is not necessarily here, we have aU we wish. Now, Arith respect to house, it is enough for omt pui-pose, that the word may include all domestics ; but it is not enoiigh for them to show that the Avord may signify descendants exclusively, unless they show a necessary Hmitation, from the connexion or circumstances. But as concerns the point in debate, I care not that it was established that Jwiise apphes to descendants only. I Avill still hmit it farther by the commission to adults. Even one of the passages referred to by Dr. WardlaAV himself, might have taught him this. " One that ruleth weU his own house," 1 Tim. iii. 4. The nature of the thing asserted, deteiTxdnes it to apply to adults only, or at least to childr-en capable of government. Newly bom infants are excluded. I require no more, in repelhng the objection from the households. As the ruling of a house cannot apply to infants newly horn, so the baptizing of a house cannot refer to any in the house hut such as come under the commission. Common sense every day makes the necessary hmitations in such indefinite forms of speech. It is only the perverse spirit of controversy, that finds any difficulty in them. " Secondly,'' says Dr. WardlaAv, " To an imprejudiced reader of the NcAV Testament, it must, I think, be equally clear, that the baptism of famihes is mentioned in a Avay that indicates its being no extraordinary occurrence, — ^but a thing of course.'" The baptism of households was just as common a thing as the faith of households, and nothing more so. That the baptism of a household Avas as a matter of course on the faith of the head of it, Avithout the faith of the family, there is not the slightest appearance. We are, indeed, informed of the baptism of Lydia's house, Avithout being mformed of their faith. But that they had faith, the commission leaves no doubt. The narrative tells us that the house of Crispus believed, but it does not tell us that they were baptized, Acts XAdii. 8. We knoAv, hoAA^ever, that they Avere baptized, because the THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 183 commission enjoins it. In like manner, when we are told that Lydia's house were baptized, we know that they believed, because the commis- sion warrants the baptism of none but believers. Instead of stating that the liaptism of Lydia's house was a thing of covirse on her faith, without theirs, the narrative states, as a piece of important information, that ought to be a lesson to every age, that baptism is so closely connected -with the belief of the truth, that not only Lydia herself, but her whole family, were baptized, before she invited the apostle to partake of her hospitaUty. "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying. If ye have judged me to be faithfiil to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." The work of the Lord was first attended to, and then attention to the apostle. That Lydia had any childi'en, either infants or adults, is not in evidence ; and therefore, as her house may have exclusively consisted of y servants, the fact can never serve the cause of infant baptism. Indeed, from the way in which she speaks of lier house, and from her being a stranger on business in that place, there is reason to believe that her family consisted solely of servants. But I will not build anything on even the highest probabUities. I will lay no stone in my building, that time will corrode. I care not that she had no servants; her baptized house must be believers, because the apostle had no authority to bap- tize others. I care not that she had infants of a week old; they coiild not be included, and the form of the expression does not require that they should be included. T^Hien it is said that a certain nobleman " believed himself, and his whole house," John iv. 53, does it imply that there were no infants in his house ? Does it not evidently refer to those in his house who were capable of believing, and to all such in his house ? Wlaen it is said that Cornelius " feared God, with all his house," is it necessary to assert that there coidd have been no infants iinder his roof? SiU'ely not. Whj^, then, is it supposed that the baptism of households should imply the baptism of infants, Avho by the commission are excluded ? '■'■ Thirdly^'' says Dr. Wardlaw, "Having thus the unquestionable fact of the baptism of families, — a fact according with the ancient practice of the circumcision of families, and supported by the use of a word that properly denotes a man's childi-en or offspring; we are warranted to assmne, that such was the usual practice." Here Dr. Wardlaw shifts the ground of his argument, and very conveniently takes for granted the thing to be proved. What is the unquestionable fact in his past observations ? The baptism of families. This is unquestionable, because it is expressly said. But what is the thing that is unquestionable ? Why, that the word household is so applied. Is it unquestionable that the hoiisehold were baptized, not on account of their own faith, but on account of the faith of the head of the family ? No ; this is not unquestionable ; this is the point in debate. But this is what Dr. Wardlaw's third o>)servation takes as uiiquostion- able. If it is not unquestionable in this sense, it is nothing to his purpose. It does not accord with the ancient practice of the circum- / 184; THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. cision of families. If the household believed and were baptized, it does not accord Avith the circimicision of a family Avithoiit any regard to faith. Dr. Wardlaw must take for granted his ovm sense of the phrase ; and when this is granted to him, he mil very easily prove his point. If it is granted as a thing unquestionable, that unbelieving families were baptized, as rmbelieving families might be circumcised, the debate is at an end. But Dr. Wardlaw must prove his meaning of the phrase, before he takes it for granted. We are indeed warranted to assxune, that it Avas the usual practice to baptize every family that beheved. But from the baptism of a thousand families, Ave are not Avarranted to conclude the baptism of every family Avhen the head of it believed. The baptism of one family will prove that all families in the same circumstances ought to be baptized. This is the turning point of the argument. If Ave read that a man and his Avhole family Avere hanged for murder, this Avill prove that every family that joins Avith the head of it in committing murder, ought to be hanged. But it AAdll not prove that every family ought to be hanged AAath the father, AA^hen he is guilty of miu'der. If Lydia's family were baptized on account of her faith, having none of their oaati, it would prove what Dr. WardlaAv Avants ; but if this is not in evidence, he cannot take it for granted. Dr. Wardlaw must prove that these households were baptized, not on account of their OAvn faith, but on account of that of the head of the family. This is Avhat he can ncA'-er do. All the apparent strength of his reasoning depends on the assumption of false principles. No man is more conA'inciug than Dr. Wardlaw, if it is laA^'fL^l to take for granted the thing to be proA'ed. Dr. WardlaAv, in the fourth place^ examines "the principles on AA-hich they endeaA'oui- to set aside the inference from the examples in question." He thinks that they have not proA'ed that Lydia had no childi'en. And does Dr. WardlaAv think that this proof lies upon us ? He is a man of Avar from his youth ; and has he yet to learn the laws of the combat ? The proof of the fact that Lydia had children, hes on those who need the assistance of the infants. I maintain that it is not in evidence that she AA^as ever married; and an argument cannot be founded on what is not in evidence. That she may not have had a child is consistent Avith all that is said here. This is sufficient for my pur-pose. Before un argument can be deduced fi'om this fact, it must be proved not only that she had children, but infants. Nay, more, I care not that she had infants ; the form of the expression does not require that they AA^ere bap- tized, and the commission makes it certain that they were not baptized. Dr. WardlaAv has a very long, and certainly a very satisfactory dis- cussion, shoAving that the temi brethren^ m verse 40, may not refer to Lydia's household, but all the believers of the place. Now, if oiu* argument required us to prove, that the brethren here must be only Lydia's household, Ave never could prove it. But our argument requires no such thing. This term can be a proof on neither side, for it is con- sistent Avith both. "Equally futile," says Dr. Wardlf^Av, "are the proofs adduced, that there were no infant children in the households of the jailor, and of THE SUBJECTS Ol' BAPTISM. 185 Stephanas." Now, if there ai*e any on my side of the question who think that it is necessary to prove this, I refer them to Dr. Wardlaw for a most triumphant refutation of their sentiment. But did not Dr. Wardlaw perceive that he was here cutting his own carotid artery ? Did he not perceive that the very same arguments which prove that the language ^dth respect to the faith of the households of the jailor and of Stephanas, is consistent with the supposition that there might have been infants in them, ecjually prove that there might have been infants in them without being baptized ? Wlien it is said with respect to the jailor, that Paul "spake the word of the Lord to all that were in his house," I admit that there might have been iiifants. And when it is said that a family were baptized, infants might have been in the house, Avithout being included in the baptism. The commission as effectually excludes them from baptism, as their infancy excludes them from the munber of those to whom the Gospel is preached. Dr. Wardlaw evidently does not imderstand the argument that we draw from the above soiu'ce. We do not attempt to prove that such phraseology is inconsistent with the supposition, that infants were in the famiUes. But we allege these facts, to show that if there were bajJtized families, there were also believing families; and that if, in a believing house, there may be unbeheving infants, so in a baptized house, there may be unbaptized infants. By the very same arguments that our opponents show that there might have been unbeheving infants in believing houses, we will show that there might have been unbaptized infants in baptized houses. But the facts alluded to are especially important, because they apply to the very houses that are said to be baptized. This not only shows that it was possible that there might be beheving houses, but it shows that there wei'e such houses. Two of the three baptized house- holds are expressly shoAvn to be believing households. If this is not said of the house of Lydia, it may have been the same ; and the com- mission requires that it should be so. And if we are informed of the baptism of Lydia's house, and not of their faith, we are told of the faith of the house of Crispus, and not of their baptism. Wlien we are informed of the one, the other is necessarily understood. Why do our opponents speak of their households at all ? If the jailor had a baptized house, had he not a beheving house? If Stephanas had a baptized house, had he not a believing house ? And why may not Lydia have had a believing house ? Our cause requires no more than that the baptized houses may have been believing houses. We foiuid here no argument; we merely reply to an objection. But that two of the three baptized houses were believing houses, is actually in evidence. There is here no cover for infant baptism. "I add," says Dr. Wardlaw, "as a sixth observation, the extreme improbability, that a change, which must have been felt so important by those whose minds had been all along habituated to the connexion of their childre]i with themselves in the covenant of promise, should have taken place without the slightest recorded symptom of opposition or demiu'ring." This is a mode of reasoning utterly unwarrantable, and deserves no attention. We learn what God has enjoined from what is 186 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Aratten. Even if the fact here stated could not at all be accomited for, it could not be admitted as evidence. A thousand things might account for it, of which we are ignorant. Is every thing recorded that took place in the apostohc labours ? Their adult children in unbeHef were admitted to all Jemsh ordinances; is there any recorded complaint of theh' exclusion from Christian ordinances ? Why shotdd they not com- plain, that, as all their offspring were admitted to the passover, and all the privileges of the Jewish church, they should be kept from the Lord's table ? But, in fact, their zeal was for the law, and nothing would satisfy them in the room oi" it. Their prejudices were not at all con- cerned about the extent of Christian ordinances. What offended them, was the giving up of old customs. Of the extent of baptism, whatever it was, they could not be ignorant. Why then should they murmur against the known will of God ? Upon the principle of this observation, there were a thousand things of which they might have complained, but of Avhich no complaint is recorded. This takes for granted, also, that there was a spiritual connexion between the Jews and their offspring, which is the thing to be proved, — a thing which is not only not admitted to be true, but which I will prove to be false. This observation proceeds from first to last, on false principles. It takes for granted, that every disagi'eeable change miist have been a cause of miu-mimng ; and if there was murmuring, it must have been recorded. There might have been a disagreeable change, the principle of Avhich might be so AveU imder- stood, as to prevent murmuring; and there might have been great miUTQuring Avithout any record. "Another remarkable ciixiunstance," says Dr. Wardlaw, " akin to the preceding, is, that Avhen the Judaizing teachers insisted on the Gentile converts submitting to cii'cumcision, — although there can be no doubt that this Avas done, in every case, in connexion with their children^ yet, Avhen the doctrine and practice of these perverters of the Gospel came to be discussed in the assembly of the apostles, and elders, and bretlu-en at Jerusalem, no notice whatever is taken of the inconsistency Avith the spirituaUty of the new dispensation, of administering any sigzi to children, on the admission of their parents into the Christian commonAvealth." This is egregious trifling. Are all things recorded that were said on that occasion ? Was there any need in that assembly to discuss CA'ery error connected AAdth the circumcision of the Gentiles ? By cutting off the circumcision of the Gentiles, was not the circiimcision of their infants and every error connected A\'ith it, cut off also ? But such obsei'vations, so far from deserving an answer, deserve no mention. Must the apostles give a Avhole body of divinity, Avhen they denounce a particidar error ? Dr. WardlaAA^, Ave are AA"ilhng to listen to anything you can allege from the Scriptru-e in support of yotu- opinion; but such arguments merit no consideration. This observation takes it for granted, that the apostles could not condemn one error, AAdthout expressly denouncing every other error connected AA'ith it; and. that Ave haA'e, in the records of the Acts, every thing that was said in the celebrated meeting at Jerusalem. " Let it be ftirther considered," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that aa^c have no recorded instance of the baptism of any person, groAvn to manhood, that THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 187 had been born of Jewish converts, or of Gentile proselytes to the faith of Christ." This would try the patience of Job. Is there any need of such an example, in order to show that the children of snch persons should be baptized when they believe ? What difference is there be- tween such and others ? Is not the law of the commission sufficient to reach them ? Is it not sufficiently clear ? " He that believeth and is baptized." " Nor have we," continues Dr. Wardlaw, " in any of the apostoHc epistles to the chiu'ches, the remotest allusion, in the form of direction, or of warning, to the reception of such children by baptism into the Christian church, upon their professing the faith in which they had been brought up." A very good reason for this. The same law applies to aU. There is not the smallest difference between the ground of receiving the child of a heathen, and the child of the most devoted saint. When they beheve, they are received equally to every thing. " This supposition," says Dr. Wardlaw, " let it be fiu-ther noticed, is in coincidence with the fact of children being addressed in the apostolic epistles to the churches of Christ. Thus, in Eph. vi. 1, ' Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.' Col. iii. 20, ' Children, obey your parents in all things ; for this is weU pleasing imto the Lord.' " Now, this argument is deduced from Scripture ; and it merits an answer. That answer, however, is easily found. The children here addressed, were believing members of the churches. That they may have been so, is sufficient for my piu-pose. This wiU refute an objection. But that they must have been such, is beyond question, fi'om the address itself. Their obedience to their parents, is to be " in the io?'cZ," which applies to believers only. The reasons of theu- obedience, also, show that they were such children as were capable of faith. " This is right.'''' — " This is ivell pleasing unto the Lord.'''' These are motives quite suitable to be- lievers. As soon as children can evidence that they act from these principles, they ought to be baptized, and to Avalk in aU the ordinances of the Lord. But Dr. Wardlaw thinks that the children here addressed cannot merely be such adult children as were members of the churches ; because it is immediately added, " And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." — " Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be dis- coiiraged." Now, as the duty of fathers extends to all theii- cliildren, Dr. Wardlaw thinks that the childi'en addressed, must be all the childi-en capable of receiving instruction. But if he were not eager in the pursuit of something to defend his system, his powers of discrimina- tion would discern, that in these injunctions, neither the childi-en nor the fathers of the one injunction, correspond to the children or the fathers of the other. In fact, it might happen that not one of either might correspond. Wlien the apostle addresses the children, he addresses all the members of the church who had fathers ; but not one of these fathers might be in the church. So far from being necessary to suppose, that aU the children of the one address arc the same as the children of the other address, it is not necessary to siq)po.se that one of them was the same. When the children are commanded to obey their 188 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. parents, their obedience is not to be confined to such fathers as were beHevers and members of the church; but to fathers, whatever they might be. And when fathers are commanded not to provoke their children, &c., the injimction extends to all their children. The fathers addressed may not be the fathers of the children addressed; and the children addressed may not be the children of the fathers addressed. Surely Dr. WardlaAV must be in the habit of teaching according to this distinction. I should not be so much siu'prised to find this indistinct- ness of conception in those who make no distinction between the chui'ch and the world. In the church in which I labour, there are veiy many children whose parents do not belong to us ; and there are some parents Avhose childi'en belong to other denominations. Yet these apostohcal injunctions are constantly inculcated. Children are to obey their parents in the Lord, even if these parents are infidels ; and parents are to train up their children in the nurture of the Lord, though they are not in the chiu'ch. " Do our Baptist brethren," says Dr. Wardlaw, " wait till their children are members of churches, before they ventxrre to put their finger on the passages we have quoted, and say, ' This is addi-essed to you ?'" No man who speaks correctly, can say that Ephes. vi. 1, Col. iii. 20, are expressly directed to any but behevers. But we can teach the most disobedient children their duty fi'om these passages. Though we camiot tell unbeheving children that these exhortations were origi- nally addressed to such as they are, but to believing children; yet the duty incrdcated is equally incumbent on all. The moral duties incul- cated on behevers, are equally the duty of luibelievers. The duty of obedience to parents is not a new duty, that results from coimexion -with a church, or with receiving the gospel. What, then, in this respect, is inculcated on beheving children, equally shows the duty of unbelieving children. Dr. Wardlaw ■will not say, that unbeheving fathers are du'ectly addressed in the above injunctions ; yet could he not apply the injunctions, so as to make them bear upon imbelievhig fathers ? Could he not urge on unbeheving fathers, their guilt in not training up their children in the nui'tiu-e of the Lord ? Children, from the first dawn of reason, may be taught their duty fi'om such passages, without falsely teUing them that they were originally addressed to children as young as themselves. Now, Dr. Wardlaw, of yotu' eleven observations, this is the only one that has even a show of argument ; yet I am sru'e your good sense will admit that it is answered. " X. The cii'cmnstauces of the early history of the chiu'ch, after the apostolic age, are rmaccountable on Anti-pgedo-baptist principles." So, Dr. Wardlaw, you are rettu'ifing to your old mode of reasoning from difficrdties. Well, then, I will admit, for sake of argument, that the thing is unaccountable. It may be true, notwithstanding. Many things that would cast light upon this point, may be buried in the ruins of antiquity. I am not obliged to account for it. I will not neglect an ordinance of Christ, I ^viU not adopt an ordinance not founded by Christ, from any difficidty arising from chui'ch history. My Bible, like that of Mr. E wing's, ends with the book of Revelation. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. , 189 But there is nothing more obvious to a candid mind, than the origin of the early introduction of infant baptism. As soon as baptism was looked on as essential to sah'ation, infant baptism would naturally follow. Dr. Wardlaw, indeed, says, that we may as Avell suppose thiit the ojnni on arose from the practice, as that the practice arose from the opinion. It would be easy to show that this is not the case. But that the opinion may have given rise to the practice, is enough for my purpose. I am answer- ing an objection, and anything that will account for the difficulty, is sufficient. It may have been so, is cjuite enough for me. Even thus much I am not bound to give. Infant communion was practised as well as infant baptism. No matter what was the origin of either of them; if one of them is allowed to be an error, the early practice of the other cannot be alleged as proof of its truth. Even were it granted that infant communion Avas grafted on infant baptism, stiU, as it was univer- sally received so early A\dthout having been from the apostles, infant ?japtism may have been grafted on some similar stock. It is impossible to argue consistently for infant baptism from the argument of antiquity, and reject the same argument for infant communion. If infant commu- nion was a thing not instituted by the apostles, yet imiversally adopted so early, why may not any other practice have been adopted universally without apostolic institution ? The practice of the earhest antiquity, with respect to the ordinances of Christ, is a matter of much interest; and I am convinced that the subject has never been set in that hght, which the remains of antiqiiity would afford to candour and industry. If God spares me Hfe and leisure, I may yet endeavour to exhibit its testimony. But an ordinance of Christ I will never ground on anything but the word of God. Many things true, may be whoUy unaccountable. " XI. I have only one other particiilar," says Dr. Wardlaw, " to add to this series. It is the remarkable fact of the entire absence, so far as my recoUection serves me, of anything resembhng the baptism of house- holds or families, in the accounts of ing and dipping, are all impostors. Standing up is the true heir to the inheritance. 10. Dr. H. assumes that oui" Lord gave the commission in Ai'amaic. I have no objection to this as a possible fact. But it is not in evidence from Scripture, and can be no foundation for a Scripture doctrine. We have nothing to do with the language in which our Lord spoke : we must be guided by the language in which his words and actions are reported. To go to the language which he is supposed to have spoken, is to go beyond first principles. We have no more concern with the language which Christ spoke on earth, than we have -with the language which he now speaks in heaven. Our opponents overlook first principles which are as clear as the Hght, and they bring in first principles which have neither proof nor self-evidence. Here, in order to have a good foundation, Dr. H. attempts to dig to the antipodes. • 11. Dr. H. assumes, that if our Loi'd spoke in Aramaic, he must have used the word found in the Peshito Syriac version. If that word signi- 278 REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. fies to stand, there is the most perfect certainty that he did not use it: if he used that word, there is the utmost certainty that in that use it does not signify to stand ; because in that sense it wordd not correspond to the word in the New Testament. What reason can we have for saying that Christ must have used either one word or another, but as such word cor- responds to haptizo ? Is it by necromancy that we are to find out what word our Lord used on this occasion? Do we know anything of the nature or mode of this ordinance but from the New Testament? Dr. H. here absurdly pretends to find out the meaning of the word used for the ordinance in the Scriptures, by the word which Christ is supposed to have used in the language in which he uttered the commission, though the word which Christ used in conveying the commission cannot be even guessed at, but from the word used in the New Testament. This is like another of the author's exploits, in which he pretends to found the doctrine of inspiration, not on the declaration of Scripture, but on the authority of the Son of God, as if the knowledge of the authority of the Son of God did not itself rest on the authenticity of the Scriptures ! 12. Dr. Henderson's advice to the Bible Society is inconsistent with his confidence of conviction with respect to the meaning of the word. He beheves that it is demonstratively proved that it signifies to purify. How, then, can he advise to transfer the word, or translate it by any other word ? It is an axiom, as clear as any in mathematics, that every thing in the original, as far as it can be ascertained, ought to be commu- nicated in a translation of Scripture. There can be no reason for withholding anything with respect to one ordinance or doctrine, that wiU not equally apply to every other. If it is lawful to withhold the know- ledge conveyed in one word, it is lawful to withhold the whole Scriptures. If it is lawful to mistranslate one word, it is equally lawful to mistrans- late the whole. If any translator believes that the word signifies to sprinkle, or to pour, he is bound so to translate it. If any one .thinks that it signifies to purify, as an honest man he must translate accordingly. But to advise concealment, or misrepresentation, of what it is believed God has revealed, is most monstrous. If any translator, after all his study, research, and prayer, is unable to determine the meaning of this word, I am not the person to blame him for transferring it. What can he do but transfer ? Every one must act according to his own fight. No man ought to be advised to conceal or misrepresent. God is the Almighty, and needs not the assistance of our dishonesty. Jacob would have obtained the blessing without his knavery. 13. Dr. H. scruples to assist a translation which renders the word immerse, while he thinks the baptists very unreasonable because they wiU not co-operate with the Bible Society; though they not only dechne assisting Baptist translations, but also assist translations which the Baptists disapprove. 14. Dr. H. assumes that the opinion of Mr. Greenfield, that the mode of the ordinance is a matter of indifference, invahdates his testimony about the meaning of the word, and of the words employed by ancient translations to represent it. Could any well-regulated mind urge such an argument ? Wliat connexion has an opinion regarding the importance REPLY TO DR. HENDERSON. 279 of the mode of an ordinance, Avitli the testimony respecting the meaning of the word which denotes it? A sound mind is better than the gift of tongues. 15. Dr. H. assumes that the objection to the word baptize^ on the part of the Baptists, is because it is an exotic ; and gravely proceeds to show the same thing of the term immerse. Was there ever sucli trifling? The objection to the word baptize is not because it is an exotic, but because, as an Enghsh word, it is merely the designation of an ordinance, without expressing the mode, which is expressed by the word in the original. Baptize has become an Enghsh word, but as an EngUsh word it has not the sense of the Greek word which it is employed to represent. Many people were astonished at the verdict of the House of Lords with respect to Lord Cardigan: there is not a man in the empii-e who can have any doubt with respect to the matter of fact. How, then, could all the noble lords lay their hands upon their breasts and pronounce the words, "Not guilty, upon mine honour!" There is no reason for astonishment. According to the first principles on which theii* lordships were bound to decide, their verdict could not have been different. The name of the person challenged must be accurately specified in the indictment; and it was not so specified. Just so on this subject. As long as owe opponents lay down arbitrary and absiird jDrinciples of inter- pretation, it is useless to present evidence from examples. Were they ever so numerous and clear, the disputant, grounding on his first prin- ciples, will lay his hand on his breast and say: "Not proved, upon mine honour." Unless on one side or other our first principles are false, how is it possible that the meaning of this word cannot be settled ? It cannot be from any diificulty in the word itself. No word in the language can afford better sources for definite decision. Was ever any word in any language so frxlly discussed ? Is doubt to be eternal ? I arraign our opponents as estabhshing innumerable false principles of interpretation, and as tramphng on many of the clearest laws of language. Here, then, let me be met. We need not send the jury into the box, till we have laid do'^vn the principles on which they are to decide on the proof that shall come before them on the evidence of examples. I call on the imlearned of both sides to judge for themselves. I engage to make every thing plain to every man of good sense. My rules of criticism may be imderstood and estimated by men utterly imacquainted mth the Greek language. They equally apply to all languages, and to aU words of all languages. Let me entreat the studious and prayei'ful attention of every Christian to this controversy. To suppose that it cannot be decided is to insult the word of God. Were it the least of Christ's commandments, it ought not to be disregarded. But the subject is important in itself: it is important as it regards the peace and pros- perity of the churches, the translation and circulation of the Scripttu-es, and the interpretation of the Word of God on every subject. It is a fearful thing to teach the chikben of God how to evade his command- ments, by adopting laws of interpretation calculated to extinguish every doctrine in Scripture. CHAPTEK VI. EXAMINATION OF A SERIES OF PAPERS IN THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGA- ZINE, ENTITLED, " A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM." Section I. — A writer in the Congregational Magazine undertakes to prove that baptizo, in reference to the ordinance of Christ, signifies to purify. Though in answer to President Beecher I have fiilly refuted that theory, I shall examine, at some length, what is advanced in this series of papers. The writer assumes that we rest on the ancient use of the word, without reference to later usage. Nothing can be more unfounded. We appeal to the practice of the language universally, and admit every sense of a word that usage has established. Our authorities embrace the whole period, from the earliest usage to the times of the apostles. " If to dip, a dipper, a dipping," says the writer, " be the signification of these words, (baptizo, &c.) then, unquestionably, baptism was per- formed in this manner." This, certainly, is a valid inference. Were all his reasoning equally strong, it would be impregnable. The amount of it is, if the words have such a meaning, then unquestionably they have such a meaning. I am not disposed to question this. Had he said, as the primary meaning of the words is confessedly such, if a secondary cannot be proved from the usage of the language, then unquestionably baptism was performed by immersion, he would have said something equally unquestionable, and something to the purpose. This is exactly the way in which I proceed, and in which every one in search of truth must proceed, in ascertaining the meaning of words from written documents. He adds, " If these words have some other signification, then it remains to be considered, whether, from any other source, we can learn how this ordinance was originally administered." This I most fully admit. If, in a single instance in all the history of the Greek language, a secondary meaning can be proved, I admit that such secondary meaning may lawftilly compete with the primary, in every case, and that other proof is necessary to decide the preference. Surely this is an admission fuU enough. But had the word twenty meanings, its meaning in every occurrence must be capable of being ascertained, otherwise there is blame in the composition. " It has been thought enough," says the REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 281 wiiter, " by the advocates of dipping, to show that there is nothing in the Bible to make this sense of the disputed term impossible^ Tliis is not a fair representation. We do not allege that it is the true meaning, simply because it is not in any case impossihle, but on the ground that no secondary meaning is in proof. A meaning may be not only not impos- sible from connexion, biit may be entirely suitable to connexion, yet may not be the true meaning, — nay, may be the very opposite of the true meaning. In the expression, " He rode a black horse,'" white is as suit- able to the connexion as black. Suitableness to connexion is a condition of the true meaning of a word, but it is not a criterion. We are, therefore, infinitely far from saying what this writer represents us as saying. Wliat we say is, that when the meaning of a word is ascertained by an EXAJIINATION OF ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE LANGUAGE ; AND WHEN NO SECOND- ARY MEANING IS IN PROOF FROM OTHER PLACES, THEN IN A DISPUTED PLACE NOTHING BUT AN BIPOSSIBILITY CAN FORBID US TO APPLY THE PRDIARY MEAN- ING, OR WARRANT US TO ASSIGN A SECONT)AiiY. In like manner as to a third meaning; — where two meanings are in proof, a third should not be alleged in any case till it is proved. The competition must be restrained to the two meanings in proof. If a third meaning is proved by exam- ples, let it come into competition, but let a fourth be forbidden, except on the same condition. This canon is a first truth, and no candid man of common sense will ever refuse to sustain it. It applies not merely to this word, but to words mthout exception. For what can forbid the meaning of a word which is in proof, when no other meaning is in proof, and when the passage where it occurs can admit it ? If the word is not proved in other places to have a secondary sense, and if in the supposed case it is capable of its proved meaning, where is the difficulty ? How can such a passage be proof that the word has a secondary sense, when ill such passage it is capable of the primary ? If the word in the passage can have such a meaning, can it be said that the passage proves that the word cannot have such a meaning ? This is to say that tlie same thing is both possible and impossible. But if a secondary meaning is in proof, then the possibility of the application of the primary, is no evidence that it is the true meaning. The claims of the competitors must be judged on other grounds. So far, then, are we from saying that mere possibility warrants primary meaning in aU cases. " And their opponents," adds the writer, " have been satisfied Avith proving that, in heathen literature, another sense is j^ossible.'" Now this shows that our opponents do not understand oiu* critical doctrine on this point. They think they stand on the same ground with us, Avhen they allege that, in many passages, the connexion will bear another meaning as possible. But this we admit without the smallest injury to om- canon. Indeed, it is the very thing which I have often proved. The connexion may admit many meanings which are false ; sometimes as ^"illingly as it admits the true meaning. I do not ground the meaning of the word on the fact that connexion does not make it impossible ; but on the evidence of passages which demand this sense. When I have done this, I repol objections by alleging possibiUty. I deny in this instance a secondary meaning, not because connexion ahvays makes a secondary meaning 282 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. impossible ; but because no secondary meaning has ever been proved in any instance. My possibility answers objections : the possibility of my opponents, even according to this writer, is the ground of proof. Now mere possibility is no proof; but it is sufficient to repel objection. " The principle which has been assumed by those who assert that baptism means dipping," observes the writer, " which has been some- times, though not always asserted, but which has received httle, if any support from fact or reason, is this, that the signification of the root of a word or its signification in classic Greek, is most probably its significa- tion in the New Testament; most probably to such a degree, that no turning from the radical or classic meaning should be allowed, except when these are plainly impossible." This also is a misrepresentation. Instead of confining words in the New Testament to the signification of their roots, we teach, that not only in the New Testament, but in the language of all writers and speakers, many words depart widely from their roots. I have shown this in instances of the most extravagant departure. No writer has ever admitted or proved this to a greater extent than I have done; and I do not confine to classic use in the interpretation of the Scriptures. I admit all use until the very moment in which the dociunent is written. Instead of teaching that no turning from radical meaning should be allowed, except where it is impossible, I teach that, in a multitude of words, there is a departure from radical meaning, without any impossibility from connexion. Where two or more meanings are in proof, which of them is the true meaning in any passage, is to be determined by other evidence. And with respect to classic Greek, if any other Greek has established a secondary meaning, I will admit such meaning as a competition. Can truth require more ? " Accordingly," says the writer, " in discussing the signification of haptizo, &c., they first look to the root, and to classic usage." This is our avowed practice. Certainly, with respect to aU words, it is the natural process. It is the process followed by all philologists. In tracing the meaning of a word, and its change of signification if it has any, the natural course surely is, to begin with its origin as far as known, observe its first appearance in the language, and follow it through every successive stage in its history. But we have no objection to any process whatever. Let our opponents commence at any stage they choose; we engage to show that in no stage of its existence is there proof that it signifies to purify, or anything but to immerse. But the author adds: "And then having fixed in their judgment what is the meaning in heathen writers, they take that meaning to the Bible, and because it is not absolutely impossible that the word should have the same meaning there, they declare that it certainly has that meaning, and none beside." In the only sense that this can serve the writer, it is not true. It imphes that we carry the classical meaning of the word to the Bible, without regard to a different meaning existing in what they call Hebraistic Greek. Now this is not fact. We appeal to aU Greek; and if there is any Hebraistic Greek concerned in the question, we have it, because we have aU that the language affords, both from our own industry and the diligence of our opponents. We have not overlooked REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 283 a single instance. "We appeal to aU Greek; and if in any Greek -vre should find another meaning, we would admit it to competition, though the preference might be justly given to the primary. In this case, how- ever, there is no variation among the whole range of Greek writers. Indeed, the question of Hebraistic Greek has no concern in settling the meaning of any word. To the interpreter it is no matter what is the principle which has operated in. the change of the meaning of any word. The fact of a change is what he is to ascertain. If this is proved, he is not bound to show the principle, or account philosophically for the change. This is not the business of the interpreter ; but of the philo- logist. It is a matter of great importance to philology, and to the philosophy of the human mind ; but interpretation and controversy have no concern with it. If my opponents could prove the change which they allege in the meaning of this word, they need not deign to account for it. Their business is done, when the fact of such change is proved. The difference between the duty of a philologist and that of an interpreter, is like that between the business of a coroner and that of a lawyer, with respect to the sudden death of a person who was the life of a lease. The certainty of the death is all that concerns the latter ; the former must investigate the causes of his death. When the interpreter proves a change in the meaning of a word, he grounds on it, -without regard to its cause; the philologist endeavour's to ascertain the cause. Should I ever find time to finish my work on the canons of Bibhcal interpretation, Hebraism is one of the things that will demand consideration. But in ascer- taining the meaning of any word, opinion of the influence and extent of this principle has no concern. If a word is proved by use to have changed its meaning, the change must be admitted, whatever may have been its cause : if this is not proved, no principle can prove its existence. "It might be supposed," says the writer, "from the way in which some persons reason concerning words, that they were almost unalterable in their signification; that they were, perhaps, the most immutable things met with in this changmg world." Who are the persons to whom this applies ? There is no one in existence to whom it can less apply than to me. Have I not, in that which I have written on this controversy, most fuUy taught that words change their meaning? Have I not given exam- ples showing that words sometimes change their meaning to an extrava- gant degree ? But I have also taught that there are some words which have not changed their meaning ; and that the word haptizo is one of them. In his second paper this writer endeavoiu-s to prove that the word in dispute usually signifies in classic Greek not simply to dip, but to continue for some time under water. The word is not more applicable to water than it is to wine, or oil, or any other Hquid. It is not confined even to Hquids, but appUes to every thing that may be penetrated. And the continuation of the state after immersion is not at all contained in the word, but is learned from the comiexion or nature of the thing. Nothing can exceed the absurdity of supposing that the word should designate both the immersion and the state after immersion. Even duno, to sink, does not imply continued submersion. It may he applied to a diver who immediately emerges, as Avell as to a millstone that lies ibr 284 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. ever at tlie bottom. The very words hill, die, &c., do not designate a continuation of tlie state induced. Tliey are as applicable, when there is an immediate re-animation, as if there were no resurrection. None of the examples alleged by him prove his opinion. Cork is said to be unhaptizable, not merely because it will not lie at bottom when forced down, but because it will not by its own specific gravity, dip, or sink. It will no more dip of itself, than it will of itself lie at bottom. If as supporting a net it is sometimes covered vnth water, it does not dip more than it sinks : and if it may be dipped, it may also be sunk. If it may be forcibly covered with water at top, so may it be forcibly kept for ever at bottom. If when restraint is removed it will rise from the bottom, surely when restraint is removed it will remain at top. It is said to be unbaptizahle because it will not dip or sink by its ov^m weight. " It is dipped," says the vniter, " but it does not sink." But it does not dip more than it does not sink ; and if it is dipped, it may be sunk. If external force dips it, external force may keep it in continued sub- mersion. The example from Aristotle, alleged by Dr. Gale, contradicts the doctrine of this writer. The passage asserts that the coast is not baptized at ebb, though completely overflowed at full tide. Does not this imply that the coast was baptized twice every day? The word, then, cannot import a continued submersion. The passage from Strabo is not fairly reported: "Things wliich do not float in other waters, are not baptized in a lake near Agrigentiim: they are like wood, which may be dipped, but will not sink." "Would not any one suppose from this representation, that Strabo had said of the things referred to, that they might be dipped, while the verb in ques- tion could not be applied to them ? But Strabo says nothing like this. Strabo does not say that " they are hke wood which may be dipped, but will not sink." He says, " they float like wood." If timber may be dipped, so timber may be kept at the bottom. Strabo does not say that timber vdll not continue at the bottom, although it -will sink. He says it will not sink. There is no expression of continuation of submersion in any of these passages. With respect to the baptism of Alexander's soldiers, can there be a better test of the import of the expression, than the fact that it can be literally expressed in our own language ? " They marched the whole day in water, immersed up to the middle." The continuation of this immersion is not contained in the word, but in the phrase, the whole day. The word would have been equally apphcable, had it been only a single plunge. " The same writer states," says the author, " that if a man went into lake Sirbon, omng to the density of the water, he would not be baptized. He might dip himself, or be dipped into it, but he would not sink, even if unable to swim." Now this is a strange way of reporting evidence. I appeal to every Enghsh reader, if he does not gather from this, that the document makes a difference between dip and si7ik. It neither expresses nor imphes any such thing. Dr. Gale's translation of the passage is: " The bitumen floats at top, because of the nature of the REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 285 waters, which admits no diving; for if a man goes into it he cannot sink, or be dipped, but is forcibly kept tip." As far as this controversy is concerned, this translation is good enough, though it is not acciu'ate. It is not " admits no diving," but ^'■requires no swimming f that is, the effort of swimming is not necessary to keep above water. It is not, he cannot sink, but he does not of necessity sink, that is, his ovra. weight does not force him down. The word respects the dipx>ing or sinking, and has no relation to the continuation of submersion. The same writer speaks of a river whose waters are so dense, that if a dart is thrown in from above, it is with difficulty the dart dips. Here the penetration of the water is designated by the verb in question. Nothing can be more decisive. But sotmd philology would never expect that the same word should express both an immersion and a continuation in that state. " Lucian," says the writer, " introduces Tinion as saying, that ' If a winter storm were to carry any one away, and he should stretch forth his hands, imploring help, he would push down the head of such a person, baptizing him, that he might be unable to rise again.' This person was not only to be dipped, but to be kept under water that he might be di'owned." No doubt the intention of Timon's baptism was destruction ; but does this imply, that the intention of every baptism is destruction ? Can anything be more ridiculous than to suppose, that the same word should denote both immersion and the intention of the immersion ? Does not Lucian expressly declare the purpose of this immersion ? Besides, does not Timon say, that he would baptize the person on his head, that is, that he would immerse him with his head downwards, that he might be unable to rise ? Does not this imply, that rising after the immersion was possible ? And, after aU Timon's efforts, the baptized person might still have risen, as far as either this word or the circimistances were concerned. This is the most astonishing sort of criticism that I ever met with. The writer might as well extract the whole Athanasian creed from this verb, as extract from it that it designates only a continued immersion. It has nothing to do with continiiation, or with brevity. Let us try this criticism on our own language. In translating Timon's expression we should say, " I would plunge him on his head, that he might not be able to rise again." " Here," saj's the critic, " the word plunge signifies not merely to dip imder water, but to dip with the inten- tion of drowning. Timon did not dip the man in order to raise him immediately, but in order to di'own him. This, then, is an immersion of destruction — a continued immersion. The word jjhinge, then, cannot be applied to cases in which there is an immediate emersion of the plunged object." Would not the most ilHterate Enghshman laugh at the sapient critic ? Yet this is the very criticism employed on the word in the Greek language. Besides, intention and continuation are two very different things. There may be intention without continuation, and continuation without intention. This wiiter makes them identical. But this word implies neither continuation nor intention. There cannot be a more api^ropriate example of the meaning of baptizo, with reference to the ordinance of 286 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. baptism, than this. Timon's baptism for destruction is as good a spe- cimen of the meaning of the word, as is that of John the Baptist, whose baptism was an emblem of salvation. No critic under heaven would think of extracting the intention or continuation of an immersion from the word that designates immersion. On the example, "A pilot does not know but that he may save in his ship one whom it were better that he had baptized;" the writer remarks, "the meaning of the word here is obviously opposed to saving; it must, therefore, be not dipping but drowning^ Even here the word does not signify droivn, but has its usual mean- ing. That drowning is the consequence of the immersion is known from the circumstances in which it takes place. Let us try the criti- cism on the Enghsh : " The captain cast one of the sailors over- board." To cast overhoard, or to cast into the sea, does not signify to drown ; but if it takes place in the midst of the sea, drowning is the known consequence. And if we are not informed of his escape, this is the conclusion. Yet a man might be cast overboard, and escape. To cast overboard, then, is not the same as droivn. So with respect to the word in question. K it is said, " Better the captain had plunged the fellow into the sea," drowning, we know, would have been the resxdt, but it is not designated by plunge. I have no objection that the word should be here in a fi-ee translation rendered drown ; and our friend Dr. Gale does so translate it: but the word has here its peculiar modal meaning, and nothing more. This is a point which on aU subjects I have been continually pressing, but which I cannot get my opponents to understand. Words may, in certain circiunstances, be commutable, when they are not at aU identical in meaning. " Most of the land animals, being carried away by the stream, pe- rished, being baptized." On this the author remarks, " They would not have been hurt by dipping ; they continued under water, and were droT\Tied." The Greek word haptizo would not hurt them more than the harmless English word dip, were there an immediate emersion; and dip, if not followed by an emersion, "vvill be followed by death as its consequence, as well as haptizo : and the latter may be followed by emersion as well as the former. The continuation under water is not here expressed by the verb in question. The animals swam for a time, as they were carried do^va the stream ; but at last they sunk, or were completely immersed. The consequence of this was, they perished. Our word immerse does not express continuation; yet we could say, " Being immersed, they perished." Indeed, the perishing, so far from being contained in this word, is expressly mentioned by another word — " being immersed, they perished." " As you would not wish, saihng in a large ship, adorned and abound- ing -with gold, to be baptized, that is, to be drowned." With respect to this example, I say also, that the word in question does not signify to drown, though in this situation this is the consequence. Could we not use our own word immerse exactly in the same manner, in the same circumstances ? " Shall I not laugh at the man who baptized his ship by overlading REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 287 it, and then complains of the sea for enguJfing it with its cargo ?" Can we not exactly express the same thing in English ? " Shall I not laugh at the man who immerses his ship by overlading it ?" The con- tinuation of the immersion is not in this word, whether it is haptizo or immerse. The author remarks on this example, " He not only dips his ship, he sinks it." He appears to think that sink necessarily impHes continuation: but it does no such thing. A thing may be made to sink, and be immediately brought up. This is the case in the ordinance ojf baptism, and in a thousand other things. A thing may even sink by its own weight, and be immediately brought up. This was the case with respect to the axe of the prophets, which sank in Jordan. Divers sink, and rise again. There is no Avord that has the signification which this critic confers on baptizo. The same will apply to the ship which carried Jonah. If it was about to be baptized., to be immersed, or to sink, it was just about to be lost ; yet baptism, and sinking, and immersion, do not express continua- tion at the bottom of the sea. This is the consequence, if nothing to the contrary is expressed. "With respect to the death of Aristobulus, the -writer says, " He was not merely dipped, but he was kept under water till di'owned." Were this exactly the case, it is futile. It was not a mere dipping of him that killed him, but the keeping him under water till he died. But it is not said that the assassins dipped him, and then kept him under water tiU he died. They dipped him again and again, till he was suffocated. This example is the most complete proof, that the word in question does not of itself designate continuation. The first baptism did not destroy him; they repeated the operation till he was suffocated. This shows that a man may be baptized without being destroyed. The wi'iter observes, that " This baptism is mentioned as obviously an adequate cause of death." This, truly, is a very sage observation. If a man is immersed again and again, till he is suffocated, does it require any other evidence to prove that he is dead ? Suffocation is a very sufficient cause of death. " The historian says, that the ship in Avhich he sailed was baptized in the midst of the Adriatic. It was not only dipped, but it went to the bottom and remained there." Could we not Hterally translate this into EngHsh by oui- own honest word immersion ? " The ship was immersed in the midst of the Adi'iatic ?" The word has here its visual meaning ; the continuation at the bottom is all inference from situation and cir- cumstances; and will be the result equally fi-om the English word as from the Greek. Indeed, the expression is perfectly compatible "with the supposition, that after the sinking of the ship it was by miracle raised immediately. The baptism and the state that follows have no necessary connexion. When Josephus says of some persons, that they baptized the city, this writer asserts, that the expression " means not that they subjected it to any transient affliction, but that they brought it to complete and final ruin." In direct opposition to this, I maintain that no such thing is expressed. The immediate ruin of the affairs of the city is the only thing that is 288 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. asserted. Whether they continued in that state, or were retrieved, is not expressed by this figure, though it may be known from other evidence. As far as this figure is concerned, the aiFairs of the city might have immediately been retrieved. Should the city have been afterwards more prosperous than it was in the time of Solomon, this figure has nothing to object. Can there be anything more absurd than to argue that because a rtiined city never recovered, the word which designates its ruin, must be a word that includes continuation of ruin ? " There is one passage," (in Josephus,) says the writer, " referring to purification from defilement by a dead body, where the word accords with the New Testament usage." The passage he translates thus: " Having immersed a little of the ashes and a hyssop branch at a foun- tain, and having also baptized some of these ashes at the fountain, they sprinkled therewith 'both on the third and on the seventh day, those who had been defiled by a corpse.' The baptizing is here mentioned as something distinct from the dipping, subsequent to it, and applying only to the ashes. Both the ashes and the hyssop branch were dipped, the former only were baptized, i.e., purified." On this I remark: 1. The writer translates enientes by the word inunersed, and says that the immersion is stated as different from the baptism. This is not correct. Enientes is not immersed. This is not a modal word at all. It is a generic term, and signifies to put in, without any respect to manner. Ashes, when put loosely into water, are not said to be immersed, as they do not immediately sink. A powder is usually said to be cast into water, to be thrown into water, or to he put into water — not to he immersed in water. Accordingly, the Greek term exactly corresponds to this idea. It cannot be translated by the word immersed or dipped. Is it not most perverse to refuse to give its modal meaning to a word which is not, in all the Greek language, proved to have any other than a modal meaning, and to bestow this modal meaning on a word which never has a modal meaning ? Wliat are the boundaries of the extravagance employed to set aside this ordi- nance of God ! How easily are our opponents satisfied that a word signifies to immerse, if that word has nothing to do with baptism ! 2. The punctuation of the words of Josephus is evidently vsrrong, and has been made without attention to the rite as described by Moses. The hyssop was not cast into the water vnth the ashes ; but the ashes being cast into the water, the hj-ssop branch was dipped, that by means of it the imclean person might be sprinkled. The comma, then, ought to be before hyssop. " Having pvit a httle ashes into the water, and having dipped a branch of hyssop," &c. This is definitely described by Numbers xix. " And a clean man shall take hyssop, and dip it into the water," &c. 3. The comparison of Josephus with the Septuagint determines the meaning of the word haptizo. It is used here by Josephus to express the same thing, which the Septuagint expresses by hapto, which without controversy is dip. It dips the branch of hyssop. Here a Hebraistic Greek wi'iter, even in reference to a sacred rite of purification, uses the word for immersion. REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 289 4. The ashes were not to be purified in the water: the ashes mixed with the water, were the means of purification. The water coidd not have purified without the ashes. 5. It is not " at the fountain," but " into the fountain." The ashes were put into the fountain — not put into something else at the fountain: the branch of hyssop was dipped into the fountain, not dipped into some- thing else at the fountain. 6. Josephus here, in what way soever his words may be translated, makes an addition to the account of Moses. He casts some of the ashes into the fountain to make the Avater of purification; and some of the ashes he dips in such a way that they may be taken out, and sprinkled on the person to be purified. However he is to be understood, his words are to be translated, " and haAdng immersed a branch of hyssop and also a little of the same ashes into," &c. As the ashes that were to be immersed were to be sprinkled on the person to be purified, they must have been put into the water in a bag as in cookery, or in such a way that they could be taken out. This is evidently the meaning of Josephus, though it is not enjoined in the law of Moses. 7. The translation of the words of Josephus by this writer, imphes this equally with mine. His rendering is, " having also baptized some of those ashes at the fountain, they sprinkled thereioith.'''' That is, they sprinkled with those ashes. The ashes, then, according to this, were sprinkled on the unclean, as well as the water of purification by the branch of hyssop. 8. There is also a difference between Moses and Josephus in the pre- paration of the water of purification. Moses commands the water to be put on the ashes : Josephus puts the ashes on the water. The reason of this difference is obviously that Moses prepares the water in a vessel, while Josephus employs the whole fountain, in which process the water could not be put on the- ashes. "■ It should be remarked," says the writer, " that not only does it appear in these passages that the object baptized continued under water, but it is also clear that the writers direct attention to this point. This continuance is therefore not only a part of the object referred to, but it is a part of the signification of the term." 1. My philosophy draws a directly contrary conclusion from these premises. If the writers referred to draw attention to the point that the objects immersed continued under water, the continuation under water is no part of the meaning of the word. In all these passages the continuation under water is gathered from the circumstances, or is expressly related. 2. The writer has previously admitted that " an examination of the passages which have been adduced wiU show that it very rarely has this sense," that is, the sense of dipping without continuation. Now if it never so rarely has this signification, it is enough for me. The nature and intention of the ordinance will show that the persons to be immersed are not to be kept continually under water. 3. If in any instances, however rare, the word applies to cases in which there is no continuation, then continuation cannot l^e a part of the meaning of the word. 390 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 4. If there are some instances in which the verb is applied to cases in which there was destruction, and other instances in which there was not destruction, then destruction is no part of the meaning of the word. 5. The very example brought by this writer from Josephus to prove purify^ proves immersion to be the meaning of the word. Wliat the Septuagint designates by baptizo, Josephus designates by bapto; and it is not pretended that bapto signifies to purify. 6. That bapto should signify to dip, and baptizo to drown, woidd be an odd effect of termination. 7. The case of Aristobulus proves the same thing. It was not one baptism, biit a succession of baptisms, that destroyed him. The assassins continued to immerse him till he was suffocated. 8. This doctrine is inconsistent with the hypothesis on which the meaning of purify is assigned to this word. Is not the ground on which purification is alleged to be the meaning of this word in Hebraistic Greek, the fact that dip was its common meaning; and that from its being so frequently applied to purification, it came at last to signify purification without respect to mode ? Here, however, this writer, in direct contradiction to this, assures us that the classical meaning of the word is not dip but drown, or, continue in a state of submersion. Now if this is true, how wiU the word come to signify purification? Upon what principle cotdd a word whose common meaning is to drown, come to signify to purify? Pour or sprinkle would be equally suitable to the hypothesis, as the groundwork of the process from mode to piu-ification without respect to mode; but neither of these is the ground on which the purifiers build their superstrticture. They do not contend either for sprinkle or pour as the primary signification of the word in question. Coidd they hope to make good this as the primary meaning, we should never have heard of purification as a secondary, from Hebraistic usage. Purification has been contrived as a refuge, when they have been hunted from pour and sprinkle. On the supposition that the common meaning of the word was drown, and that it was employed in reference to this ordinance, in the sense of purify, let us try the operation on the Enghsh language. Suppose that the ceremony of sprinkling with holy Avater had lately for the first time been introduced into England; is it likely, is it possible, that it would be designated by the word drown? When a few drops of water should be sprinkled on a crowd, would the people be said to be drowned, mean- ing that they were purified? And this is the very thing that our opponents do in Greek. They take a Greek word which in its classical meaning they say signifies to drown, or continue in a state of submer- sion for a length of time, and they employ it to designate purification. Section II. — The Author's General Observations. — "Our first general observation is," says he, " that the context of the word in the New Testament is never that which is used, both in the classics and in the Scriptures, to connect verbs signifying to dip, with that into which any object is dipped; but on the contrary, the context is always of a kind which proves that, literally, it means some efiect produced by water. REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 291 Where ba-pto and baptizo signify to dip, the context is eis, \\dth that into which the object is dipped ; as we should say, He dipped into water, &c. But this construction does not once occur in the use of baptizo in the Septuagint and the New Testament." 1 . This observation is rash and unfounded. En is found frequently both in the classics and in the Septuagint, construed with bapto, signify- ing to dip. "Dipping but in cold water." Hip. 193. "Thou hast plunged me in filth." Job ix. 31. 2. £Jis and en are frequently commutative in such cases; and e?^ is often used where eis might be thought more appropriate. Homer says of Iris, " She leaped in the dai'k sea." We ourselves use both idioms. " He leaped in the sea, or iiito the sea." Cowper says, " Eurypylus is shot into the thigh" — in is more usual. Again, '■^ into his throat" — in might be substituted. Again, " Either to plunge some Grecian i7i the shades." This is exactly a case in point. To plunge in or to pliuige into are good syntax both in Greek and in EngHsh. 3. Yet when eis and en are commutative, they are not identical in meaning. Each has its peculiar meaning, corresponding to our preposi- tion in and into — the one implying motion, the other rest. The writer grants in the above extract more than I will receive from him. JSn never has the signification of iiito, though it may occasionally be employed where into is more usual, and more appropriate. When construed with bapto or baptizo, it is not so definite as eis. It designates merely the place or substance in which the action of the verb is performed. It -will explain as well in English as in Greek. When I say that such a man " was immersed in the river Thames," all I assert is, that the action of the verb was performed in the river. It is the verb immersed, and the circumstances, that must prove the mode. This will appear clear to any one who takes an example in which the verb is changed. Such a man " was killed in the river." On the other hand, eis would express that the action of the verb was into the water. Yet I would rely on en Avith the utmost confidence; because no reason can ever be given why baptism should be performed in a river, if there is not immersion. When we say that such a man " leaped in the sea," is it not as obvious that he leaped into the sea, as if the word into had been used ? Do not we oiir- selves say " immersed in the water, or into the water ?" Indeed immersed in is more common than immersed into. It is always more appropriate when the place or the thing in contradistinction to something else in which the immersion is performed, is designed. This perfectly accounts for the phraseology of Scriptiu'e in respect to this ordinance. The verb construes equally with them both: in some cases the design of the speaker will render one of them more eligible than the other; while in other cases either of them will answer. 4. In the preceding extract the writer asserts that " the context is always of a kind which proves that literally it means some efi'ect pro- duced by water." So far from proving that this is always the case, the context never, in a single instance, proves that the word means some ejfect produced by luater. Even if eii should be translated ivlth, "baptized with water," or " sprinkled with water," does not express the eftect, but u 2 293 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINI^. the substance with Avhich the baptisna was performed, whatever may be its mode. 5. That en construed with baptizo signifies in, we have the most decisive evidence in the fact that the Christian writers who used the Greek language understood it in this sense. Theodoret, speaking of the baptism of Theodosius, represents him as saying, that he had delayed his baptism, as being desirous of receiving it in the river Jordan. The Latin Fathers also understood the preposition in this sense, with respect to baptism, and translated it accordingly. TertuUian writes, " dipped in the Lord." Jerome also, in exposition of the language of the com- mission, says, " intingimt aqua^^ they dip them in loater. Indeed this is the very syntax which Greek, Latin, and Enghsh would use when place or substance is meant to be expressed. With respect to Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16, I admit that as far as syntax is concerned, the verb might be rantizo, to sprinkle, and the preposition imderstood might be translated ivith. But even were it translated with, the preposition expresses the baptizing substance — ^not the mode of baptism. This would be quite consistent with immersion, or any other mode. But this solution -wall not apply to en lordane. This must be in Jordan — in the river Jordan — not with Jordan and the river Jordan. The wiiter tells us, that the common use of the dative case requires that water is referred to as means. No such thing is required. As far as the datiA^e case is concerned, it may or it may not be means, which is referred to. That the preposition en is here understood, is clear from the use of it in the contrasted part of the sentence — " en, in the Holy Ghost." Now surely no man would say that en may not be translated in. " It must," he says, " be translated hy or with."" Why so ? The other is the more common meaning, and it is so translated here by the best judges. 6. That en construed with the verb in question signifies in, is evident from Mark i. 4. John was baptizing in the wilderness — not with the tvilderness. If this preposition refers to the place of baptism in reference to a wilderness, why may it not refer to place in reference to a river ? 7. Let the writer say what verb he would use, and Avhat preposition he would construe with it, if he meant in the most definite manner to express that a person ivas immersed in the river Jordan. 8. The writer says here, that the preposition " expresses the means employed for some effect." But has he not said, in the very same con- nexion, that " it means some effect produced by water ?" Is an effect the same thing Avith the means employed to produce it ? " That en," says the Avriter, " sometimes has the signification of into, is acknowledged." This is an acknowledgment which I do not demand — which I will not accept. It never has the signification of into, though it may be frequently used where eis is more common. " The phrase en hudati,''' says the writer, " is so opposed to en pneumati in many passages, that it is clear they are correspondent phrases, and that the prepositions indicate in both the same relation." Nothing can be more evident. REPLY TO THE CONGKEGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 293 "As the latter cannot be rendered into the Spirit," he continues, " for this is unintelligible, it must be rendered with the Spirit." Wliy should it be rendered either into, or ivith the Spirit ? It can, and must be rendered in the Spirit. To baptize in the Spirit is as intelligible as to baptize with the Spirit. The expression is figurative, and must be expounded by the ordinance of baptism, whatever may be its mode. From the admitted correspondence of the two clauses of the sentence above referred to, I draw a directly contrary conclusion from that of this writer. As the preposition must be translated by the same word in both places, and as en hudati is in water ; so en pneumati must be i?i the Spirit : for the figurative expression must conform to the literal, and not the hteral to the figru-ative. " The word baptize must, therefore," says the wiiter, " denote some effect produced by Avater." Archbishop Wliately, is this logic ? May not the end of using the action denoted by a verb be to produce a certain effect, though the verb itself does not denote the effect ? Even were the phrase translated sprinkle with tvater, it would not denote the effect of the sprinkHng. Sprinkling may have different effects, but not one of them is denoted by the word itself. In a note the author gives a number of examples of the verbs in ques- tion, with their syntax, implying effect by means of what is associated with the verb. The first is, " Stained Avith blood:" but the verb here is bajJto as signifying to dye, and in that sense it has the effect in itself. In that sense it has nothing to do with this controversy. His translation of the next example, " the sord is weighed down by excessive labours," is quite unwarrantable. It is not loeighed down, but immersed. And where excessive labour is the baptizer, the effect is obvious. We do not deny that the syntax in question will express means, and that the means employed may be calculated or intended to produce an effect. " They Avash Avith warm water." It ought to be, " they immerse in warm Avater." Washing is the consequence of the immersion. " Thoroughly imbued Avith integrity," ought to be, " immersed in justice to the bottom." The verb is hapto, but every scholar aaoU per- ceive that it cannot here, as the Avriter translates it, be taken in its secondary sense, dye. Eis bathos, into the depth, or to the bottom, shoAVS that the verb is taken in its primary sense, and that the primary sense is dip. Imbtie to the bottom Avould be nonsense. This figurative expres- sion must refer to immersion. When Ave speak of " going to the bottom of a subject," or " into the depths of science," is there not a reference to immersion ? " I am of those who Avere overAvhelmed by that mighty Avave," ought to be translated, " I myself am of those Avho Avere immersed under that mighty wave." This figiu'e is a most beautiful example to shoAV the natvu-e of baptism. The Avave was the baptizer, and luider the AvaA^c the persons were immersed. " He who Avith difficulty has borne his present burden, A\oidd be pressed down by a small addition." Not pressed down, but immersed. The proper translation is, " Avould be immersed by a small addition," 294 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. The small addition to his burden would sink him. Do we not say the same thing ourselves ? This most definitely impHes that baptism is immersion. " His body was made wet by the dew of heaven," ought to be, " his body was immersed by the dew." Why this is called immersion, no person who has a soul to feel wall need information. He concludes the note with the following observation : — " Where verbs denoting to dip, or construed mth en instead of eis, according to a well- known Greek idiom, the sense is, to put into, and to leave in " mix- ing myrrh and rosin together, and putting them in wine, dip a piece of Knen." " I send you forth to be as sheep in the midst of wolves:" "he put him itito, and kept him in prison." Matt. xiv. 3. This philology I utterly reprobate ; it is not fomided either in philosophy or in fact. 1. Yerbs of dipping, and verbs of motion in general, may, in certain circumstances, be construed with en as well as with eis. But in no case is one of these prepositions put for the other, or does it adopt its signifi- cation. It is in vii'tue of its OAvn signification that it fills the situation. No such idiom is kno^vn ia Greek more than in English ; it is false on fii'st principles. Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that a word Avill occasionally give up its own meaning and adopt the meaning of another word; and fact does not demand the supposition of such absurdity. The phi'aseology that gives rise to it is explicable on philo- sophical principles, without departing from the meaning of the word, or assigning it the meaning of another. The usual doctrine of gramma- rians on this point is unsound and pernicious to philology as well as theology. Examples of the same thing occur as frequently in Enghsh as in Greek. I have shown several instances in which m and into are commutative, "without bemg identical in meaning ; and examples occur every day. 2. In the instances referred to in the above extract, it is not true that the sense of en is i^ito. The mixture is said to be put in the wine, and our language will bear this phraseology as well as the Greek. The thing exactly expressed is, that the mixture after being so put, is now in the wine. But to be now in the wine, implies that there has been a pre- vious mixtiire into the wine. Accordingly, either in or into will in such cases serve the pui'pose, while neither here nor anywhere else are they synonymous. Put it in the ^vme, or into the wine — ^your choice. 3. Dieis, en oino, literally putting it tltrougli in the "wine ; that is, the mixture was to be not only put in the wine, but through it. There must not only be a mixtui'e of the myrrh and rosin, but this mixture must agaia be mixed mth -wine, that the hnen may be dipped in it. The writer is here treating of verbs of dipping. Does he consider this a verb of dipping ? It is not a modal Avord at aU, thoiigh in its generic meaning it includes mode. The preposition en is here connected with initting through, nofAvith dipinng. The regimen, as far as concerns the dipping substance, is to be supphed by ellipsis. The hnen is to be dipped in the whole compound of myi-rh, rosin, and A\dne. 4. Nor does en, ui such instances, express that the thing dipped is left in that state. It might be brought out the next moment after immersion, REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 295 for anj^liing that either the verb or the preposition has to say to the contrary. The reader may see instances of this in the examples brought forward in this work. According to the philology of this Avaiter, if a man put his foot iiito mud, he may take it out again; but if, unfor- tunately, he puts it m mud, it must remain in it. 5. Nay more; it not only takes the meaning of into while it retains its own, but it does more in this situation than both could do — it leaves the thing dipped in a state of imprisonment. 6. Even in the veiy example quoted, the thing immersed is not left in that state. The myrrh, and the rosin, and the wine, are indeed left in a state of mixture ; but it is the hnen that is dipped in the compound, and instead of being left there, it is immediately taken out to be em- ployed. This criticism is guilty offelo de se. But I care not that the example implied that the thing immersed was to continue in for ever; the leaving it in that situation is not impUed by either the verb or the preposition. 7. With respect to the two last examples I cannot see for Avhat pur- pose the writer has quoted them. His critical dogma here brought forward respects verbs of dipping. Is send forth, Matt. x. 16, a verb of dipping ? Is put or placed, Matt. xiv. 3, a verb of dipping ? 8. He is here treating of the preposition en when put instead of eis. But in translating Matt. x. 16, he does not suppose that en is instead of eis. He gives it its own peculiar meaning, in the midst, not into the midst. 9. His critical dogma refers to cases in which en is construed with verbs of dipping. But he does not, in this example, construe en even with send, but with the eUiptical verb to he — to be in the midst, not to send into the midst. 10. In the phraseology. Matt. xiv. 3, p)ut Mm in prison, the words and kept him there, are neither included in the meanii:ig of the preposition, nor of the verb. The same expression would have been used had John the Baptist been delivered from prison the next moment after imprison- ment. It will apply to an imprisonment for half an hour, as well as imprisomnent for life. We ourselves use the same pliraseology : we say that a prisoner is put in prison, or into prison, without any design to refer to the duration of imprisonment. But men have great facilities for profound criticism in dead languages. May we not say, " the constable put him hi prison, but the magistrates immediately released him ? " When in is used, motion to a place is not expressed, but position, when the action of the verb is finished. That motion into a place must precede rest in a place, is necessary; but this, in the preposition m, is imderstood, not expressed. This always expresses rest in the place mentioned. Thus in every example alleged in this note, I have shown that the philology of the writer is unsound. Let it be observed, also, what a multitude of meanings he is obliged to give to bapto and baptizo, in these examples. Fii-st, to stain : bapto does indeed signify to dye, but in this sense it has nothing to do with this controversy. Persons arc not dyed in purification. In the second example he makes baptizo signify to 396 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. weigh doivn. Is this to translate on principle of any kind ? The word never has this meaning : the word is here used figuratively, and must in the translation be guided by the literal meaning, which never is what this writer has given. He might as well have rendered the passage by the expression, the mind is weakened by excessive labour. On such a principle as this, we might give this word, or any other word, five hun- dred meanings. His third meaning is wash : but immerse is the trans- lation— washing is inferred as a consequence of dipping. The word has perfectly the same meaning here that it has when apphed to dipping in mud. The difiference of effect is knoAvn from the circumstances. Among washer-women is it not often said, in English, " Give that a dip" mean- ing wash it ? The fourth meaning is imbue. This meaning is palpably false; because the words into the dep)th, construed with the verb, shows most manifestly that bapto is here taken in its primary signification. In the fifth example, he gives overwhelm as the meaning. The word is used figuratively ; but the literal meaning is never to overwhehn, though it will admit this in a free translation. In the sixth example, he gives pressed down as the signification. This is entirely different from the second meaning. To press down is quite a different thing from to iveigh doion. Can any fancy be more wild than to render this word in this manner ? This verb is a servant of all work. It is as expert in pressing cheese, and compressing hay for exportation, as in purifying. On these principles, what is it that it may not be made to signify ? In the seventh example he makes bapto signify to wet. This is not a meaning of the word, though it may often be substituted for it. To dip anything in a hquid will be to tvet it ; stiU to dip and to wet are words of quite a different meaning — the one only in certain circumstances is the conse- quence of the other. Now there is no more reason to make bapto signify to ivet, than there is to make dip signify to wet. The eighth example gives the verb its own meaning, but entirely mistakes the syntax. Now what a mass of philological confusion is this ! Would not definite interpretation be impossible, if aU words were to be trans- lated on these random principles ? Is it not self-evidently clear, that if I can succeed in giving the same meaning to baptizo in every occurrence of it in the language, my doctrine is preferable to that which gives it a useless multitude of meanings ? If I can explain on philosophical prin- ciples, in perfect accordance with my view, every instance in which the word is used, is it not self-evidently clear that there is no ground to allege a secondary meaning ? On the other hand, let the reader try if he can find any philosophy in the assignment of the different meanings allotted to this word by our opponents. They give meaning to the word in each passage — not from the authority of first principles and definitely ascertained usage, but from the supposed exigencies of the place from antecedent probability. They reason as if every passage must inde- pendently ascertain its own meaning ; whereas in multitudes of instances, every word may be, as far as connexion is concerned, capable of having a word of opposite meaiiing substituted for it, without detection by context. In such cases, established usage can alone decide. They make the word express, in its own meaning, peculiarities contained or implied REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 297 only in the context. In tliis way they can assign to any word as many meanings as there are valuations in the connexion. If language could be legitimately interpreted in this way, nothing could ever be proved or disproved ; no tongue could ever be learned. I resist such licentious- ness in assigning meaning to words, not merely as it affects the subject of baptism, but as it affects every thing revealed in Scripture : I resist it, not merely as it affects the Scriptures, but as it affects every wi'itten document that guides the determination of man : I resist it, as it makes all language, either written or spoken, incapable of certain and definite interpretation. But why does the writer demand eis and refuse en in construction with bcqyto and baptizo, in the signification of dipinng, when both the classics and Hebraistic Greek afford examples of both ? Was not Naaman immersed in Jordan ? Was not Aristobulus immersed in the pond ? Did not John immerse in Jordan, and in w^ater ? And the dative without the preposition, we have in Alexander Aphroditus, Problem, lib. 1 : "A power immersed in the depth, or most inward parts, of the body ;" with a multitude of others that might be given. Thus I have proved that the preposition en construed mth baptizo, is evidence in our favour* ; and without the occru'rence of eis in a single instance, would serve our purpose. But the assertion that eis is not fovmd in the syntax of this word in the Septuagint and in the NeAv Testament, is not well founded. It is found Mark i. 9, " Jesus was baptized of John into Jordan." The writer admits this in a note; but the note is a contradiction of the text. A general assertion iti the text may be limited, or modified by a note ; but a note should not admit ivhat the text universally denies. This is not explanation or modification, but contradiction, which nothing can justify. The text says, " But the construction does not once occur in the use of baptizo in the Septuagint and the New Testament." The note not only contradicts the text, but takes away the ground of the argument which the text employs. The argument is grounded on the supposed universality of a fact, which the note admits not to be universal. If such syntax is admitted in a single instance, no argument can be founded on its universal absence. It can- not be alleged, that the want of such a syntax evidences a change of meaning, when such a syntax is not wanting. A difference of meaning cannot be alleged from a difference of syntax, if there is not luiiversally such a difference of syntax. The writer, indeed, in liis note, endeavours to give another meaning to the preposition, Mark i. 5, but this does not alter the case, even were the preposition capable of the alleged meaning. The complaint is, that such cannot be the meaning, because there is not such syntax. If the syntax exists at aU, the complaint is removed. If in such a sense the word must have such a syntax, why will you give this necessary syntax another sense, just for the piu'pose of evading that sense which requires this syntax ? But were it a fact, that there is not one instance of such syntax, the fact woidd not beaa* the conclusion. If, in common use, any one of two prepositions may equally be used, with a verb in a certain sense, any one of them may be constantly employed with the verb in that sense. With respect to some words there might 298 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. be but a single example of its syntax in the New Testament. Its syntax, then, must be determined by common usage. Let us attend to the writer's attempt to set aside the testimony of Mark i. 5. "But," says he, "as this is the only instance in which eis is used, and as it is here connected with the name of a place, it is much more probable that it has the common signification of ai." 1. Here a false fii-st principle is assumed, namely, that one instance may be explained in a meaning, which it could not have in a number of instances. Can anything be more absurd ? 2. If it is construed here with the name of a place, that place is a river in which the immersion took place. 3. If in common syntax such a phrase has such a meaning, why should it not have this meaning in the syntax of Scripture ? 4. If to produce such a meaning, such a syntax is necessary in com- mon language, why should it be thought probable that where such syntax occurs in Scripture it has not the same meaning ? If the syntax is necessary to the meaning, why is the meaning denied it where the syntax is found ? 5. If in common use the same verb is sometimes coupled with en and sometimes with eis, why may it not in scriptural use be capable, in the same sense, of the same association ? 6. This instance does not give, according to our interpretation, a new meaning to the preposition, nor a new meaning to the verb associated with it, nor a new syntax to the regimen. What reasonable pretence, then, can there be for change ? 7. The meaning assigned by the vsrriter is not a common meaning of eis, as he asserts. Even by those grammarians who give at as one of the meanings of eis, it is not supposed to be a common meaning. 8. This extravagance is still more aggravated, when it is considered, that the prepositions para and epi appropriately designate at; and that no other prepositions but en and eis could be employed in expressing an immersion in or into water. If these are the only prepositions that could be used to express that this ordinance was performed by immer- sion in or into water, if there are appropriate prepositions to express at, if water or a river is the regimen, what can the meaning be but the common meaning of the prepositions in and into ? Can any reason be assigned for giving another meaning to the prepositions, but an obstinate reluctance to admit the consequence ? 9. The thing is still worse, when it is considered that this extrava- gance is employed not only to avoid the common meaning of the verb, but to give it a meaning that in the Greek language is not in evidence from a single example. 10. But this syntax is not confined to one instance in the New Testa- ment ; it is found in many instances. JEis is connected with baptizo in the commission. Now, though water is not the regimen, yet it is the meaning of the preposition in reference to the performance of the rite, that must regulate its meaning in all cases. 11. The early Christians who wrote in the Greek language connect eis in this sense with baptiso. Eusebius construes baptisentes with eis REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 299 onoma — into the name. And Eusebius understood the verb as denoting immersion. 12. The early Latin writers understood the preposition in this sense. Tertulhan has not only tinctus in Domino — dipped in the Lord ; but tin- gentes eos in nome^i — dipped them into the nam,e. Now Tertullian knew something of Greek syntax. After this shall we hsten to the modern criticism that declares that such sjoitax is intolerable ! As to the soundness, then, of this syntax, there can be no higher authority. Do our opponents pretend to make a discovery in the meaning of Greek verbs and Greek syntax, unknown to the very persons who wrote and spoke Greek ? In fact, the early Christian writers, both Greek and Latin, used both eis and en in speaking of this ordinance, just as the Scriptures do, and just as we ourselves use the corresponding prepositions. We say im- merse in or into, while we do not confound the prepositions. But I go much farther. I not only deny that eis here signifies at, — I maintain that it never has this signification. This is much more than I am bound to prove. I might admit with many that this preposition occa- sionally has the signification of at, while I could successfully exclude it from this place. Grammarians who teach the absurd doctrine, that a word may occasionally desert its own meaning, and assmue that of another, confine this privilege to cases in which the word is totally inexphcable in its meaning. The doctrine, then, in their hands is usually harmless; but in the hands of controversialists it does mira- culous exploits. They call in its aid on every occasion, when the necessities of their case demand it ; and what the grammarians have provided to explain dark passages, they use to make clear passages dark. But I will take away the whole foimdation from under this figment. I deny that ever eis signifies at. So far from being a common meaning, as this writer represents it, it is not a meaning at aU. Let us, then, examine the examples which the Avriter alleges to prove this meaning. Luke ix. 61 : " Those at my house." The proper transla- tion, however, is neither " those at my house," nor, with om- version, " those which are at home at my house," but " those who belong to my house." Eis often signifies loith respect to, or in reference to. The preposition here has no respect to place at all. The whole relations are here included, in whatever houses they might dwell. At all events, it was not at but in the house they lived. At can have no pretensions here. The second example is Luke xxi. 37. " He lodged at the hill." At the hill ? Was it not within the verge of what is called the mount of OUves ? At, then, has no business here. But the preposition has here its own peculiar meaning, and implies motion as well as in other places. The writer has been looking into Matthias ; why has he not attended to him on this point ? He explains this syntax not only as implj'ing motion in the preposition, but as being communicated by the preposition to verbs which do not in their own nature import motion. He illus- trates by many examples. His doctrine is, " Various verbs wliich of themselves do not imply motion, receive this sense by the construction 300 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. Avith eis.'' I agree witli Matthise as to the fact; I differ from him as to its philosophy. Without doubt, in the cases referred to, there is motion in some verb expressed or understood, according with the prepo- position that indicates motion. But it is a question whether the motion in the verb, is motion communicated to the vei-b, which in itself has no motion, or belongs to a verb understood. My doctrine is, that the motion is implied in a verb which is understood, and is not properly communicated to a verb that has no motion in itself. It is absurd to suppose, that the same verb can designate both rest and motion. It is imjDossible both to stand and move at the same time. Wlaat I say is, WHEN EIS IS CONSTRUED WITH A VERB IN WHICH THERE IS NO MOTION, THERE IS ALWAYS A VERB OF MOTION UNDERSTOOD, AND WHICH IS NOT EXPRESSED BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARILY SUGGESTED. But whatever is the philosophy of this fact, the fact itself is unques- tionable. In all such cases eis has motion. It is neither at nor m, but into. Homer represents Achilles as selling Priam's sons into Samos; " Agreeing," says Matthise, Avith the English, " to sell into a ■place.^'' " The Midianites sold Joseph into Egypt." Here the preposition has its proper sense, though there is no motion in the verb expressly joined with it. This phraseology is exempUfied by Xenophon. Cyrus com- manded an officer to " stand into the front." Now, there must here be motion before the standing. We ourselves exempKfy this every day. A soldier not in straight line is commanded to stand into his rank. A ship is said to stand into land. When CoAvper says, " Stand forth, O guest," both motion and rest are expressed. The writer, however, might have seen in Matthi^ many instances in which apo, ek, and eis are translated by in. Surely this might teach any one that in such cases the words do not change their signification. Coidd the word oiit^ for instance, assume the meaning of in f All such cases are explicable on the principle, that the words retain their own meanings. This critical Mesmerism would stupify an angel, Avere he to subject himself to its influence. With respect to the example, in question, " he lodged into the mount," the solution is, " he went into the mount to lodge;" or in whatever other Avay it may be solved, the preposition eis implies that motion preceded the rest expressed in lodge. The third example is, " Wash at the pool of Siloam;" hterally, " wash into the pool." He was to go into the pool that he might wash. At has no pretensions to demand entrance here, whatever in might allege for itself. The bhnd man might as well have sent to the pool for water, to wash at home, as to take water out of the pool and wash. The fourth example is, " She feU down at his feet," John xi. 32. Literally, " She fell unto his feet." The preposition here expresses the motion of the fall. In reference to place eis signifies unto as well as into • but motion in both. It respects the motion of the falling body, of which his feet Avere the point of termination. At his feet is substantially a very good ti-anslation, though at is not the meaning of the preposition. The fifth example is, " to all who are at a distance." Literally, all REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 301 unto a distance, that is, all who are between Judea and the supposed distance, meaning the most distant nations. The author changes the version in order to bring in his favourite at. But when he has it, it does him no service. Does at a distance signify near a distance ? Then they who are in the distance, and beyond the distance, are excluded. The promise is not to all who are contiguous to a distance, but to all in the most distant places, — all between the speaker and the most distant parts of the earth. Neither at nor in woidd exactly suit here. The sixth example is Acts xviii. 21, " to keep the feast at Jerusalem." Why change i?i of oiu" translation into at ? Was it not in Jerusalem that the feast was kept ? Did Paul intend to stop at the edge of the city ? Literally, it is neither in nor at. " It is necessary for me to keep the feast into Jerusalem;" that is, on the principle above explained, " it is necessary for me to go into Jerusalem to keep the feast." The motion necessary previously to the keeping of the feast, which is not expressed by any verb, is implied in the motion of the preposition. This example is quite similar to those cited by Matthias. The seventh examjale is, "to die at Jeriisalem," Acts xxi. 13. Is it not in Jerusalem that he is supposed to be willing to die ? He did not mean contiguous to the city. But in all such cases at is sufficiently exact as a translation. However, it is neither at nor m, that is ex- pressed— it is into Jerusalem. The motion from Paul's present position to the supposed place of his death, is not expressed by any verb, but is necessarily implied. This circumstance is expressed by the preposition. The sentiment fully expressed is, "I am willing to go to Jerusalem to be bound or to die." " The eighth example is Acts viii. 40, " Philip was fomid at Azotus." This proceeds on the same principle. Philip was found after he had gone into Azotus . The preposition does not here signify at, more than in any other place, though it is sufficiently exact for a translation. It expresses the motion of the verb that is understood. The last example alleged by the writer is, " As thou hast borne witness concerning me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome," Acts xxiii. 11. Why does he change the translation from in to at? Was it not i7i Jerusalem and in Rome, that the testimony is supposed to be delivered ? Whatever pretensions in might have here, at can have none. The preposition, however, has here no regard to place, but to the inhabitants of the places mentioned. To bear witness to or into Jeru- salem and Rome, is to bear witness to the people of those cities. " With the verbs to say, to show,'" says Matthise, " the reference or direction to the persons to whom anything is said or shown, is sometimes considered as analogous to an actual motion, and this analogy expressed by eis." He illustrates by examples perfectly similar to the above, eis pantas anthro- poiis, before or to all men, &c. Reader, have I not redeemed my pledge ? Have I not demonstrated that eiSj in none of the passages alleged by the author, signifies at ? Have I not shown the philosophical principle which accounts for the peculiarity of the alleged use of eis ? I have done more than my cause required. I could have defended my point and admitted exceptions. I 302 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. have proved that there are no exceptions. Mark i. 5, then, itself decides the controversy. It is into Jordan; and nothing but into Jordan can it be. Were there no other objection to purify^ this would unseat it. All the electors claimed by it have been grossly misrepresented. They give their vote freely to the other candidate. The writer, it will be recollected, translated en in construction with liudati^ by with water. How does this consist with en lordane., in Jordan ? The last phrase is not sufficiently tractable to be translated with, and the writer manages to convert it also, as well as eis, into at. And, indeed, on similar principles, he might convert into at, all the prepositions in the Greek language, and of any other language. I appeal to every candid scholar, — I appeal to every sensible man, is not this extravagance ? Shall these two prepositions wickedly and feloniously combine to assume the meaning of other prejDositions, in passages where they are not only capable of having their own meaning, but where their own meaning is the most natural and obvious, for the purpose of favour- ing the pretensions of the usurper purification ? Nothing can be more evident than that en hudati and en lordane use the preposition in the same sense. Each of the phrases refers to bap- tism,— to the performance of baptism, while each of the words in regimen designates that in which the ordinance may be performed. Wliy then, shaU not the preposition have the same meaning in both places ? Is there anything to prevent it ? Does the verb refuse its sanction ? On the contrary, the common meaning of the verb demands it. Does the preposition refuse to be translated by the same word in two similar places ? This cannot be. Does the regimen refuse to dip the baptized person ? No, surely, the Jordan wiU not exclaim, " You cannot be dipped in me." What then gainsays ? Nothing but the necessities of this pretender purification. This is so obvious to common sense that some of our opponents trans- late en lordane by with Jordan, that is, with the water of Jordan. Though this is barbarously figurative, it has more consistency. Here, however, we have self-evidence that both of them are wrong. It is palpably evident that if this writer did not think that the expression p)urify ivith Jordan is absurd, he would not only have avoided giving a various meaning to the preposition in the two cases which are so similar, but would have availed himself of a meaning which he has judged so much to his purpose. On the other hand, it is equally evident that if the persons referred to did not consider that it is absolutely necessary to translate the preposition by the same word in both places, they would not have had recourse to the outlandish figure, baptize with Jordan. Each of the parties, then, virtually gives its testimony against the other. But the author, it seems, has proof for at as a meaning of en. " Matthife observes," says he, " sometimes en is used with names of places, when proximity only is impKed." Well, granting this for a moment, even in the writer's sense, does Matthige teach that a contro- versialist may avail himself of this resource as often as his exigencies require ? Grammarians who teach the above doctrine, confine the use of it to cases that wiU not explain according to the ordinary meaning of REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE, 303 the words. I venture to assert that there is not an inustrious name among grammarians that will sanction the use of their doctrine, that is made of it by this wi'iter. There is not in Europe, there never was in existence a great scholar who would deny that Jesus Christ was immersed in Jordan. Nothing but the confidence of ignorance could ever venture such extravagance. Wliat are the instances that properly come under the sanction of this doctrine of Matthise ? Are they not instances in wliich it is known that the persons referred to, were not actually m the place named ? Wliat comitenance does this give to the extravagance of our author ? Is it impossible to give the peculiar meaning to the preposition in this place ? Is it known that the baptism could not possibly be in the river ? Does the common meaning of the verb require another meaning in the prepo- sition ? Does not the common meaning of the verb, the common meaning of the preposition, the common meaning of the word in regimen, all imite in demanding the same thing ? Can the doctrine of Matthi«, then, be a sanction to a process that expels the common meaning of the verb, the common meaning of the preposition, and the common meaning of the word associated with them in syntax ? The examples, however, referred to by Matthise have no need of peculiar solution. It is the territory of Lacedemon, and of Mantinea, to which Xenophon refers. The example from Euripides employs en with reference to Dirce, not as a place, but as a person; and has nothing to do with this subject. Though in reference to place, this preposition always asserts intuspo- sition, without in the smallest degree verging to the signification of at, yet there are situations in which it is used when intusposition does not actually exist. This, however, arises from the latitude given to its regimen, not assumed by itself. This peculiarity I can account for on the most philosophical principles. In writing to correspondents at a distance, I always give my address, Tulbermore; yet my house is more than a mile out of the village. Exact information as to locality is not designed or expected. Now this single fact Avill explain a great many difficulties conjured vip by controversialists to give latitude to explana- tion. When I am spoken of as residing in such a place, in has its own meaning most exactly. This I have no doubt may be exemphfied in all languages. But let a foreigner, a controversialist, who knows our language from grammars and dictionaries, try his philology on such a use of the English preposition in : " Here," he would say, with the appearance of profound learning and critical aciunen, " the preposition in is used for at, signifying not ivitJiin, but contiguous.''' On this founda- tion he woiild rest moimtains of false interpretation; proving or dis- proving anything, according to exigency. My readers will now be prepared to give an answer to the following assertion : " The statement that John baptized en the Jordan, and that he baptized en Enon, shows that the former no more means within the water of the river, than the latter within the walls of the town. The meaning in both cases is merely that of nearness, and should be trans- lated at the Jordan, at Enon. In the same manner en dexia, at the right hand." 304 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. The ingenious writer is most hajDpy in discovering secrets. I could not pretend to take the same information out of this document. How does he know that Enon was a town ? How does he know that it had walls ? If it had walls, what makes it necessary that the baptizing should have been within the walls ? Do not the suburbs without the walls belong to a town ? How does he know that the baptism was not performed within the walls ? Could there not be in a town either much water, or according to him, many fountains ? I might confine John to the town, if my case required it, but my philology will give him a little liberty. I care not whether Enon was a town or a district. On the principle above explained, if it was a town, he might be said in English, as well as in Greek, to be baptizing in it, when he was baptizing in the district around it. The extension of meaning is in the regimen, not in the preposition. Should a man from London be baptized by me, he might say on his retiu'n, " I was baptized in Tulbermore;" when he was baptized at my house, or at the river Magola, half a mile from the village. No Englishman would convert in here into at. The design of such phraseology is not to give exact information as to the spot, but to designate by a name that will be known to those to whom he speaks. It is on this principle that we say, that such a man fell in Waterloo, &c. In the phrase en dexia, the preposition m does not signify at, but has its own meaning, — in the right-hand place. Indeed, instead of designating nearness, it may extend to any distance: it indicates merely, that the situation of the object is in the space to the right. A bird appearing at any distance to the right, is said to be en dexia. Where it is applied to the closest juxtaposition, this is not the thing expressed. Section III. — The Writer's Second General Observation. — " In all cases where the word occurs in the New Testament," says the writer, "it is apphed to things connected with religion, generally to a sacred rite significant of the piirifying of the soul. Whatever may be supposed to be the symbolical meaning of Christian baptism, that of the Jews, to which reference is made in the epistle to the Hebrews, that of the Pharisees, and that of John, were unquestioned rites of purification : this was the meaning of them all, and their only meaning. Now the meaning of a rite being of more importance than the mode, would be more fre- quently referred to when the rite Avas mentioned." There is here some truth, but false conclusions are drawn from it. It is true that Christian immersion, and Jewish immersions, and, he might have added, heathen religious immersions, are all emblem- atical of piirification, or supposed to be effective of it. But does this imply that the word by which these purifications were desig- nated must signify purification ? This is grossly unfounded. Was not circumcision a rite of purification ? Did the name designate purifi- cation ? How often must I ask this question ? Rites of purification may have names that do not express pm^ification. Wliat does the writer mean by the meaning of a rite being more frequently referred to than its mode, when the rite is mentioned ? Can this say anything with respect to its name ? And is not its mode an essential part of the meaning of REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 305 the rite ? If a rite has a name from mode, can it be spoken of as to its meaning, -without indication of mode ? " If, thei'efore," he continues, " a term at first descriptive of mode was employed, it might be exj)ected that it would, as an appellative for the rite, sometimes lose its reference to the manner of action, and denote merely the end." 1. This observation is founded on an admission that destroys the writer's theory ; it admits that the disputed word was at first appHed to the ordinance in its modal meaning. But the author's theory is, that the word had, in Hebraistic use, dropped that meaning, and assumed that of purification. 2. This admits all we want. If haptizo was employed to designate this ordinance at first, in its m,odal meaning, in that meaning it must be for ever understood as to the ordinance. 3. That a modal word, given as the designation of an ordinance, will apply to the rite -with respect to every thing asserted of it, is the very thing which we teach. That many things may be contained in its natiu'e, or import, which are not pointed out by the mode, Ave not only admit, but contend. The ordinance of baptism is an emblem of cleans- ing, but this emblem is in the water, not in the mode ; the mode is an emblem of death, burial, and resurrection ; but whether the ordinance is called immersion, or purification, or sprinkling, every thing spoken about it may be referred to it under its pecuhar name. This is manifestly the case with respect to the word circumcision ; every thing said about it in the Old and the New Testament, is applied to it under the name, when there is no reference to cutting around. 4. But when this is the case, the word does not lose its reference to manner of action, and does not " denote merely the end ;" it still retains its modal meaning. Wliatever may be said about circumcision, the word stiU has the same. signification. 5. Even when the meaning of a word is not understood, and it is known only as the name of a rite, it is not correct to say that it there denotes only the end. It does not denote the end at all ; it denotes the rite itself, without reference either to mode or end. Thus, with respect to the word baptism ; this is an Enghsh word, used merely as the name of an ordinance, without reference either to e7id or mode. 6. To suppose that a word assigned as the name of a Divine ordinance, from the mode of that ordinance, as emblematical of something in its nature, would be changed in its meaning in Scripture, so as to lose its reference to mode, denoting merely its end, is as absurd as it is impious. After ages might change the meaning of the name of the ordinance ; but such a change could not take place in its Scripture use. 7. The principle of appropriation is entirely different in its natiu-e from that which the writer supposes to operate in the meaning of this word. When words are appropriated, they receive a peculiar appHcation, but do not lose their former meaning. It is on the ground of that meaning that they are appropriated. Along with their own meaning, appro- priation suppHes by ellipsis that which is necessarily understood. Had sprinlding or pouring, for an emblematical purpose, been the mode of X 306 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. this ordinance, the name might have been sprinkling or perfusion; and these terms would have been appropriated so as to designate the ordinance, mthont expressing either water or end. These would be eUiptically suppKed; but the word would retain its modal meaning. Things relative to its end, or relative to it in any view, may be referred to it under its appropriate name ; but appropriation and change from progressive use, are as different as any two principles that operate in language. 8. The writer adds, " Words always change in their meaning with modes of thought." This is an impious remark in regard to the mean- ing of words in Scripture. Do the Avriters of the New Testament change the meaning of this word, in reference to the same ordinance ? Change of modes of thought may operate in changing the meaning of words ui different ages ; but what relation has this to the use of words by the inspu'ed writers of one period ? Let it be observed that the question is not about the change of the meaning of the word, after the times of the apostles, but respects its meaning in the New Testament. Now, in this point of view, can anything be more absurd than, for a purpose of establishing a different meaning, to appeal to change in modes of thought ? The ^vriter alleges that the words rantismos, sprinkling, circumcision, and anointing, undenvent his process. It is not so. Sprinkling is apphed to the mind only figuratively; circumcision is an appropriated word ; and anointing is not a word of mode at all. " It will scarcely be pretended," says the writer, " that the words, the Messias and the Christ, retained, in the common usage of the Jews, any reference to the pouring out of oil." That it had reference to pouring is not pretended, for there is nothing of poiu'ing in the word ; but that the name had always a reference to anointing, is most confidently asserted. That the word Christ does not suggest this to us is, because in its original sense it is not an EngHsh word. The anointed would always refer to anointing. But the writer supposes, that according to our view, we must hold that the exhortation to the Jews, to circumcise their hearts, directed them to make circular incisions on that organ, or to do something similar to that with their minds. It is painful to be obhged to spend time in noticing such reasoning. Is not this a figurative expression ? To the heart it does not apply literally; but the word circvuncision, whether used literally or figuratively, has always the same meaning. " Crucified with Christ," refers to crucifixion as reaUy as when apphed to the death of Christ. The Jewish rite had the name circumcision, not from process or change of modes of thought, but by appropriation ; and every thing that was ever included in it in the Scriptures, was in it from the first moment of its appropriation. A better example could not be chosen to illustrate oiu' doctrine. This rite, according to the writer himself, received a modal meaning : purification, he says, is its meaning ; yet the Avord first and last has its modal meaning, and does not designate purification. When it is said that the sword of the Lord is lathed ia heaven, must REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 307 we either admit a change in the meaning of the word hathe^ or hold that there is in heaven a Hteral bathing of a sword ? " The common tendency to use," says the writer, " in speaking of sacred things, words significant of their design, rather than of their mode, appears in our own language. The terms christen, commune, ordain^ consecrate, ivorship, are of such a nature, that neither their etjTQology, nor their ordinary signification, would give the least clue to the majiner in which the service thus named was performed." Now what trifling is this ! Wliat bearing can it have on the question at issue ? Does this show, that in giving a name to an ordinance, with a view to designate something in its meaning, a word of mode might not be employed by its author ? Does this show that Christ did not appoint an ordinance emblematical in its mode ? Shall every man be allowed to give names to his inventions, and shall not Christ be allowed to give names to his ordinances, and give such modes to his ordinances, as he pleases ? Must we confine him to the common ten- dencies of human nattu-e on such occasions ? We do not arg^^e from antecedent probability, that a word of mode must be appropriated to this ordinance : we do not argue that an ordinance miTst have a modal meaning. We do not argue from the nature of things, that a word indicative of end would have been improper. TFe argue that it is a matter of fact that the tvord employed is a tvord of mode ; that the syntax of the word indicates the same thing ; and that the Scriptu7'e exp)lanation of the ordinance declares that its mode is emblematical. Does it follow, that because certain words, neither in their etymology nor ordinary signifi- cation, giA'e any intimation "with respect to the manner in which the service thus named was performed, no mdication of this can be given in an ordinance of Christ ? How could we expect indication of manner in words Avhich have nothing of manner in their literal meaning ? Because christen gives no clue to its mode, since there is no mode in its origin ; shall baptizo, which the author himself in this connexion admits to be given to the ordinance at first in its modal sense, and changed only by change in modes of thought, give no clue in its etymology or ordinary signification, to the manner in which baptism is to be per- formed ? Some of the words referred to by the author, do indeed indicate the tendency of the human mind both to change the ordinances of Christ, and give them new names. Christen, to make a Christian, is a very happy Puseyite name for a Puseyite rite. But Ave cannot forget that Paul, when the Lord's supper was abused, Avoiild not give it the Scripture name. But the fact of giving names to ordinances from modes or cii'cum- stances is not singular. Does the writer forget that breaking of bread is among the inspired designations of the Lord's supper ? Is not laying on of hands a similar expression ? What about the name of the rite of circumcision ? " The designation of the Lord's STipper is retained by us," says the Avriter, " though that ordinance is no longer observed as a meal." No longer observed as a meal ! ! ! Was it CA^er observed as a meal ? X 2 308 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. "Was it a meal in its institution ? Was it not instituted immediately after a meal ? That it never should be a meal, are we not taught in the indignant question, " Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? " It is called a supper from the time of its institution, and this circum- stance is still imported in the name, as much as on the evening -when it was appointed. To retain it is not optional — ^to change it is an invasion of the prerogative of the Son of God. The ordinance has in Scripture other names; but to give it the name of sacrament or eucharist is as unwarrantable as to change the name assigned by her Majesty to the Prince of Wales. The name of the ordinance has no respect to the time at which we observe it, but to the time at which it was instituted. There is neither a change in the term, nor in the meaning of the term. Supper does not now mean breakfast or dmner : the tendency in the human mind to change the meaning of words, can have no bearing on this question. The inquiry is not whether certain words afterwards changed their meaning; but what is their meaning in the New Test- ament ? This must stiU be their meaning to us. " And in many coimtries," says the writer, " where terms expressive of dipping were first used for baptism, because it was thus administered, the same terms continue to be used when the mode is no longer in accordance with their primary signification." Whatever may be the case with respect to the fact here referred to, the principle I have not only always admitted, but fi^om the beginning I have, pointed it out. But my opponents make a very unjustifiable use of it. Because a word designating mode, appropriated to an ordinance of Christ, wiU continue to be apphed to the ordinance, even when the mode is changed, does it follow that in the New Testament either the mode or the meaning of its name will be changed ? Changes of mode and meaning of name in the usage of ages, have nothing to do with this question. Had the mode been universally changed even in the second century, it would not disturb my philology. Whatever change men may make in this ordinance, its name, its mode, and its nature, must remain the same in Scripture for ever. What has the meaning of the word in Scripture, to do with after-changes in its meaning ? According to this writer, every change in the meaning of Scripture words made by after ages, must produce a similar change on the meaning of Scripture itself. On this principle, language would be incapable of conveying a revelation. But does not the writer see that this admits all we want ? If many countries employed to designate this ordinance, terms expressive of dipping, because it was thus administered, and afterwards, changing the mode, continued the name, does not this imply that dipping was their original mode ? Now this is aU we want with respect to haptizo. If immerse was its meaning in its first apphcation to baptism, we care not how many changes may afterwards be made in its meaning. In his reasoning in this general observation, there are no less than four theories involved in his arguments, as the ground of his conclusions. 1. The grand theory is, that this word, by frequency of application to purification, came at last to designate purification without reference to mode : that such was its use in the time of John the Baptist, and REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 309 consequently that it was so used in the New Testament. 2. A second implied theory is, that at first a word of mode, it would lose that meaning, adopting that of end. 3. That from the tendency of the human mind to give names from end rather than mode, the word when first assigned to this ordinance, miist have been a word designating endi not mode. 4. That it was dipping at first in mode, and dipping in name ; but change of mode made a change in the meaning of the name. Besides, the author asserts that certain countries gave the ordinance a dipping name, from its dipping mode. Does not this contradict his theory from the tendencies of human nature to give names from end rather than from mode ? Can anything more clearly indicate a desperate cause, than that men of ingenuity, employing the most extensive research, are not able to write a page in defence, without plunging into confusion and contradiction ? Ah, my fellow Christians ! cease to torture the word of God. You have taken in hand what an angel could not perform. Section IV. — Author's Third General Observation. — The third general observation of the writer is: "In many passages the word is appHed to the minds of men ; their spirits are said to be baptized. That when thus used it is employed properly, and not figuratively, is pro- bable, from the frequency of its occurrence, and from the simple, unpoetic character of the style." 1. And does the writer seriously assert that frequency of the occur- rence of a word, in application to mind, makes it probable that the word is used Hterally, and not figuratively ? Is this one of the characteristics that distinguish between figured and unfigured diction ? Has any rhetorician ever alleged this as a criterion ? Cotild such an observation sviggest itself to a philologist ? 2. How could it escape the Avriter, that this frequency does not respect the mind only in one view of it, but includes infinite variety ? It includes every afiection of the mind in excess. A proper term desig- nating one affection of the mind, cannot designate another. A word used figuratively, may apply to all in which hkeness can be found. 3. Our term immerse may be used figuratively as fi'equentty, and with the same variety of appHcation. What should we think of a foreign critic, who, on this ground, should allege, that in all such occurrences the word immerse is used, not figui-atively, but literally, and mthout any allusion to literal immersion ? 4. Are not pour and sprinkle capable of the Hke figurative application ? Pouring is used figuratively in Scriptru'e much more frequently than immersion. It is applied both with respect to Divine blessings and judgments. 5. The simple, unpoetic character of the style! Does not the writer know that the diction of the Lord Jesus aboimds in figures ? The strongest figures found in language are found in him. Mr. Fuller, we are told, after examining an ingot of gold in the Bank of England, said to his friend, " How much better to have this in the hand than in the heart !" Must we say, in order to make the diction of Mr. Fuller simple and unpoetic, that the word heart is to be understood Hterally, and that 310 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. the observation respected the danger of having the ingot hterally in the heart ? Would any child expound on such a principle ? In that view Mr. Fuller might as well have referred to the liver or to the kidneys, and to a leaden bullet. 6. As the writer, with frequency of occurrence with regard to mind, joins the simphcity and unpoetic character of the style, he must, by frequency, mean frequency not as to general use, but in the New Testament. I do not recollect any figurative application of the word in the New Testament, except that with respect to the baptism of the Spirit, and that with respect to the sufferings of our Lord. Both refer to body as well as mind. The word is indeed very frequently, in good use, applied figuratively; and so must corresponding words in all languages. " If baptizo,'''' says the writer, " when applied first to a body, meant to dip ; when applied to mind, it mtist necessarily have a different sense." This is not philosophically correct. Words do not change their meaning when used figuratively. The whole advantage of the figure depends on the word's retaining its literal meaning. When Homer calls wheat the marrow of man, marrow does not lay aside its o-wn meaning, and become another name for wheat. This would destroy the figure. The figure asserts that one thing is another, without any alteration in the • signifi- cation of words. When Christ calls Herod a fox, he gives no new meaning to the word fox. The doctrine of rhetoricians on this subject is erroneous and absurd. This I have proved at great length in a treatise on the Figiu-es of Speech, now out of print, but which may shortly be re-pubhshed. Indeed, when a metaphorical apphcation of a word becomes one of its meanings, then it ceases to be a figure. With respect to the point in which the Hkeness consists, between the primary and secondary object in a figure, there never can be any ques- tion. Every good figure has its own fight. As the immersion of a body is the complete covering of it in the thing in which it is immersed, so the baptism of the Spirit must imply the sanctification of the behever in mind and body. No one needs to ask the difference between a sprink- ling of learning, and an immersion in it. When Cowper, in his trans- lation of Homer, speaks of a hide drunk with oil, will any child need an explanation of his meaning ? When, again, he speaks of being drunk with joy, his meaning is equally inteUigible. Were the term drunk used figuratively in respect to a thousand different things, every instance woidd explain itself. Drunk with oil refers to the quantity absorbed by the hide — drunk with joy is excess of joy: drunk with blood refers to the quantity of blood shed by the woman in the book of Revelation, and to the effect of it on herself. Why, then, should there be any doubt as to the reference in the phrase immersion in the Spirit ? Could any man really doubt as to the meaning of such expression, his case would indeed be pitiable. He would have more need of medicine than of logic. Three effects, the writer tells us, have proposed themselves as candi- dates for this hkeness. Let us for a moment attend to his award with respect to their claims. The first is, that of colouring, which he dis- misses on the merits. " It is enough," says he, " to say that this signification is without any support from profane or sacred hterature." REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 311 Now while I agree in this award, I clifFer utterly with respect to the ground on which it is rested. He treats a figiu-ative application of a word, as if it were literal. He calls on it to justify itself by examples. A figurative application of a word has no need of justification by similar use. The first appHcation is the best ; and it declines in value, every time it is used. It requires nothing to justify it but Ukeness and agree- ableness. While a vsrriter has no right to use a new word, or an old one in a new signification, he is perfectly at liberty to use any word in a new figurative application. " In respect to the second, which," says the writer, " is the classical usage of the word, it should be remarked, that when in the classics the mind is said to be baptized, (i.e. overwhelmed or oppressed,) never is reference made to an abundance of good, but always and only to an abimdance of evil." 1. The classical meaning of the word is in no instance ovet^whelm. 2. Has not the writer admitted immerse as one of its meanings ? Why, then, confine the figurative application to one Kteral meaning, when the word is admitted to have many ? 3. The word, neither in its literal meaning, nor its figurative appli- cation, has anything to do with the nature of the thing to which it is applied. It denotes excess, and nothing but excess ; the nature of the thing must be knoAvn otherwise. In the word itself there is no expres- sion of either good or evil. 4. Admitting that the classical meaning of the word is overwhelm, this would destroy the writer's theory. How would he contrive to get purify out of overwhelm'? Is it not admitted that purify comes from immersion, by process of usage ? 5. All the instances of classical usage in a figui'ative apphcation, do not confine this word to evil. As to immersion, hapto and haptizo are the same; and immersed injustice, a classical phrase, is not an immersion in evil. 6. The English corresponding word iynmerse, is figm-atively appHed to both good and evil ; and all corresponding words in aU langitages must be equally capable of such an application. Homer speaks of ambrosial sleep, which Cowper translates, " Immersed in soft repose ambrosial." 7. But with respect to figurative application, I am not bound to rest on examples. On this point, as I have already intimated, I disregai'd the authority, of use. All I want is likeness, and likeness I have. The author's allegation is the very ground on which Dr. Wiseman rests his proof of transubstantiation from the words of our Lord. He admits that the words themselves are capable of a figurative interpretation. Plow, then, does he deny the consequence ? He denies that the plirase, eat flesh, is ever used figiu-atively, except as denoting destruction; and as this cannot be the meaning in our Lord's address, the Avords must be literal. I deny the critical dogma as firmly as I do transubstantiation itself: it is grounded on ignorance of philology ; it confounds the laws of literal and figurative expression. The sanction of use is necessary in assigning the meaning of words ; hut no sanction, except likeness, is neces- , / 312 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. sary to justify its figurative application. Any word may be figuratively used as no man ever used it before. But even admitting that overwhelm is the meaning of the word, and that figuratively, in classical usage, it always applied to calamity, the philosophy of the writer is unsound. The manner might designate what is in itself an evil, while the ordinance designated by the word might indicate a blessing. Was not circumcision, as to the thing in itself, an evil ? Was it not emblematical of a blessing ? Is not the serpent an animal accursed of God ? Was not the brazen serpent indicative of the greatest of all blessings ? Were not sin offerings emblematical of a blessing ? Is crucifixion no evil ? Are not believers said to be crucified with Christ ? Is such a crucifixion no blessing ? SprinkHng with blood is in itself defilement; yet it is emblematical of a blessing — even the blessing of purification. " Baptism," says the vnriter, " having been long used by the Jews as a symbol of the purification of mind, would be closely associated with mind by this idea. It would, therefore, be most unnatural to speak of the baptism of mind, except in the sense of the purifying of mind." 1. What does he here mean by baptism? Does he mean immersion in water for a symbohcal purpose ? If so, this is all we want. Does he mean by baptism aU the rites of purification ? The word never had such an application. Does he mean purification by the word baptism ? This his theory demands. Then the assertion is, that " Purification, having been long used by the Jews as a symbol of puiification of mind, would be closely associated with mind by this idea." 2. Immersion in water, both among Jews and heathens, was always a symbol of purification. WiU men never learn that this does not imply that the word designates purification ? 3. As all applications of the word to mind are figurative, no number of apphcations having one figure, will prevent its appHcation to another ■ — even to the very opposite. The emblem of purification is in the piu-e water — ^not in the mode of its application ; defilement might equally be referred to by immersion in a defiling substance. How could the writer overlook the fact, that the Septuagint says, " Iniqtuty baptizeth me ? " When iniquity is the baptizer, purification cannot be the effect. 4. Figurative baptism respects both body and mind. This criticism is mere speculation, founded neither on principle nor on observation of facts. Biit is the writer aware of the consequence resulting fi."om his asser- tion, that the word baptism, in the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, is used in its literal, not in a figurative acceptation ? If the baptism in the Spirit is a literal baptism, then must also the baptism in fire be a literal baptism, for the same persons are to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire. Now, as the writer, being a Protestant, can have no claim on purgatory, I cannot see where he will get the fire. " The simple, unpoetic style" must forbid a figurative baptism in fire, as well as in the Holy Spirit. In Hke manner, " salted with fire" must employ hteral salt and literal fire. Yet, after all, I cannot see how literal salt will salt with literal fire. Ah, my brethren, it is at a fearful expense that you REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 313 can resist this truth and defend your error. You must trample on all the laws of language. Your ingenuity may devise innumerable schemes, but you will never devise one that may not be dispersed as gossamer by the breath of the morning. Section V. — Authok's Exposition of the Word in the Passages in WHICH IT OCCURS. — In his exposition of the different passages in which the word occurs, the ^vriter commences with 2 Ivings v. 14. " Now," says he, " what is it likely that he did ?" It is not Hkely, but certain, that he did what he was commanded. Likehhood has nothing to do with the question — it is a matter of testimony, and testimony must be expounded by the ascertained meaning of the words employed to convey it. He asks another question, " How is his action described ?" Why it is described as an immersion. Nothing can be plainer. Then, is the matter at an end ? Not so fast ; stop a little, friend. " To reply to these questions, it is proper to ascertain what was the washing required by the Mosaic law in cases of leprosy." What has such an inquiry to do with an answer to either of these questions ? To know what the prophet commanded, and what Naaman did in obeying, is any reference necessary but what is contained in the record ? This was not a Jewish purification. What had Naaman to do Avith the law of leprosy ? Even after he became a behever in the God of Israel, he had nothing to do with the law of Israel. Much less, then, could he have to do with that law, when he was a heathen. The author asserts of the law of leprosy, that one part of it was ceremonial, the other sanative. There was nothing sanative in it. The leper was healed before the purification. He asserts also that the washing and shaving of the leper were de- signed to remove the danger of infection. Who told him so ? The preventive of infection \b spoken of in the previous chapter. Can any Christian be at a loss to know the emblem of the washing of the leper ? " Such were some of you, but ye are washed," &c. Had it been a legal purification of a leper, it would have been per- formed after his cure. Had it been a legal purification of a leper, the whole ritual, vd\h respect to the cleansing of the leper, would have been observed. Here the thing commanded was to effect a cure, and nothing but washing was commanded. The writer says, that the command to wash seven times is a command to sprinkle seven times. A command to wash, however, is very different from a command to sprinkle. Seven bathings cannot be effected by seven sprinklings. This is stiU more absurd in reference to Naaman. Would that Syrian understand a command to wash, as importing Mosaic sprinkHngs ? The word louo signifies to hathe, and except when a part is men- tioned, it refers to the person in general. This I have proved at large in my dissertation on the word in reply to President Beecher. In the law of leprosy, -with respect to purification, there are seven sprinklings with blood, and two washings with water. Oiu- author 314 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. thinks it more probable that the word wash in this command should correspond to the seven sprinkhngs with blood, than to the two bathings in water! But the command refers to neither. " The law," the writer says, "did not enjoin dijsping; and it is most improbable that not being enjoined it should be generally practised." If the law required bathing, or washing the body all over, how is it improbable that they immersed ? But the command of the prophet was most certainly obeyed by dipping^ though neither the command nor the performance had anything to do with the law of Moses. Seven bathings of his person were enjoined on Naaman for his cure; which was performed by seven baptisms. K, then, baptism is purifica- tion, there were seven piu-ifications instead of one. The seven sprinklings of blood, with two washings, constituted only one purification. The author thinks it improbable that Naaman dipped himself, and gives four reasons: — First, " He was only reqiured to wash ;" this requirement was performed by immersion. He bathed, and consequently he immersed. Probability has nothing to do in this matter ; we have testimony. That Naaman was immersed is as certain as that the word of God speaks truth. The second reason is, that " what he was commanded to do is repre- sented as a smaU thing." And is it a great thing to dip seven times in a river, in order to be cured of one of the most loathsome and disg-usting diseases that ever afflicted the hiunan body ? If this is a great thing, what is smaU ? He was enjoined to hathe — can there be any easier way of bathing than by dipping ? The third reason to make it probable that Naaman was not dipped, is, that " his temper of mind was not that which would lead him to do more than was enjoined." Nor did he more than was enjoined; a dipping is not more than a bathing. The fourth reason is, that " his action is stated to have been in accordance with the prophet's command." Doubtless ; and was not his dipping a fulfilment of his command to bathe ? Eeasons ! Were there ever four such reasons alleged for or against anything ? How easily are our opponents satisfied with reasons for one side of the question ! On the other, Naaman himself, compared mth them, Avas yielding in his obstinacy. If I jproduce any such reasons, let them be treated with the scorn they merit. " But," says the wiiter, " whatever may have been the mode in which Naaman obeyed the prophet's order, that his action is not described as a dipping, is evident from these considerations." Let us hear the author's considerations. "If so common a signification was to be expressed, hapto, or some common word might be expected, and not a Avord whose rare occurrence indicates that it had already some pecuharity of meaning, hke what it is found to have possessed afterwards." 1. Is not this extravagantly u.nreasonable and inconsistent? The action the Avriter has himself declared to be not only a rehgious rite, but the Jewish rite of the purification of a leper, yet this word is too solemn to designate the immersion performed in it ! He demands the httle wicked word bapto, to express a holy immersion. Had bapjto been REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 315 actually used, I have no more doubt than I have that the pen is in my hand, that he would have objected that baptizo was not used — the word on which the controversy principally rests. " We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced: we have mourned, and ye have not lamented." We give you bapto, and you require baptizo: we give you baptizo, and you require bapto. Can it be expected that in each passage we shall have both words ? I cannot, I will not, suppress my indignation at such unreasonableness. The meaning of no word coiild ever be settled with certainty, if such reasoning is allowable. Avaihng myself of Uke liberties, I vidll undertake to show that there is not a word in the Greek language whose meaning can be ascertained with certainty. 2. Wliat does the writer mean by so common a signification'? By a common signification, I understand a common meaning of the word. But if this is a common meaning of the word, why does he object to its use on this occasion ? Does he mean so common an operation as dipping ? Why should not the same operation have the same name, whether common or infrequent? Does he mean common in contra- distinction to sacred ? How can he consistently call this a common dipping ? 3. If a common word is employed in the command, may not a com- mon word be employed -with respect to the performance ? Louo is a common word, yet it refers equally to things common and sacred. Why may not baptizo do the same ? 4. Baptizo is not a more sacred word than bapto; the latter is appHed to Jewish rites more frequently than the former. If this gives holiness, it is the holier of the two. It is indeed a little word, but it is often as full of the odour of sanctity as Homer's ox hide was of " shppery lard." It applies to the dipping of a flea's foot, yet it equally applies to the Jewish immersions for pm-ification. Whether either of the words in any instance refers to sacred or common things, is not known from them- selves, but from connexion and appropriation. 5. Baptizo is applied to common things. Is it not appHed to the immersion of Aristobuliis in batliing ? It applies to the dij)ping of a person in the sea — to the dipping of a man's hand in blood, for the piu'- pose of Avriting — to the dipping of the head of a crow, &c. &c. 6. But I resist the ground of this criticism. If a word is proved to dip one object, it may dip another. It might as well be said that though the word wiU apply to dipping in the Jordan, this does not prove that it wiU apply to dipping in the Thames; or that though a word may be used to designate killing as to a nun, this is no proof that it will kill a friar. Did I meet such criticism with respect to the meaning of a word in the classics, I would not give it an answer. 7. That the Greek word signifies dip, is clear from the fact that this is the meaning of the word in the original. 8. Has not the term sprinkle been used in the church of Eome for hundi-eds of years, in reference to the performance of the most solemn rites '? Yet they can use the same word in reference to the most connnon things. It is a most unfounded and ridicidous conceit, to suppose that when a word is apphed to solemn things, it is disqualified lor seiTice y 316 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZTNE. with respect to things that are common or trivial. This is philological Puseyism. The second reason from which, according to the writer, " It is evident" that this word cannot here signify dipping, though dipping had been the action performed, is that " there is nothing to show that dipping was in the thoughts of the writer; for there is no word in the context, and nothing in the scope of the passage, having the least relation thereto. On the contrary, while apart from the signification of the word itself, there is nothing to lead to the supposition that Naaman was dipped, we know that he was cleansed. The action, however performed, was a purification." 1. Does the fact that there is nothing in the context to ascertain the meaning of the word, make it evident that it has not such a meaning ? This is lame logic. Evidence from context is of the greatest importance ; but the want of it cannot prove an objection — much less disprove. In many instances context can afford no evidence, bu.t will be as favourable to a false meaning as to the true. It is strange beyond measure that the writer should rest on such arguments. 2. We have evidence from context, that the word cannot mean purify. The action prescribed as the means of purification was performed by seven baptisms, or by seven times performing the thing imported by the word. There was then only one purification, by means of seven baptisms. If the meaning of the word is purify, then there wotdd be seven purifications. 3. This is still more absurd, because the purification spoken of was the healing of the leper. Was he seven times cured? Though the action performed was the means of purification; yet it was neither ceremonial nor spiritual purification. It was purification from disease. Naaman, though cleansed from his leprosy, was stiU, in the sense of the Jewish law, eqiially impure as an uncircumcised man. Plis cleansing did not fit him for the ordinances of Israel. When our Lord cleansed the lepers, it was heahng that was meant — not ceremonial cleansing ; as all the cleansed lepers who were Jews, would afterwards be cleansed by the law of Moses. The writer confounds the heahng of disease with legal purification. The third reason, according to our author, which makes it evident that dipping is not here expressed by the word, even though dipping had been the mode in which Naaman obeyed the prophet's order, is, " on this occasion Naaman became a worshipper of Jehovah." What has Naaman' s conversion to do with the meaning of the word? Just as much as with the era of the Chinese empire. Every thing would have been the same had Naaman continued in his idolatry. Even had his conversion preceded his cure, he coiild not have received any Jemsh ordinance without circumcision. In this affair Naaman can be considered in no other hght than that of an unclean heathen and idolator. He was not in any pomt of view entitled to any of the legal purifications of the law of Moses. To turn away the testimony of the original in this passage, the writer alleges tliat the Hebrew word signifies to stain and to moisten, as weU as EEPLY TO THE CONGKEGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 317 to dip. Now granting this to be a fact, how utterly uni'easonable is the allegation ! How can this serve his pm-pose here ? Did the prophet command Naaman to stain himself seven times in Jordan ? Did he command him to moisten'? If the command is to bathe, must there not be bathing in the performance ? In Lev. iv. 17, moisten will not serve. The blood was to be sprinkled from the finger ; and to do this, diioping is necessary. The finger might be moistened, when the blood will not drop from the moistened finger. " And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord." Wlio would substitute moisten in this place ? So also Lev. xiv. 16, with respect to the oil. A finger might be very moist with oil, when the oil would not di'op from it. The wiiter alleges the authority of the Syriac and the Vulgate, which render both the word in the command, and the word expressing the performance, by wash. In a free translation this is often done ; but it is not faithful. The readers of a translation ought to have as far as ijossible all the distinctions of the original. But this is no proof that the authors of such translations considered the words as perfectly identical. Besides, this does not serve our author. He makes the word signify not washing, but purification by seven sprinklings, as the whole purifying process of the law of Moses. Section YI. — ^Author's Interpretation of the "Word in the Septua- GENT, Isaiah xxi. 4. — In interpreting the word in the Septuagint, Isaiah xxi. 4, the author alleges that, according to Schleusner, anomia here has the sense of terror, as well as of iniquity. Were this the assertion of all the lexicographers in existence, it is false and extravagantly foolish. It never signifies terror, nor anything but want of conformity to law, or transgression of law. No matter in what way the Septuagint is to be reconciled with the text of the original; "iniquity immerses me," is the only allowable translation. With respect to this passage, the writer says, " There is no reference to dipping — nothing even to suggest the idea." Wliether there is a reference to dipping depends entirely on the pre-estabhshed meaning of this word. If the word literally, as it does, signify iinmerse, the figurative reference must be immersion. If, with respect to the Enghsh expression, " iniqiiity immerses me," it should be alleged, " there is no reference to dipping — nothing even to suggest the idea," what woidd be our ansAver ? Wlay it would be : Every one who knoAvs anything of the Enghsh language, knows that immerse signifies to dip. The same say I, with respect to this allegation. Wliat better reference can there be to a mode, than to use the most definite word that signifies that mode ? " But its common classic signification," says the writer, " Avhen ajiplied to mind, to press doAvn or overAvhehn, is exactly suited to it." Neither overivhelm, nor press doivn, is the classic meaning of this Avord, nor any meaning at all. But is it not admitted that immerse is the primary meaning, or at least one of the meanings of the word ? AYhat then dis- qualifies it here, even if terror is the baptizer ? Cannot terror immerse as easily as it can j)ress down or overivhelm ? Schleusner's interpretation of 318 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. the word anomia, has nothing to do Avith the meaning of the Avord haptizo. \ It was not to accommodate any theory with respect to the meaning f of the word, that induced Schleusner to commit this violence on the word anomia; but a desire to reconcile the Septuagint with the original. This lexicographer, as well as others, gives immerse as the classical meaning of haptizo. The Avriter speaks of the word as applied to mind, as if it were applied to mind literally. This is not so. When appHed to mind it is always figurative. Besides, press down or overwhelm is figurative, as well as is immerse, when applied to mind. Is the mind pressed doivn on, or overivhelmed literally ? But why does the Avriter bring the classical meaning of a word into Hebraistic Greek ? He perceived this inconsistency, and attempts in a very unsatisfactory manner, to account for it. " That bajytizo," says he, " though it had in the Hebraistic Greek another meaning, should be once used by a translator in its ordinary classic sense, is Avhat might be expected." Just what might be exp)ected ! Why should it be expected to be used in a sense Avhich to those Avho made the transla- tion, and those for Avhom it was made, it would not convey ? WTiy once, rather than a million of times ? If it ma}^ once be used, it may so be used any number of times. This admission shows that the word never received a Hebraistic sense. Even if it had the two meanings, might it not be appropriated to the ordinance of Christ, in the sense of immerse ? The author comes next to the case of Judith at the fountain of Bethulia. " Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay her: then she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp." It is perfectly incomprehensible to me how any one can find a diffi- culty in this instance. The most scrupulous and eA'^en romantic delicacy is provided for in the retirement of the lady to a fountain in a valley. It is evident that though in a camp, she was in such a part of it as afforded her the necessary seclusion. Had she been the wife of the general, she coidd not have greater secimty for privacy, nor better means of effecting it. I must think that this plea of delicacy is mireason- able and affected. Had not the ordinance of baptism been supposed to be affected by this matter, I believe we should never have heard of a complaint against the lady for indelicacy. But I care not, in the least degree, how any one may decide as to views of delicacy in this matter. However indehcate any one may choose to consider the conduct of Judith, the fact is in proof, and I will not suffer views of delicacy to question it. The -writer gives us a number of authorities for purification, by wash- ing of hands and sprinkling with water. What has this to do with the question ? We do not deny such purifications. Sprinklings are p)urifi- cations, but they are not baptisms. He tells us, that if we imagine that Judith was immersed in water, we assume what is highly improbable. Wliat sort of reasoning is this ? REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 319 We neither imagine nor assume as to this fact ; we rest on the testimony of the word. It is from the estabhshed meaning of the word, not from views of independent probability, that Ave must derive oui' knowledge of the fact. Even were the fact improbable in itself, the testimony of the word would establish it. Were an English traveller to relate that in a certain city he saw the people bathing in the street, Ave must beheve either that the persons referred to actually so bathed, or that the narrator falsifies. The plan of this Avriter, howcA^er, Avoiild be to explain the word hathe, as signifying to sprinkle a few drops of Avater, on the ground of improbabihty. But it is physically impossible, he tells us, that the fountain was sufficiently deep. Tlais shoAvs that the Avriter does not understand the fundamental laws of controversy. Does not the burden of proof He on him ? Is it not the objector Avho must prove ? I care not if there had not been a fountain at all in Bethulia ; she might have been immersed without it. If from other places I prove that immerse is the meaning of the Avord, this in every situation will provide the water. We refase, then, to be gauger of the fountain of Bethulia: let them dip it who need the evidence. But to allege that it is improbable that the fountain was of sufficient depth, is pei'fectly captious. Do Ave not knoAV that it is still customary to bathe in sacred AveUs ? According to the philosophy of our author, when an historian relates that an army forded a river, we cannot beUeve him till it is proA^ed by other eAddence that the river Avas in some part fordable. If it was forded, it must be fordable. If Judith was baptized in the fountain of Bethulia, it must have been deep enough for immersion. Though I care not whether it be supposed that she was immersed in the fountain, or in a cistern or bath beside it, yet it is plain that the historian understands that it Avas in the fountain. The j)reposition, indeed, does not designate this, but it is often used Avhen in might have been used. We do the same thing — Ave speak of bathing at a river or iti a river. But that the historian meant that she Avas immersed in the fountain is plain, from his speaking of her praying immediately on ascending. The English translation also iinderstunds it in this sense, for it renders it, " Avhen she came out." The dehcacy of oiu- author is so very romantic, that it is not enough for him that the guard of Holofernes Avere forbidden to hinder her — he complains that they were not forbidden to Avatch her. He might still require security from the Man in the Moon, for Avho could say, but, like peeping Tom of Coventry, he might be aAvake A^'hile all others Avere asleep ? Can there be a greater instance of trifling than this ? Coiild the meaning of any Avord ever be determined if such a mode of reasoning Avere adniitted ? " If stiU it should be asserted," says the A\Titer, " that she did dip herself, this AviU not prove that to dip is the sense of the word." Here again the writer mistakes the biu-den of proof. Our business is merely to ansAver objections. But Avhat does he mean by saying that, " if it should be asserted that she did dip herself, this Avill not prove that to dip is the sense of the word ? " Surely he does iiot mean to say that such 320 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. an assertion -will not j)rove the fact; for no one could allege that an assertion is proof. K he has any meaning, it mnst be that though she were dipped, this would not prove that dzp is the meaning of the word. This admission, however, destroys his cause ; for what is the ground on which the admission can rest, but on the meaning of the word ? K she was dipped, this word must have dipped her. It cannot be knovni or rationally admitted that she was dipped, but on the testimony of this word. To admit that she was dipped, on the evidence of the passage, is to admit immerse to be the meaning of haptizo. He tells us that, " in whatever way it was performed, the historian wished to represent it as a rehgious purification, and consequently that this is the meaning of the word." Who doubts that it was a religious purification ? What sort of logic is it to say, " consequently this is the meaning of the word ? " How many times must I prove that purification may be the natui'e of a rite, while it has not purification as its name ? The Syiiac also, he tells us, agrees Avith this — " lavabat se," she bathed herself. As a free translation I can have no objection to this. But it is not exact. A preacher expounding the words of Peter, " silver and gold have I none," remarked very profoimdly, that this might be translated gold and silver, or silver and gold. So if the lady dipped herself in the fountain of Bethulia, she was bathed ; if she was bathed in it, she was dipped; but dip and bathe are not therefore synonymous. The passage m Sirach, xxxi. 25, is the next that comes under the con- sideration of the wiiter. The Enghsh translation is : " He that washeth himself after touching a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing ? " Literally it is, " He that is immersed from a dead body and again touches it, what avails his bath or bathing ? " The writer says, " It is impossible that haptizomenos here means dipped. 1. Because if there were any immersion, it is unlikely that this rite should be characterised by a part not named in the law." Is a thing impossible, because it is unlikely ? If immersion is not named in the law, it is implied in what is named — bathing. This is the way that the law was fulfilled. Why, then, may it not be so designated ? It is perfectly the same thing that takes place in the case of Naaman — hathing was com- manded; dippiyig fulfilled the command. As immersion was the com- pletion of the purification after the touch of a dead body, the concluding rite alone is referred to. This s^ipposes all the rest. But whatever may be supposed the reason, the immersion only is named. The second reason alleged why the word cannot here signify immer- sion, is, " It is construed with apo, which is not suited to that signifi- cation, for such an expression as to dip from, could not be used in any language." What if I could shoAV him the very exj)ression ? " Dip it in the blood," Exod. xii. 22, and many other places, is hterally, dip it from the blood. But though the expression is the same, it does not proceed on the same principle. Here to immerse from a dead body is an elliptical expression, and means to dip in order to purify from the touch, or after the touch, of a dead body. The thing Avas so common, that all persons at once understood and could supply the eUipsis. AH common processes are usually expressed elHptically. REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 321 A third reason alleged by the author is : " The question shows that the attention of the "writer was directed, not to the manner in which a rite might be performed, but to its end." Without doubt purification was the thing in the mind of the -writer ; but might not this be the case though he referred to it as an immersion ? "A man once dipped," says the writer, "could not be undipped." Very true; but could not his dipping become unavaihng, which is the thing that is said ? Even were the word purification used, it is in this respect perfectly the same thing. A man purified becomes defiled by touching a defiling object after purification. A foiu-th reason is, " The correspondence which exists between eucho- menos, he who prays, in the 24th verse; bajJtizomenos, in the 25th verse; nesteuon, he who fasts, in the 26th, makes it probable that as the first and the last are religious terms, and are applied to those who are seeking the favour of God ; that baptizomenos, also, has a religious sense, and is peculiarly appropriated to those who, by ceremonial piuifications, would prepare themselves for the worship of the Most Holy." Euchomai is not exclusively a reHgious word ; nesteuo is not a reli- gious word; and baptizo, signifying immerse, can be as rehgious as either of them, without renoimcing a tittle of its meaning or adopting anything in addition. May not an immersion be performed for a rehgious pur- pose, withoiit making it signify anything but immersion ? It is most extravagantly absurd to suppose, that if a word is at any time apphed to rehgious things, it is thereby incapacitated for serving generally, and must become a rehgious term. But that baptizomenos here means immersed, is demonstratively evident from the fact, that loutron, bath, is given as a corresponding word. The question is not, what avails his purification? but, what avails his bathing ? Baptism, then, and bathing, refer to the same thing. They are not the same in meaning, but they reciprocally imply each other. This determines, beyond controversy, that the word does not signify purification. Instead of extending to all the rites of Mosaic pui'ification, it apphes only to the bathing. Even were it identical with bathing, it cannot designate purification ; for louo and bathe apply only to the washing of animal bodies. To bathe from a dead body requires the same ellipsis as to mimerse ft'om a dead body. And if it is bathing, it -ndll equally serve our purpose. A person is buried in bathing, as well as in immersion. Wliat the author says upon Mark vii. 3, is mere conjecture. The meaning of the word in this place, must be determined by its meaning where there is no controversy. In all controverted cases, let the mean- ing be settled independently of them, and bring the result to settle the controversy. If the Eabbins say, that in the time of our Lord there was no such custom as immersion on the occasions mentioned, I will reply, I beUeve the evangehst rather than you. What do you know of the matter more than others ? Have not others had access to aU the documents accessible to you ? The evangelist declares, that on certain occasions it was then usual to baptize themselves ; and baptize, in all the Greek language, signifies nothing but immerse. Wlaat difii- culty is there in this matter ? Y 322 REPLY TO THE COXGKEG ATIOXAL MAGAZINE. But the writer tells us, " That copper vessels and couches should be immersed in water, is another great improbability ; vnth regard to many of the latter, it would hardly be practicable, mth regard to all it would be difficult and injurious." A radical error pervades the w^hole of this writer's criticism. He founds the meaning of words on views of proba- bility, without reference to their use in the language. On such a fii-st principle nothing could ever be kno^vn from history. We make the his- torian express what we think probable, independently of his testimony; and whatever may be his testimony, we force it to renounce a meaning that seems to us improbable. A principle more absurd, fanatical, and mischievous could not be adopted. We are not left to detennine the question by views of probability or improbability, independently of the testimony of the words employed to convey the testimony. The question must be decided by the legitimate meaning of the language, whatever may be the result. However improbable any person may choose to con- sider the matter, if it is attested by suitable evidence, it is to be believed. If the thing is not true in the legitimate meaning of the testimony, the reporter must be branded as a falsifier. His language is not to be forced in order to harmonise -with his veracity. Even profane history commands our behef with respect to many things that, independently of the testimony, are improbable. But to me there is nothing improbable in anything here related. The things said to be baptized are all capable of immersion. Why shoiild we force and falsify the word of God to save the character of the Jews of our Lord's time from the imputa- tation of gross superstition ? It Avould not distui'b me in the least, if such immersions were even injurious, difficult, and disagreeable, though not one of them is really such. The words of the Holy Spirit must not be tortured to make superstitious practices easy to the devotee. Should an Enghsh traveller relate that he had lately discovered a colony of Jews who immersed aU the things mentioned in Mark vii. 3, shotdd we say either that he is a liar, or that by immerse^ he means purify by sprinkling ? No truth could stand on such a ground of interpretation. Give it to the Socinian, and he Avill overturn orthodoxy without any trouble. Were I to make a selection of the false principles of interpre- tation employed by our opponents, admitting thefr vahdity, I woidd imdertake to prove or disprove anything. In a note the writer edifies us with an account of the different ways ..in which the Jews Avashed their hands: he might as well inform us of the way in which they ate their breakfast. The qixestion is not about purification in general, nor about the way in Avhich the Jews washed thefr hands, but about something that was done imder the name of baptism. " That it was not the writer's design," says the author, " to speak of these baptisms as immersions, appears also from the train of thought which the passage exhibits. He wished to explain the reason why the disciples of Jesus were censured for not washing thefr hands. It Avas not likely that for this end he would refer to the practice of dipping the whole body, even if it Avere customary ; but it is likely that he Avould refer to purifications similar to what they had neglected." REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 323 Now, what is the use of sucli aiiy speculation? The evangehst wished to do whatever he did ; and what he did can be known only from what he has said. Why should he be confined to the instance of superstition respecting washing the hands ? Wlay should he not pro- ceed to give instances of more extravagant superstition ? He teUs us that the water-pots, John ii. 6, wiU not serve us. I care not that those pots wordd not hold as much as an egg-sheU ; we have no need of them. We care not Avhere water Avas found ; superstition wiU be at no loss to procure it. The most illiterate person may perceive the absiudity of translating the word by purify in this place. What nonsense would it be to say, " They eat not uiiless they wash their hands; and coming from market, they eat not unless they are purified P'' Is not the washing of the hands a puiification ? "Plow this purification was performed," he says, "is not expressed; probably by washing and sprinkHng combined." And are we to take his dreams, rather than the testimony of the word itself? Another person may as warrantably allege, that the ceremony was performed with holy oil, salt, &c. It is to me unspeakably astonishing that Chiis- tians ■will permit themselves to sport so wantonly -with the word of the living God. Expositions of Homer on this ground would be of no use in ascertaining the customs referred to by him. Conjecture and proba- bihties have no just authority in history either sacred or profane. To attempt to ascertain a custom by conjectiu-e, is not only to communicate no knowledge, but to deceive the unwary, who sometimes feed vora- ciously on the husks of conjectiu-e. But purify is not entitled to compete here, or anywhere else, as a meaning of this word. It is like a person proposing hiraself as a candidate for a seat in parhament, who is not qualified by possessing the landed income required by law. It nowhere can be shovsTi to be the meaning of the word ; if not, why should it be a competitor as the meaning in a disputed passage ? It is in proof that the word signifies immerse ; no meaning can compete with this that is not also in proof. He who will not admit such laws of interpretation, cannot be worthy of being reasoned with. He reftises to admit self-evident truth. " The next passage for consideration," he tells us, " is Luke xi. 37." He tells us " that nothing is said of the retirement of the host, or of any invitation given by him to his guests, to retire to the bath." No such information is necessary. It is evident that there must have been means of performing the thing meant by the word ; but whether these were in the Pharisee's house, or elsewhere, is of no consequence. The Pharisee was with Jesus in the multitude, and accompanied him to his house. AVhether, then, the bath was in his house, or elsewhere, he miist have known that Jesus did not use it. A thousand means of immersion might have existed, of which we can know nothing; and common sense should teach the most ignorant that sixch information is not necessary. Is it to be expected that the whole conversation of the host with his guests is to be recorded ? v2 324 REPLY TO THE CONGEEGATIONAL MAGAZINE. How differently would an antiquarian reason from this passage ! "Here," he would say, "it is palpably evident that bathing for reh- gious purposes, was exceedingly common among the Jews at this period ; and that there must have been many baths, both public and private. Most probably every house had one or more." How differently do men reason, when an ordinance of Christ must be made to conform to the practice of man! The writer tells us, that in his reply, Jesus did not refer to immersion, but to purification. What wonder is this ? "Was not the immersion for the purpose of purification ? Is it strange, then, that in his reply, Jesus should refer to the thing, and not to the mode in which it was effected ? Does this imply that immersion was not the mode of per- forming the purification ? " The last passage referring to Jewish baptisms," says the writer, " is Heb. ix. 9. Duriag which time offerings and sacrifices are presented, which are incapable of making perfect, in respect to the conscience, him who does service only Avith things to be eaten and to be drunk, and with various baptisms, services of the body, imposed luitil the season for reformation." The writer here translates for himself. If, then, I can answer him on the ground of his own translation, the refutation must be unsuspicious and satisfactory. Even this translation is in perfect accordance with my view of the meaning of the word. It is substantially the translation of Macknight ; and Macknight even here translates the word immersion, — " both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, with respect to conscience, make him perfect Avho worshippeth only with meats and drinks, and divers immersions." Even according to this translation, the service or worship respects not only the gifts and sacrifices offered in the tabernacle, but every act of service in the whole law of Moses. It must respect the services performed in their own houses, as well as those performed at the tabernacle. The meaning is, that the gifts and sacri- fices offered in the tabernacle could not perfect persons whose worship consisted in the things mentioned, which had no excellence in them- selves. No translation could suit me better. The baptisms, then, must apply to every rite performed by immersion. Should Professor Stuart's view of the connexion between the ninth and tenth verses be preferred, it is equally suitable to my view of the meaning of this word. He understands the meats and drinks, as exclusive of the gifts and sacrifices. " Meats and drinks" says he, " have respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the Jewish dispensation; and not, (as some critics interpret the word,) to the meats and drinks offered to the Lord." He makes the baptisms refer to the ceremonial ablutions of the Jews. Doubtless they include every thing that was performed by immersion. " The baptisms here mentioned," says the writer, " were a part of the service of the tabernacle." By this he seems to assert, that all the things here referred to were performed in the tabernacle. There is no foundation for this, even in his own translation, more than in that of Professor Stuart, who as to baptism is on the same side. The two dispensations are REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 335 contrasted in general. He might as well confine it to the tabernacle, to the exclusion of the temple ; or confine it to the things done in the tabernacle, to the exclusion of things done elsewhere. The service of the worshipper, or the person who does the service, must respect all the things included in the law, which is the rule of his service. Indeed, in the thirteenth verse, the cleansing by the rite of purification, with the ashes of a heifer, which was not done in the tabernacle, is expressly mentioned. " We may learn what they were," says the writer, " by referring to the Old Testament, Exod. xxix. 4 : " And Aaron, and his sons, thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water." Exod. xxx. 19: "For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat : when they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash vnth tvater, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn ofiering made by fire unto the Lord, so they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not." Now from what source do we learn that the things referred to in these passages Avere baptisms ? They are not here called baptisms. "We can therefore learn that they were baptisms, only from our previous knowledge of the word, and from the fact that the thing signified by the word, whatever that may be, takes place in the per- formance of the thing here mentioned. If then they were not immersions, I would permit no man to call them baptisms. I am, however, quite willing that they should be called baptisms: the first as an immersion of the whole body ; the second as an immersion of the hands and feet. But I wlU not extend this act of grace to the next examples, Niunb. viii. 5 : " And the Lord spake unto Moses, sajdng. Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them ; and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle clean water of purifjdng upon them." Numb. xix. 20: " But the man that shall be luiclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congrega- tion, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord. The water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." Where did the waiter learn that these were baptisms ? Are they called bap- tisms here ? Are they called baptisms anywhere else ? He might as weU assert that they were circumcisions. They are purifications ; but all purifications are not baptisms. " Such," says the writer, " were the principal, if not the only baptisms alluded to by the apostle." It fills me with astonishment beyond what I can express, that any person coiild make such an assertion. Is there a man of common sense in England, who in reading, or hearing these passages, would understand them to be called baptisms ? If this passes for proof, anything may be proved : I call the attention of the unlearned to this. If our opponents can misrepresent evidence, in a case so pal- pable, can they be trusted in cases of profound ciiticism '? If such things are the baptisms referred to by the apostle, it is not because they are called baptisms in the law of Moses, nor because of any explanation in this passage, but from the meaning of the word independently ascertained. " There is," says the wi-iter, " nothing to show that one immersion of 326 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. the whole body was ever required." If bathing was reqtdred, does not this imply immersion ? An immersion of any part, and of any thing, is as good in proof of the meaning of the word, as the immersion of the whole body. Besides, it is not the command, but the performance, that is here referred to ; and the case of Naaman shows us that dipping is the performance of a command enjoining bathing. Justin Martyr also speaks of dipping in reference to bathing, as prescribed by the law of Moses. But it is quite enough for us, that the law of bathing may have been ftdfilled by immersion. " It is superfluous to remark," says the writer, " that even if there had been many immersions, these could not be styled diaphoroi. The dipping of various things could not be various dippings." Why does he say so, when examples in contradiction occur every day in every language ? In Deut. xxii. 9, it refers to different sorts of seed ; and instead of implying a great variety of difference, a single variety is sufficient. It applies to two seeds that differ, as well as to a thousand sorts. Do not our opponents say, that John's baptism, and our Lord's baptism, were different baptisms ? They Avere different in neither form nor emblem, and the difference was confined to two. This passage, then, supposed to be so unequivocally against us, gives us no disturbance. Indeed we require no more than the repetition of the same act to exempHfy this difference. The word is baptismos, not baptisma; and the different baptisms might refer to different acts of immersion of the same object. In 2 Mac. xiv. 21, the word is applied to two different seats of the same kind. The only difference here was that Nicanor and Judas, instead of sitting on the same throne or chair of state, when they sat in conference, had each a chair for himself, a different seat. Every one of my opponents has brought this word against me as if it were utterly irreconcilable with my doctrine ; but it is the most harmless word imaginable. Their criticisms are founded on mere speculation — not on either observation of the various occiirrences of the word, or in its philosophy. " Baptisms," says the writer, " were rites performed in the Jewish temple in connexion mth the worship of God. Immersions were never performed in the Jewish temple," &c. Where is it said that all baptisms were confined to the temj)le ? All baptisms were not in the temple. Immersions of some things were con- stantly performed in the JeAvish temple. " But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water. Lev. i. 9." Did not this imply immersion ? " He made also ten base^, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to Avash in them : such things as they offered for the burnt offering, they washed in them ; biit the sea was for the priests to wash in." Are not these immersions ? Are not these different immersions even in the temple ? But we are not, as we have already seen, confined to the temple, even by the author's own translation ; we have the whole range of JeAvish practice both pubhc and private. But Avhy does the author say that baptisms were rites in the JeA\dsh temple in connexion with the worship of God ? Is not this as inconsist- ent with his own doctrine as with mine ? Does he not make the cleans- REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 337 ing of a person defiled by the touch of a dead body, a baptism ? "Was this performed in the temple ? Was this in connexion with worship ? It was a part of the service of God, but not an immediate act of worship — much less of worship in the temple. " The apostle states," says he, "that these baptisms were appointed by God." This is not the thing which the apostle states ; he states what the worshipper did in performing what the law of God required. If immersion fulfilled the law, and if immersion was the way in which the law was usually fulfilled, it is quite enough for us. " Lnmersions of the person," says the wiiter, " were not appointed by God." Bathings were appointed by God, and bathings imply immer- sions. But it is enough if the bathings were usually performed by immersion. Besides, there is no reason to confine these immersions to the persons. It may include every thing in which there was immersion, whether of persons or things. Indeed it is quite sufficient if we can show different immersions of anything. Neither the word nor the connexion restricts. " They were," says he, " purifications with water." JeAvish baptisms were not all purifications with water. They were in many different things, blood — blood and water, fire, &c. " Only in one instance in the whole Mosaic law," says he, " is there a direction to put the object to be purified in water : Lev. xi. 32." And were this the only one, it would serve us. There were different immer- sions in several different respects ; and that they were not performed in the temple, and were not immersions of persons, is of no importance. It is quite enough that they were immersions. But why does he refuse immersions in other things ? Ai^e not immer- sions in other things equally worthy of the name ? " Every thing that may abide the fire, ye sliall make it go through the fire." Numb. xxxi. 23. Here is a baptism in fire, and as good a baptism as one in water. It is added, " and all that abideth not the fire shall go through the water." Here is a different baptism in water. We are at no loss to make out different baptisms imder the law. In every view of this passage it is in harmony with our doctrine; in no view of it does it demand any other meaning in the disputed word. But let it never be lost sight of, that the bui'den of proof lies on our opponents. We stand on the defence. We do not allege this passage as proof; our duty is merely to reply to objections. Oiu- opponents, almost in every instance, overlook this. They think if by new transla- tions, and suppositions not founded on the passage, they can make the passage siiitable to their purposes, they su.cceed. We demolish aU their batteries, the moment we show that the passage does not necessarily import what they teach. There is nothing less understood than the burden of proof. Controversialists iisiially bandy it from one to another ; as if it were a matter of mere etiquette. It must always depend on self-evidence. But I can carry the field with respect to this passage, even if all I have said on it were to be given Tip. Admitting that the many haptisms must include all Jewish washings, the word may still have its primary mean- 328 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. ing, in reference to tlie Cliristian ordinance. In excltiding from this passage all pvmfications but such as were done by immersion, I defend my own doctrine with respect to the word as being nnivocal. But the doctrine of iiomersion, with respect to the Christian ordinance, may stand independently of this. Besides, washing and purification are very different. The latter is a generic word of which the former is a species. All washings are purifi- cations, but all piuifications are not washings. Washing is performed by means of water; purification may be performed by means of blood, fire, sulphur, &c. Even on the supposition that the word here signifies washing^ and that in the ordinance of Christian baptism it has the same sense, if the person to be baptized must be washed, it tvtH be quite as objectionable to our opponents. I think immersing a person is the easiest way of washing him. One of the most romantic exploits of this champion, is that at the Eed Sea. The hosts of Pharaoh did not attempt anything more fanatically daring. The baptism here is the mere separation of the children of Israel from their enemies by means of the cloud and the sea intervening between them and their enemies. There is neither dipping nor sprinkling, washing nor purifying, in this baptism. But let us hear himself: " There is one passage," says he, " which, though it does not refer to rites of baptism, speaks of a baptism of the JeAvs, and may properly be noticed here. ' I am imwilling that you should be ignorant, brethren, < that our fathers were all under (the guidance of) the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized for Moses by the cloud and by the sea.' 1 Cor. x. 1." It is always a suspicious thing in a controversiahst to be obHged on all occasions to translate for himself, and form his version for serving his purpose. The best version may occasionally admit improvement; but if on the subject of controversy, a party can find nothing right in a translation made by those, as to the point in question, on the same side with himself, every impartial judge will receive his translations with the utmost caution. In my observations I shall advert to nothing but what concerns the point in hand. 1. In rendering the phrase under the cloud, by under the guidance of the cloud, where does the translator find the supplement ? It is not imphed in the text ; it is not warranted by any supposable ellipsis. This figure always grounds on the fact, that the elliptical matter will be suggested by frequency of the use of the phrase, so that it cannot be either wanted or mistaken. If it does not necessarily and obviously present itself, it is essentially vicious in rhetoric, and utterly unworthy of revelation. I am bold to assert that such an ellipsis as the Avriter here supposes, does not exist in our language. Under the cloud cannot signify under the guidance of the cloud. There is not a rhetorician in existence who would warrant such a figure. This is downright forgery — forgery as palpable as to add a cipher to a one poimd note, to make it ten. Controversialists who are not acquainted with the philosophy of figurative language, imagine that they may in exphcation avail them- KEPLY TO THE CONGEEGATIONAL MAGAZINE, 329 selves of their service as often as an exigency requires. This enables ignorance to do miracles. But tlie operations of figui'ative diction are as subject to law, as are those of words used literally. 2. The thing here supplied by the authority of eUipsis, is never once literally expressed in the Scripture accounts of this cloud. It is a strange ellipsis that suppHes to a word or phrase an idea never elsewhere expressed. Now not one of the references to this cloud calls it the guide of the IsraeUtes, or declares that the Israelites were under its guidance. So far from this, God is said to lead them by the cloud. He was in the cloud, and was himself their guide and leader. This was a mere signal. It might as well be said, that an army is under the guidance of the trumpet. 3. This exposition takes away all emblematical meaning from the cloud, and considers it merely as a signal by agreement. It might as well have been a flag as a cloud. 4. But it is evident that the cloud is here considered nbt merely as a signal, but as an emblem similar to that of baptism, whatever baptism is. " The cloud," he says, " did not cover them, so that they might be said to be immersed in it." Can it be more clearly said that the cloud covered them ? Is it not expressly said that they were aU under the cloud, and in the cloud ? " We are expressly told," says he, " that they were not immersed in the sea." I say, we are expressly told that they were immersed in the sea — the apostle directly asserts, that they were all baptized in the sea. Where are we told, either dfrectly or by impHcation, that they were not so immersed ? " The sacred historian," adds the writer, " says that the Egyptians were immersed and overwhelmed, and that the Israehtes were not. 'For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and mth his horsemen into the sea ; and the Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon them ; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.' " I have no objection, that the descent of the Egyptians into the sea be caUed an immersion ; but this immersion was to them a dry dip, as well as to the Israehtes. When they went in, the water was removed, and they, as well as the Israehtes, at first stood on dry ground. When the water returned, they were overwhelmed, which was not the case with the Israelites. Both armies are said to go down into the sea. On the very same principle that they are said to go into the sea, when the place where they entered was diy land, they may be said to be immersed in the sea, while the water siuTounded them walking on dry ground. The man who asks, how could they be immersed in the sea, when the water was removed ? may ask, how could they go into the sea, when the place where they walked was dry ? No rational man can need inforraation on such a point. We talk famiharly of plunging into a forest, and of being immersed in a valley. The going down into the sea is the immersion — the overflowing of the waters was the overwhelming of the Egyptians. " St. Paul," says the wa-iter, " declares that the Israehtes were 330 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. baptized toth by tlie cloud, and by the sea; but from the history of Moses, we learn that they were neither dipped, nor immersed, nor overwhelmed, by either the one or the other." They were not overwhehned, and they are not said to be overwhelmed. They are said to be baptized, and they were immersed in the sea, as they went down into the sea. They were immersed in the cloud, as they were said both to be under it. and in it. If on the top of a mountain I am suddenly involved in mist, shall any one misunderstand me, when I say that I was suddenly immersed in a cloud'? But how were the IsraeUtes purified by the cloud, and by the sea ? Why, by being through this means separated from the Egyptians. Upon this I remark, 1. Separation is no lourification of any kind, either real or emblematical. Does the author ever find mere separation called purifi- cation ? Was ever extravagance more extravagant than this ? I suppose he confounds purification with the original idea in the word that signifies holiness. But holiness and purification are as distinct as sin and duty. 2. In this view of the matter, the things that separated^ naight as well have been anything else as the cloud and sea. A curtain would have served as well as a cloud; and a moimtain as well as the sea. The wall of China would purify as well as the Red Sea. 3. Even were the passage translated purified by the cloud and by the sea, it would imply that the purification was something done by means of the cloud, when they were in it ; and by the sea, when they were passing through it. The cloud and sea could not have been mere separation ; but must have been means of purification by apphcation to their bodies. Would any reader understand pturification hy a cloud, as expressing separation from something, by intervention of the cloud ; or purification hy the sea, as expressing separation from idolaters, by intervention of the sea ? The apphcation of the puiifying substance to the thing purified, is essential to ptu^ification. 4. The baptism was not hy the cloud, and hy the sea, but in the cloud, and in the sea. The primary meaning of the preposition, aU must aUow, refers to place; and to employ a word in a secondary meaning, in a situation where the primary is not only suitable, but where it most obviously suggests itself, would be a very essential fault in style. The preposition is often to be translated with, but in the sense hy, gram- marians themselves acknowledge it to be rare. Why then desert the obvious meaning for one rare, and in this j)lace the cause of obscui'ity, or rather of necessary misunderstanding ? Again, the preposition en, mth the verbs in question, always, in other cases, signifies in. Wliy another meaning on this occasion ? Must all Avords desert their usual meaning, and all phrases their syntax, to favour the claims of this pretender purification? Further, the connexion demands in, as the meaning of the preposition. In the cloud, refers to under the cloud ; in the sea, to through the sea. It must then have been when they were under the cloud, that they were baptized with respect to the cloud; and while they passed through the sea, that they were baptized with respect to the sea. For what purpose does REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 331 the apostle so solemnly call their attention to the fact, that their fathers were under the cloud, and passed through the sea, if their baptism, Avhich is connected with this, did not take place while they were under the cloud, and while they passed through the sea ? According to the writer, the baptism of the Israelites by the sea, was accomplished after they passed the sea ; according to the apostle, the baptism was by passing through the sea. 5. There is in the passage a reference to the ordinance of baptism, and something is said to take place in the passage through the Eed Sea, that is called a baptism luito Moses. There must be, then, some similarity between Christian baptism, and what took place with respect to the IsraeUtes. But pimfication as a mere separation, mthout respect to the nature of the things that purified, cannot be this baptism. In this, there is no emblem at all. The sea and the cloiid are not considered as emblematical : it might as well have been a volcano, or a morass. There is no baptism at aU ; the sprinkHng of the cloud, and the spray of the sea, are less extravagant fancies than is this purify. Even though this cordd be called a purification, it could not be called baptism, for every purification is not baptism. Immersion and nothing but immersion wiU suit this passage. Did I choose to stand here on the defensive merely, I might content myself with answering objections. It would be enough for me, on that groiuid, to show that the common version is warrantable, even though I should admit that this passage is capable of the translation of my opponent. If it is also capable of mine, it cannot stand as an objection against me. If the word can have its ordinary meaning here, without any force, it is all my case requires. But I do not stand here, merely on the defensive; I found proof on this passage, and maintain that no view of the meaning of the word will suit this passage, but that of oiu: version. On this gromid, the burden of proof Ues on me, and I ^vill sustain it. I refuse nothing to my opponent that in my turn I demand from him. Truth is my only object, and sternly just reasoning, grounded on self-evident principles, is my only reliance, both in defence and attack. The author comes next, to the consideration of the passages that relate to the baptism of John, Matt. iii. 1. The first thing he quarrels with is, the meaning of the word in our view of it, as it regards the title of the Baptist. " The clipper,^'' he says, " is offensive, not merely because it is strange, but especially because it has no apparent fitness to Ms work, as the great predicted reformer of the day." On this I remark, 1. This is a most unjustifiable foundation of evidence in a matter that must be decided solely by the testimony of language, according to the legitimate laws of interpretation. The meaning of what is said, is to be determined solely on the authority of the meaning of words, ascertained by the occtu-rences in the language of the documents. Om- business is to examine what is the meaning of his title, not to speculate on what would have been the most suitable title. I am qiiite contented to leai'u from the word of God. I never presume to dictate to it: our view of fitness is no ground on which to rest faitli. 2. This is a most hazardous way r>f attempting to settle the question. 332 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. If it shall be found in the day of judgment, that the meaning of this title is what this Avriter represents as so unsuitable and improper, is it a light thing to find folly in the Divine Avisdom ? The Spirit of msdom calls him John the Baptist ; if this is John the dipper^ then this Avriter rebukes the Spirit of God, as employing an unsuitable title to designate the office of John. Is it becoming, is it wise, to risk such observations ? Will men never cease to teach the Ahnighty ? 3. This observation is as absurd as it is impious. How is it that the writer did not perceive that even had John been called the pui'ifier, the title must refer to the rite, and not to spiritual purification ? It was as a baptizer, not as a great reformer, that John had his title, whatever may be supposed its import. Did John piiriiy any man from sin ? This is as rank Puseyism as ever proceeded fi^om the cave of the Pythoness in Oxford. " It is surely more likely," says the writer, " that John and his disciples woidd select a name that would express what was spiritual, than one that would express only what was sensible." Is it not strange to astonishment that he could venture such a speculation, with the word circumcision before his eyes ? Did this word express what was spiritual, or what was sensible ? A volume of such assertions would not form the shadow of an argument. How John's title was originally conferred, we are not informed; but whatever way he got it, Ave know it only is the title by Avhich he is desig- nated by the Spirit of inspiration. But whether the title is Divine or human, the argument from the Avord is perfectly the same. The title is from the ritual serAdce. It is most lamentable that a dissenter should speak of the spiritual portion of John's xvork. Did the spiritual work belong to John ? K John was a spiritual praifier, then baptism is salvation. 4. But did the Avriter forget that TertulKan, and a multitude of translators, have designated John by the very title supposed to be so un- suitable and oifensive ? Here fact refrites theory. Can demonstration be stronger ? John the dipper was the usual title of the prophet. " The term baptize," says the Avriter, " is used alone, and in coim.exion Avith the names of places. WYij dost thou baptize ? John Avas baptizing at the doAATis, at Bethany, at Enon. Now terms denoting a definite end may Avith propriety be thus used, but not terms denoting a general mode of action." This has an appearance of profound philology ; but it is an appearance only to those AA^ho are imacqiiainted Avith the effect of the principle of grammatical appropriation. Wlien a Avord is appropriated to a rite, the frequency of its apphcation when speaking on the subject enables us to use it with an ellipsis of the words usually connected Avith it in other cases. The thing is of so frequent occurrence in the conversation of every day, that I am surprised that any one who has paid any attention to the philosophy of language, should overlook it. Should any person but a priest anoint a sick person Avith oil for the good of his soul, every Eoman Cathohc would ask him. Why do you anoint? He would not think it necessary in order to be intelligible, to say, Why do you anoint dying REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 333 persons with oil, for the salvation of their souls, as you are not a priest ? Indeed every trade and every workshop exemplify this process every day, though it is so strange to this BibUcal critic. But it is strange that the writer did not perceive that the word circumcise can be used in the same way. Can we not say. Why do you circumcise? Why do you cut around? Here the philosophy of this critic would object, " terms denoting a general end may with propriety be thus used, but not terms denoting a general mode of action." The word circumcision^ then, cannot signify to cut around^ but it must signify to purify. The word baptize^ whatever may be supposed its signification, was appropriated to the Christian rite, and in that meaning it may be iised in the manner objected to, with the strictest propriety, and with the most kicid perspicuity. Indeed even I'^urify itself, had it been appropriated to this ordinance, would be subject to the same law. In the question. Why dost thou purify? there is an ellipsis of "thy disciples with water, as an emblem of the washing away of their sins." " This word," says the writer, "is so associated with the terms belonging to rehgion, that it is highly probable the accordance of signification was such as to favour the union. Jesus having been dipped and praying, is felt at once to be incongruous." Here again circumcision destroys the philosophy of the critic. Could it not be said of a proselyte of Judaism, " having been circumcised he prayed ?" Wlienever a modal word is appropriated to a rite, it designates that rite in every reference, and the appropriation supphes what is necessary. When it is said, " Jesus having been immersed, prayed," it is as weU known that the immersion relates to the rite, as that prayer was offered to God. " The contrast made between the baptism with water," says the -writer, " and the baptism with a holy influence and with fire, would alone indicate the meaning of the word. Fire is commonly employed in the Bible as emblematical of the means of destruction." 1. This observation is founded on the same erroneous view of figm-a- tive language, on which Wiseman rests his defence of transubstantiation. A figurative apphcation of a word needs resemblance only to justify it : it disdains the sanction of precedent. 2. Even when fire is to burn, the thing subjected to it may not be destroyed, but rendered more valuable. Were not some things under the law purified by passing through fire ? And when Christians are immersed in the fire of affliction, they are not destroyed ; they lose nothing but their dross. 3. I care not what the writer may understand by the baptism of fire. Let it be the fire of persecution, of affliction, even of hell, the emblem is suitable. Immersion in fire is inteUigible, both HteraUy and figuratively. " The words of John," says the writer, " were addressed to an assembly of those who would believe in Christ, and of those who wovdd reject him. It was not true, that all would be baptized with a sacred influence. It is more Hkely, therefore, that the two baptisms had a corresponding reference to the two classes of which his audience, and the whole Je\\dsh nation, consisted, than that both should relate to the one smaller portion." 334 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 1. Jolm's saying, I baptize you, addressing the people in general, did not imj^ly either that he baptized the -^vhole nation, or the whole of the present audience. Therefore, when he says of Jesus, he shall bajytize you, it is not impHed that Jesus baptized, in any sense, either the whole Jewish nation, or the Avhole of John's present audience. 2. This phraseology imports merely that John baptized those of the Jews who became his disciples ; therefore the same phraseology imphes when spoken of Jesus, that he baptized those among the Jews who became his disciples. This corresponds both with fact and -with phraseology. 3. The author's exposition is inconsistent ^Adth itself. He makes Christ's baptism one baptism, and two baptisms. If it refers to the whole nation, purified by the destruction of liis enemies, it includes both classes. In this hght, it has no reference to baptism in any \iew. Baptism does not represent the purification of the Jewish nation, nor of any nation; but the purification of siuners uidividuaUy, from their own sins. K there are two baptisms, one for one class, and another for another, then how can it be the one baptism that purifies the nation ? The class that has the baptism of this sacred influence, has not the baptism of fire ; yet it is the baptism of fire that separates the pure fi:om the impure ; and both must be immersed in the tryiag fire. 4. There are not two classes in these baptisms. The baptism of the Spirit, and the baptism of fire, belong to the same persons. " He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire." Every person who has the one baptism, has the other. " The collecting of the ■wicked," says the writer, " and the biumng of the chaff", ai'e described as the purifying of the tlireshing-floor." Even this is not a coiTect explanation of the figiii'e. It is the separation of the chaff" from the wheat; not the collecting of the wheat, and the burning of the chaff", that is the purification. The collecting of the wheat, and the biu-ning of the chaff", do not take place even at the same time "with this purification. But what has this figure to do with baptism ? The separation of Israel after the spirit, from Israel after the flesh, was a purging of the threshing-floor ; but this is a quite dif- ferent purification from that Avhich is represented by the ordinance of Christ. So far from being the baptism of Christ, this purification has not the same emblem with the baptism of Christ. Besides, it is not the destruction of the unbeheAT-ng Israehtes that is the purification of the figure. There is nothing right in this exphcation of the figurative language of John the Baptist. The pirrgation of the nation might have taken place, had there been no such ordinance as baptism ; and baptism woidd have been the same, had Israel been all believers, and needed no national purgation. " The baptism of a number of persons," he continues, " is confined to the cleansing of a threshing-floor." Now where is the comparison to be found ? The baptism of a number of persons is not compared to a threshing-floor. Nothing like this is said. The separation of the natural and spiritual Israel, is compared to the winnowing of grain; REPLl TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZIXE. 335 but there is no comparison at all between baptism and the cleansing of a threshing-floor. It is astonishing that Avriters will leave themselves open to detection and rebuke, by such reckless assertions. Would any lawyer, even on a case of life and death, put it in the power of his opponent, to charge him with so serious a misrepresentation, in reason- ing from a written docimient ? I would let the honour of revelation itself suiFer, rather than undertake to protect it by such an asseveration. Let baptism be reasoned out of the world, rather than uphold it by such reasons. The question put to John, has no reference either to the mode or to the nature of the ordinance. Whatever had been the thing done by him, which was not in obedience to the ceremonial law, would equally have given occasion to the question. They questioned his authority, on the groiuid that he was not one of the persons whom they expected. Had he been such a person, whether he dipped, or sprinkled, or poured, would never have been questioned. If he w^as not one of the persons expected, why did he introduce among the Jews anything not enjoined by the law of Moses ? " But dipping the multitudes into the Jordan," says he, " would be an act of itself reqidiing explanation." If the person were recognised or commissioned by God, Avould his mode of practising a rite be questioned ? If he were not recognised, not the mode of the rite, but the rite itself, would be questioned. The difficulty found in the niunber baptized by John, is not worthy of a moment's consideration. It is capable of many solutions. 1. If John requires more time for his work, I shall lengthen his com- mission. How long he entered on his work before our Lord entered on his, I will allow nothing but inspiration to determine. I care nothing for human conjectures and probabiUties. 2. There is no necessity to suppose that John baptized all personally. He might have employed the instrumentahty of others along with him- self. Indeed, without any reference to the difficulty, I perceive no reason to beheve that John declined assistance in the work of baptism. Christ's baptism is surely equally important : Christ baptized none ; Paul bap- tized but few ; and if the converts made by the brethren scattered by the persecution, at the death of Stephen, were baptized at aU, they must have been baptized by imofficial brethren. That Puseyism, whicli is now so general, even among dissenters, has not a vestige of authority in the practice of the flrst churches. Every man has a right to preach the Gospel, which is a higher privilege than baptizing ; and every Christian man has a right to baptize believers. This writer, indeed, tells us that, " It should be remarked that it is expressly stated, that the people were aU baptized by him ; not by his disciples." No such thing is expressly stated. Where is it expressly stated, " not by his disciples ?" I am astonished at such assertions. We are told that " Herod laid hold of John, and bound him, and put him in prison." Did Herod do this himself? Did he perform the work of a constable ? The conversation of every hoxir exemplifies this phraseology. 336 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 3. It is not necessary that the number of those baptized by John should be so great, as stated by this writer. The language of hyperbole is not capable of arithmetical calcxilation. The writer, with great can- dour, admits that the language " need not be understood as meaning every individual ; but it must be interpreted in reference to the larger portion of the population." Now, if the bankrupt put himself into my hands, I will obhge the creditor to compound for a much smaller sum. This is a new law of hyperbole. Where is it found ? On what is it grounded ? It is a mere figment, unauthorised by any principle. To justify a hyperbole, I maintain, it is not necessary that truth should extend to the larger portion. When the evangelist says, " And there are also many other things which Jesus did ; the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," must fact extend to the larger portion of the hteral amornit ? 4. Every hyperbole must be limited by impossibility ; it cannot, in any case, be extended beyond what is possible. It cannot obhge John, then, to baptize in a certain time, more than can in that time be baptized. 5. Were the thing asserted admitted, according to the modal meaning of the word, to be impossible, to assign another meaning, not in proof, would not relieve Christians from the difficulty. The infidel might justly object to such a solution. "I deny," he might say, "that the word has the meaning that you allege. The assertion, then, is a falsehood." This objection, then, is the objection of an infidel. Were it a just objection, it would not give the word another meaning. It bears on the truth or falsehood of the Scriptures, not on their interpretation. Should a man report that in Roman Catholic chapels, all the people are immersed-^ and when challenged, should defend himself by saying, that he meant that they were sprinkled with holy water; would his interpretation relieve him from the charge of falsehood ? And immerse does not more uni- formly signify dip in EngUsh, than does baptizo in Greek. The evan- gelist, then, cannot be justified by such interpretation. If John did not immerse his disciples, the narrative of the evangehst is false. 6. At this distance of time there may be in Scripture records many difficulties apparently incapable of solution, that after aU may be per- fectly true. We never give up the truth of the Scriptures for such difficulties, and we never solve them by denying the authenticated meaning of words. 7. The great difficulty in performing immersion is altogether un- founded. Any way of putting the person under water is equally an, immersion, and equally an emblem of the death, burial, and resui'rection of Christ and his people with him. There is no need of dramatic representation. Indeed there is no uniform way of burial. There can be, then, no propriety in endeavouring to imitate the custom of any nation in committing the body to the earth. Whether the person is immersed on his back, or his face, or by sinking directly dovpnwards, is perfectly the same as to baptism. The easiest way is preferable ; and in deep water to press the person dovm, or forwards, may be done vdth the greatest convenience. Instead of keeping John the Baptist ten hours REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 337 every day in the water, I will not oblige him to go into the Avater at all: he might have stood on the brink. Philip and the eunuch, indeed, went both into the water, and in many cases this may be still necessary ; but it is not essential to the ordinance of baptism. This case, however, has, in the Divine wisdom, been recorded, to confound obstinacy. With respect to dehcacy, it would be easy from the law of Moses to make a comparison with this rite; but I do not design to defend an ordinance of God fi-om such a charge. I prove God's law from his own word. He who charges it with indelicacy, charges God himself. The author thinks that an immersion with garments on is inconsistent with the idea of purification. Does he forget that in their purifications, the Jews were sprinkled on their garments ? Is he not aware that Josephus represents the female Essenes as bathing with their garments on ; and the males as covered with a veil or girdle round the waist ? Does not Herodotus represent the Egyptian, after touching a swine, as plunging immediately into a river with his garments on? Do not Roman CathoUcs continually purify by sprinkling on the people -with their garments on ? The writer has an argument from the probable want of conveniences for immersion. Does he really think that the Scripture history must give an accoimt of such things ? Must we go back eighteen centuries to find a change of raiment, &c. ? We have nothing to do with inquiries of this kind. I prove that they were immersed, — I care not from what sources they had suitable conveniences. Would any one think of making such an objection, if the narrative respected even modern times, and asserted immersion ? Section VH. — Prepositions Construed with the Yerb. — The author comes next to the consideration of the prepositions construed with this verb. He tells us " that, according to the testimony of most critics, en has the signification of at, and apo of fro7n. Apo rarely has the sense of out of, but en very fi-equently has the sense of m. A few instances of the signification at and fro7n are given below." Wliatever may be the testimony of critics, I deny that en ever signifies at; and it never has been argued by me that in the cases that refer to baptism, apo must signify out of. When the writer, then, grants that the preposition rarely has this signification, he grants me more than I will accept. I deny that it ever signifies out of. I shall not force the word to do more for me than what it can do honestly. But let us first attend to the preposition en. In a note the writer gives us a number of examples, in which he alleges that it signifies at. Now I dispute this with respect to every instance that he has alleged. JEn in Greek no more signifies at, than does in English the preposition in. We can as often convert i7i and at as the Greeks could e7i and paj'a, or epi. We may often say indifferently, at a place or in a place ; but this does not imply that in such cases in signifies at, or that at signifies in. The pre- positions have always their own characteristic meaning; while in cases innumerable they may be substituted for each other. The first instance which he alleges of en in the sense of at, is in the z 338 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. phrase en Troie, which occurs several times in Homer. At Troy, says the writer, — in Troy, say I. But I shall be asked, How was it in Troy ? Did they fight within the walls of the city ? No, but every one who knows anything of such matters, knows, that the district around a city was always spoken of by the name of the city. The name of the city was given to the whole adjoining coimtry. I can demonstrate this, even with respect to this instance, as clearly as ever a mathematical proposi- tion was demonstrated. Does not Homer call the city " the fertile Troy ? " "Was it within the walls that it was fertile ? Was it not the country about the city that Avas fertile ? The Grecian heroes, then, who fell near wind-swept Ihima, fell in Troy. Now this criticism will apply to his examples from every city. The next example is ft'om Homer also — en proto rumo, UteraUy, " in the first pole." The place where the pole of the chariot snapped, was in the first part of it. I think the phraseology imphes that there were two poles joined together, as the topmast is joined to the mainmast of a ship, or like the difierent parts of a fishing rod. But whatever may be in this, it is most certain that it is in the first loole that the chariot is said to have been broken. Besides, it must necessarily have been within the pole that it was broken. Could the pole be broken outside the pole ? It is in the first pole, not at the first pole. At the first pole would be near the first pole, and woiild be in the second pole, or second part of the pole. He gives another example from Homer — ^the spear was broken — eni kaulo, at the top. At the tip, or at the point, would be a very good trans- lation, according to our idiom. But kaulos does not signify top; it denotes the whole blade, or metal part of the spear, hke the top of a hal- bert. Now it was not at this part, but in this part, that the weapon broke. The breach may have been in any part of the blade, from the utmost extremity of the point to the wooden shaft. The preposition is used altogether in its own primary meaning. The next instance is the ambuscade represented on the shield of Achilles. The ambuscade is represented as placed en potomo, " at the river, ^'' says the writer, — in the river, say I. It was within the banks of the river that the ambuscade lodged. This is a much better place for an ambuscade than the bank of a river, — especially as they lay in wait for the cattle which were driven to drink at that place. Cowper and other translators have entirely missed the meaning of this passage. The ambuscade was not on the banks of the river, but within the banks. Accordingly we find that the ensuing battle, in driving away the cattle, is not en potomo, but para ochthas, — not in the river, but at the hanks of the river. That an ambush should be laid ia such a place, will not startle any one who considers the account given by Ulysses, of an ambuscade in which he was concerned at Troy : — " Approaching to the city's lofty wall Through the thick bushes and the reeds that girt The bulwarks, down we lay flat in the marsh, Under our arms. Then, Boreas, blowing loud, A rueful night came on, frosty and charged With snow that blanched us thick as morning rime, And every shield with ice was crystall'd o'er." — Cowper. REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 339 The next passage cited by the author is that which in the IHad represents the stopping of the mules and horses of Priam to drink en potomo — in the river, as he went to the Grecian camp to redeem the body of Hector. The preposition has here strictly its usual meaning — ^it was in the river that the horses di'ank. According to ovx idiom we may say either at the river, or i?i the river; but vi the river is the idiom of the original, and it is literal fact. The passage next cited by the author is that which refers to Ulysses escaped from ship-^vreck, and lying on the bank of a river. He has only the choice whether to watch all the rueful night en potomo — in the river, or to ascend the acchvity. But why in the river ? Is he not out of the river ? Why does he suppose a necessity of going into it again ? The reason is obvious. If he does not choose to ascend the accHvity and go into the Avood for shelter, and make a leafy couch, he must lodge in the river under the cover of its banks. It is not at the river, but in the river that he supposes himself to watch. On the bank he coidd have no shelter; in the river he would have the shelter of the bank. He might be in the river, yet not in the water : all within the banks is the river. The daughter of the king of Phseacia is said to have stopped her car, en prothuroisi, in the vestibule. The word includes the whole court before the gate. It is not at, biit in. The next instance brought forward by this writer to prove that en sometimes signifies at, is en prochoes potomou, translated by him, " At the mouth of the river." But it is better translated by Cowper, " Within the eddy-whirUng river's mouth." The next is from Herodotus, translated by this writer, " A city at the Euxine sea." But this translation misses the whole spirit of the phrase. The city is said en Euxino panto malista kakeimenon, the city lay almost, or very much, in the Euxine sea. The sea-fight en Kupro, in Cyprus, is to be understood like the phrase, " in Troy." The sea about CypriTS may be called Cyprus. We coxdd employ the same idiom. In like manner, the Greeks are said to conquer the Persians in Salamis. Overthro-wn in Drebescus — not at Drebescus ; though our idiom may prefer tliis in translation. The use of the word in reference to towns and islands may be, in every instance, accounted for by Avhat has been observed with respect to the use of the name of the city of Troy. The example from Xenophon, in the Euxine sea, may be accounted for on the same principle with that from Hero- dotus. Nothing is more common than to speak of a town situated in a bason of the sea, as lying in the sea. A promontory is even said to run into the sea. Homer speaks of the tomb of Achilles as prochouse, on a taU promontory, shooting far into the spacious Hellespont. Odys. xxiv. 82. Why does he say at Gilgal, 1 Sam. xv. 4 ? Is it not in Gilgal ? Does not our version render it, in Telaim ? Why does he say, at the brook, verse 5 ? Wliat forbids the place of the ambush to be in the brook ? Why, at the brook, 1 Kings xvii. 5 ? Could not the prophet take up his residence within the banks of the brook ? ^VTiy, at the corners of z 2 340 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. the streets, Matt. vii. 5 ? Does ever our idiom forbid in the corner of the streets ? Why, tower at Siloam, Liike xiii. 4 ? What objection can be to in Siloam ? Why, at the treasury, John viii. 20 ? Wlay not, in the treasury ? On the right hand is as suitable to our idiom as at the right hand. In the right hand, is in the region or place to the right. Schleusner adds other examples of this signification, which are not more to the purpose. Standing in the holy place, Matt. xxiv. 15, he understands as referring to the Eoman army brought forward to the city and temple; but this conceit deserves no attention. Whatever may be the holy place referred to, the thing referred to is represented as standing in it. In the temple, John x. 23, he understands, nigh the temple, namely, in the porch of Solomon. But this whim is not only wanton, but absurd. The porch of Solomon is here considered as a part of the temple. Jesus walked in the temple, in that part of it called Solomon's porch. In short, though this preposition may, according to our idiom, be frequently translated at, such cases are always capable of analysis according to the proper meaning. When there is latitude in any phrase in which this preposition is used, the latitude is always in the regimen. This is a point which all the grammarians seem to have overlooked. But even where lexicographers and grammarians allege at as one of its primary meanings, they never apply it, when the common meaning will serve; it is reserved for cases which are supposed not to admit the strict signification of the word. This forms no apology for those who apply it in the exigency of a favourite cause, when the usual meaning would apply. Does any one who deserves the name of a lexicographer or grammarian, understand en as signifying at in reference to the phrase en lordane ? Here the preposition is not only capable of its primary meaning, but it is in this sense that it is always construed with the verb in question. Why should it be otherwise in this instance ? The writer proceeds next to give some examples in which the prepo- sition ek signifies not out of, but from. He should understand that in this controversy we are concerned with no examples except such as imply the motion of an object from one place to another. Now, of such cases, I still maintain what I taught on this subject from the beginning, that there is no instance in which the preposition signifies from — it always means out of. In Acts viii. 39, the phrase is capable of no translation but out of the water, and necessarily implies that they were in the water. But though it does not concern this controversy, I dispute the philo- logy of this writer, in every instance which he has alleged. Even in the first example, ek has not the sense of from. " He cut the hairs out of the heads of the lambs" is the Greek idiom, which we would express by from. Every sound philologist, in expounding the Greek phrase, would observe that out of is the exact meaning of the original. He would also show, that this is as agreeable to philosophical principle as our idiom from. Out of respects exterior space considered horizon- tally, as weU as contrasted with interior. When we say a man comes REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 341 down out of the hill, we do not mean that he was in the bowels of the earth. Just so with the hairs out of the heads of the lambs. All the hair of the heads of the lambs was not cut, biit some of it was cut out of the remainder. Indeed, to cut from the head is as diffictdt in philosophical analysis. From respects not the cutting, for that was at the head; but the removing of it after the cutting. It was cut at the head, and then removed from the head. Though I am going farther than the cause I have undertaken requires, yet I the more "wiUingly follow the writer here, for the sake of pointing out to my readers the soiu'ce of much false criticism, which affects every subject. Critics usually proceed upon the principle, that the phrase which our idiom requires in a translation, corresponds exactly to the idiom of the original. But idioms are really different, so that this cannot be the case. An idiomatic phrase in one language cannot be exactly rendered by an idiomatic phrase in another; and neither of them ought to be obhged to coixform to the other. We may say, to cut from, when the Greeks would have said, to cut out of ; but we are not on that account to explain out of as signifying from, more than we are to explain from by out of. A Greek, for instance, criti- cising on the principle of this writer, in comparing the EngUsh trans- lation with the original, would say, " Here from signifies not apo, but eh — it is not from the head, but out of the head." Why should he say so ? Because he makes the English idiom conform to the Greek, just as this writer makes the Greek idiom conform to the English. Now neither idiom conforms to the other ; each of them explains on a dif- ferent principle, and has a different signification, while they both are fitted to fill the same place. This is illustrated by the next example alleged by this writer. We say, from head to foot ; but the Greek says, out of the head into or unto the feet. Homer represents one of his slain heroes as lying on the field, covered with dust and filth, ek kephales. Now, we translate this from his head; and from tliis the writer argues, that the preposition signifies not out of, but from. This I maintain is not only false as to this instance, but is founded on the false principle above explained. It obhges the idiom of one language to conform to that of another, when each of them has a distinct meaning, while they are fitted to fill the same place in thefr respective languages. A Greek might as well argue from this example, that from signifies out of, as this writer argues, that ek signifies from. Neither idiom is to conform to the other, while each of them must be used in such cases for the other in translation. And with respect to the philosophy of the English and the Greek idioms, the latter is, in this instance, the most exact. From head to feet exactly begins at the head, without including any part of it; out of commences within the head. The Greek idiom covers the fallen hero, head and feet ; our idiom literally leaves head and feet uncovered. The phrase ek genees, we translate according to our idiom, from his birth, but it is in Greek idiom out of his birth. The disease commenced within the period mentioned. The Greek idiom is more philosophical than ours. The phrase e.v hou egenonto Athenaioi, is literally, " out of 342 REPLY i'O THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. the time the Athenians existed." The point of time referred to is any point within the period. The Greek idiom is here also more philoso- phical than onrs. Such examples prove a different idiom, not that the preposition in the one language is the exact eqtiivalent of the other. When a mountain is said to extend out of one sea into another, its extremities are supposed to reach into each sea. Though Ave should say from sea to sea, this does not imply that the Greek phrase is exactly equivalent. We would say, from Byzantium to Heraclea ; the Greeks said, out of Byzantium uito Heraclea. We commence the distance at the town, the Greeks commence it within the town. This does not imply that the English preposition is the exact translation of the Greek. In the same way, with respect to what the Avriter translates, '■^ from the distant streams of Ethiopia." '■'■Go from my presence;" the Greek is, "Go out of my presence." And our idiom will bear a literal translation. " They descended from the hill;" Greek, " out of the hill." They were within the horizontal space called the hill. The Greek is more philo- sophically exact. " Gather figs from thorns ;" Greek, out of thorns. Is it not literally out of the bush that they Avere gathered ? A Greek, considering from as the translation of the preposition in this phrase, agreeably to this writer's philology, might allege, that the Enghsh preposition from here signifies out of. "A hair from your head;" Greek, *' a hair out of your head." And we can say the same thing. Do we not say, that " She tore the hair out of .her head ?" " Hanging from his hand;" Greek, " out of his hand." The Greek is philosophical, the English is not. The hanging object is partly within the hand. Is it like a philologist to argue from different idioms, that the original miist conform to the translation ? " Ships come from Tiberias ;" Greek, '■'■out 0/ Tiberias." " I come from God;" Greek, " out of God." "He arose from supper;" Greek, " out of supper." He rose and came out of the place in which he had su.pped. " From the chief priests;" Greek, " out of the chief priests." The of&cers referred to were those who were in attendance on the chief priests. "His chains fell from his hands;" Greek, " out of his hands." The chain must have been fastened some- where within the part of the body which the word hand designates. An antiquarian, instead of making the Greek idiom conform to the English, would here gain some information with respect to the chaining of criminals. " They cast four anchors from the stern;" Greek, " out of the stern." And ouv idiom would exactly translate the Greek. " We have an altar from which they have no right to eat;" Greek, " out of which." And is it not Avithin the table that the meat is placed for eating ? Must it not, then, be out of the table that they are supposed to take the food laid on it ? Every example, then, of this kind, I can easily solve, on philosophical principles, in perfect uniformity Avith the proper meaning of this preposition. Even the secondary meanings of the preposition, which have no respect to either motion or place, may generally, AAdth ease, be reduced to the primary meaning. An efiect, for instance, is supposed to proceed out of its cause, and the thing formed is supposed to proceed out of the matter of which it is formed. But,, in reference to the present controversy, I have nothing to do with REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 343 any examples, except sucli as express the motion of an object from one place to another. The other examples I have noticed for the sake of overtiiming a false principle of interpretation, namely, the assump- tion that the idiom of our language must be a perfect equivalent to every idiom which it translates. The author grants that apo rarely signifies out of. But I will not avail myself of this admission, because it admits what is not true. Had he said that apo is sometimes used where ek is more usual, or that there are cases in which either may be used, I would unite in the affirmation. But in aU such cases each of the prepositions has still its own pecuhar meaning. I may say, I came from town, or out of town. Does this imply that from and out of are perfectly equivalent in any instance in EngHsh ? Perfectly the same is the case, when apo and ek may be sub- stituted for one another. Grammarians and lexicographers, as far as I have observed, are far from being decisive authorities for secondary meaning. Schleusner gives dum, whilst^ as one of the secondary mean- ings of the preposition en ; and si, if, for another. The preposition never has any appearance of such signification. It is the multiplication of meanings, grounded on loose views of the laws of language, that has enabled controversiaHsts to prove anything they choose to undertake. According to this way of assigning meanings to words, en may be said to signify the very opposite of its own signification. The signification of ek may be given to en, and that of en to the opposite ek. The Greeks speak of drinking in a cup, and out of a cup. Here, then, we may say that ek signifies en, and en signifies out of. But the two Greek phrases do not express the same idea, though they may be used for the same actions. In the one case the drinking refers to the Hquor as contained within the cup, in the other to the liquor as proceeding out of the cup. Now if two so difierent phrases are used for the same action in the same language, in accordance with the distinctive meaning of the words, much more may this be the case with respect to two idioms of different languages employed to express the same thing. I have met the encounter of Socinians, who, without the least scruple, degraded anything from the Scriptures which they coidd not manage to their satisfaction. But criticism so Kcentious as that which is employed to evade the mode of this ordinance, I have never "witnessed in the most reckless Socinian. The word itself is so obviously rmivocal, that an instance of its use cannot be produced, irreconcilable with this view; yet a meaning is arbitrarily assigned to it, which it cannot, in a single instance, be proved to have, on the ground of difficulties and impossi- bilities with respect to its estabhshed meaning. The prepositions en and ek, which are quite decisive in their testimony, have been forced to become lax, that their testimony on this subject may be evaded. But even if the authority of lexicographers is reUed on as asserting a rare use, why should a rare use be forced on any of the words in this situation ? WTiy should a rare use be forced on both of them ? Why should they have this rare meaning in combination with a word which usually signifies immersion, and in combination mth what they usually signify, m and'ow^ of? Why should there be supposed such a Avicked 344 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. conspiracy in all the words in combination, to deceive the reader by- leaving their usual meaning, and assuming a rare meaning ? In the following extract we have one of the most astonishing decla- rations that I ever saw on paper from the hand of a disciple of Christ. " If it were asserted," says the writer, " that persons went into the water, and came out of it, it could not be justly inferred that they went in to be dipped. Where shoes were not worn, the necessity of frequently washing the feet, might naturally make that a part of a ceremonial or symbohcal washing. It was so used by our Lord when he washed his disciples' feet. In eastern coimtries it is common to walk into the stream to wash their feet." If any man who trembles at the word of God, and thirsts for the knowledge of it as to this ordinance, does not see the condemnation of this observation in its very face, I should never think of presenting him with evidence. I cannot conceive how it can satisfy any conscience. K in performing the ordinance of baptism, we have both the baptizer and the baptized in the water, the man who cannot see proof in this that there was an immersion in the ordinance, appears to me to be far beyond the reach of evidence. Jesus raised the dead, and did not convince his enemies. It is very true that persons may go into the water to wash their feet, and for a thousand other purposes. But here the going into the water was for the pm-pose of the baptism. But is any washing of the feet mentioned ? Baptism is the only thing that can here be the reason of their going into the water. But the washing of the feet is no part of the ceremonial, because it is neither here nor any where else enjoined as a part of the ceremonial of baptism. Should it, however, have been a part of the ceremonial of baptism, it must still be a part of the ceremonial. Can either Pope or Puseyite abrogate what Christ has made a part, a symbohcal part of this ordi- nance ? Such an argument has no force on my conscience. I am wiUing to observe this ordinance in any way that can be proved to be the original mode ; but I could not think of looking Jesus Christ, my Master, in the face, and say to him at the same time, that I am satisfied with this argument. If it really convinces any of Christ's disciples, I leave them to the judgment of Christ. Wliat has the washing of the feet of the disciples to do with this subject ? Was this comiected with baptism ?, Was this a part of any ceremonial ? Was it not a particiJar sjmbohbal action to represent a general prin- ciple ? Besides, did ovx Lord take the disciples to a river in order to wash their feet ? Can such reasoning merit any other denomination than that of evasion, as weak as it is wicked ? If it is lawful, no ordi- nance or doctrine of Christ could afford sufficient proof What proof would satisfy the mind that can aUow itself to rest on such arguments ? Again and again we demand, what is wanting to the proof that baptism is immersion ? Is there any more definite word to denote immersion ? Are there any more definite prepositions to denote in, into, and out off Can it be shown with respect to any word in the Greek language, that there are more numerous and decided proofs of its meaning, than those exhibited in proof of the meaning of the word in question ? To the argument fr-om John iii. 23, the author rephes: "First, that REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 345 the name Enon, wliicli means the wells ^ and also the nature of the country, favour the opinion that polla hudata denotes many streams, rather than one large connexion of water." Let the origia of the name be what he alleges, it bears not his conclusion. All the springs might -ojoxte in forming one collection. His second reason is, " That the water was necessary, not for bap- tizing, but for drinking, ordinary washings, cooking, &c." — ^necessary not only for men, but for asses and camels. " The statement," he says, " that John was preaching at Enon, because there was abundance of water there, would be perfectly proper." On this I observe, 1. Not a single well — not a single bowl of water Avas necessary for preaching. Had the whole of Judea been present at one sermon, there was no absolute need for a drop of water. Our opponents seem to think that the people who attended John, encamped, and remained with him for a considerable time. There is no reason to beheve that they remained with him a single night; there was no necessity to remain a moment after they were baptized. As for the asses and camels, they exist only in the imagination; they might as weU allege that the people came to John in steam carriages. We know that the people followed our Lord on foot. But had as many asses and camels attended John, as were possessed by Job in the land of Uz, there was no necessity for a single fountain; they could have watered by the way. Every candid person must perceive that these are forced reasons ; they never would suggest themselves to any one who had not a purpose to serve by them. 2. Jesus preached every where without any respect to the convenience of water, and to greater miiltitudes than came to John. When they came to Jesus to the most distant places without a supply of food, it is evident that they did not intend to make a long stay. Why should they stay longer with John? Jesus usually dismissed the multitudes in time to go to their lodgings ; and on an occasion of staying later than usual, it was food, not water, that they required. John's pecuHar work was baptizing, and for that purpose he frequented such places as afforded the best facilities for performing immersion -svith convenience. It could not then be said that John was preaching at Enon on accoimt of the Avater, because preaching does not need water. 3. The use of the water here is not left to conjecture; it is specifically mentioned: it Avas for the very purpose of baptism. It is added, also, by the evangehst, " and they came and were baptized." Here their coming was not for the purpose of hearing, but of being baptized. Shall we, then, overlook the reasons which the Holy Spirit alleges, and allege reasons from our o\Am fancy ? Were this a point of heathen antiquity, there never would have been a question on the subject. Ah, my brethren, why will you, by your traditions, make void the Avord of God ? With respect to the words in the original, much controA'ersy has taken place Avhether they ought to be translated much ivater or many waters. Either of these will serve my piirpose Avell enoiigh. Neither 7mich ivater nor many loaters could be necessary for either preaching or sprinkling. The argument alleged by Baptists from the performance at rivers, the 346 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. author answers in a very strange way. " First," says he, " that the use of running water was expressly enjoined in the law for the purifications performed by sprinkling, &c." What has this to do with Christian baptism ? Are we to be guided in the ordinances of Christ by Jewish rites ? Is it not monstrous to allege that it was the practice, both among Jews and other nations, to go to large collections of Abater, such as rivers in the sea, to observe purifications which needed very little water?" Are gToss superstitions to be a model for Christ's ordinance? If the author chooses to imitate either Jewish or heathen superstitions, let him follow his guide ; but let him not allege these as a model for Christian baptism. We have nothing to do even with the law of Moses. Yet even the Mosaic law that required running, that is, spring water, did not require to perform the rite either at the river or at the fountain. Is it possible that tliis writer can allege that the inspired messengers of God practised baptism as a sprinkling in the neighbourhood of rivers, from a view of the sacredness of the place ? No wonder that the Oxford divines are paving a holy way to the altar, when the English Inde- pendents speak of rivers as sacred places for the performance of sacred sprinkHngs on their banks. Why not come to Lough Dergh, where they can be made drunk with sanctity ? But if the banks of rivers were at first chosen by the inspired servants of Jesus for the performance of sprinkling in this instance, why is not this still observed ? I have never heard that the London Independents go even to Old Thames to perform their spriakhngs on its banks. I declare solemnly, that if I met this allegation in a detached form and tmauthenticated, I should fear to ascribe it to any friend of infant sprinkling; I should strongly suspect that it was to expose the cause that it pretended to defend. It is Popery and Puseyism to suppose that any place on earth is more holy than another. If ever perverseness was perverse, it is here. If we drag them down to the water, they -will do nothing but sprinkle on the banks from their view of the sacredness of the place : and if we force them even into the water, they will do nothing but ceremonially wash their feet. Can anything be more calumnious with respect to the kingdom of Christ, than to allege that any part of the sacredness of an ordinance should consist in the place where it is perfonned ? Jerusalem itself is not more holy than Mount Gerizim. Section YIII. — The author makes some observations on the difference between haptisnfia and haptismos. There is a difference in words of this different formation ; and the constant use of the former for the ordinance of Christ, shows that the Scriptui-es recognise the difference. But this writer has not been so fortunate as to hit the difference in the centre of the mark : he has hardly struck the hill on which the target is fixed. With respect to baptisma, he says that this form " indicates that its signification is some effect." It does not designate an effect. Baptisma is not the effect produced by haptismos ; it is the rite performed by this act. " The two words," he says, " differ in thefr meaning, as do the English words, an immersing, an immetsion, a purifying, a purification." REPLY rO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 847 The words, I maintain, do not diiFer as the English words referred to. Immersion, instead of con-esponding to bajytisma, corresponds to bap- tismos. It is for want of an appropriate English formation that immer- sion is used as the translation of baptisma ; and when the participle is used as a substantive, it can translate baptisma. If the rite is spoken of by the word dip, as we have no dipjtion, we must say dipping. We have no word to correspond to baptisma, Avhatever may be the mode or the nature of the ordinance. Sprinkling is a similar formation to dipping. Perfusion would correspond to baptismos, not to baptisma. Purification itself designates the act as weU as does immersion. The complaint against the one word stands equally against the other : immersion is the act of immersing, and for want of an appropriate formation, we must apply to the rite the word that denotes the act. And if the rite should be called purification, the same process takes place. No philologist would bring such a complaint against the word immersion as the repre- sentative of baptisma. It may be observed also, that though in this instance the Greek language affords us a distinct formation for the rite, yet it does not so in all cases. Besides, even in that language, which has the advantage of having one formation for the act, and another for the rite, the rite may be designated by the formation that signifies the act. Josephus employs baptismos, the word that signifies the act for the rite, in reference to the baptism of John. But were it a fact, that the formation of the word immersion is not an adequate representative of the Greek formation, and that the term purification were free from this objection, what would this prove ? Nothing to the purpose : it woiild affect only the Enghsh term, and not the meaning of the Greek word. It would prove the poverty of our language, and its inadequateness to translate the Greek, but would not in the slightest degree affect the proof about the meaning of the word. " The difference," says the writer, ^' between baptismos and baptisma is, that the former denotes an act that is transient, the latter an effect for a time permanent." How can this be, when Josephus employs baptismos where the other form is used in the New Testament, and by the Greek Christians ? Was not Christ's baptism as permanent as that of John's? Was not John's as transient as that of Christ's ? But baptisma is not an effect either permanent or transient — it is the rite. Immersion also, is not an effect either transient or permanent, but an act, or a rite. Immersing and immersion do not differ as to permanency. " If the subject," he teUs us, " were left for a Avhile in the water, then the effect would be rightly called an immersion." '^'liat sort of philology is this ? Is not the immersion the act of immersing ? "VA^iat has it to do with the length of time that the subject continiies in the state of immersion ? The ejfect of immersing is not immersion. The effect of immersion must be something of which immersion is the cause. Hoav can he say that immersion applies to the effect of a continuation in the state of immersion, when every one knows that we apply the word immerse to the most transient act, as weU as to cases in which the subject continues in a state of immersion ? The word has nothmg to do 348 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. with the effect produced by it, or the state of the thing immersed. " The sense of purifying,^'' he continues, " agrees with the peculiarity of sense belonging to haptismos; and that of purification, with the peculiarity of sense belonging to baptisma." Purification corresponds both to hap- tismos and baptisma. We have no other word for the rite of purification, but that which signifies the act. " When it is said that the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his bap- tism," says the ivriter, '' reference obviously is made to what he did. But in other places it appears, that this word is used, not for what he did, but for what he taught." Can a word ever be used without a reference to the thing signified by it ? What is the thing signified by the word baptism ? Is it the name of the rite ? If it is the name of the rite, can the name be used without reference to the rite? Even if the name is purification, it must have a reference to the rite. The author, if I can ventiire to expound his meaning, seems to think that the word baptism is sometimes used not with reference to the rite, but to the doctrine connected with the rite. It appears to me absurd, to suppose that the name of a rite should be used without reference to the rite. But as soon as a word is appropriated as the name of a rite, every thing included in the rite Avill be referred to it under its appropriated name, whatever that name may signify. The writer every where, seems not to be aware of the nature and effects of grammatical appropriation. Are not the doctrines imphed in circimacision, referred to circumcision ? Perfectly the same thing applies to every appropriated name. This determines nothing as to the meaning of the name itself. Now we are inquiring not about the doctrines implied in this rite, but about the meaning of its name. Can anjiihing, then, be more useless than the assertion, that corporeal purification was not the great subject of John's preaching ? What has this to do with the rite which he practised ? " The great doctrine," he continues, " taught by him was, the necessity of a spiritual purification." Well, does this say that the name of the rite which he practised was spiritual purification? Does this forbid that the name of the rite should be immersion ? The writer brings out his point even by mathematical demonstration, in the following words: "If baptism was the chief theme of John's preaching, and it is so described, then, because rejoentance also was the chief theme, baptism and repentance coincide." 1. Now I ask, what does he understand by the word baptism here ? Is it the Christian rite ? If so, this rite is repentance and salvation. If it is not the Christian rite, we have nothing to do with it in this controversy, for we are inquiring about the Christian rite. 2. John did not preach repent- ance as a baptism, nor baptism as a repentance ; but baptism as implying repentance. He preached the baptism of repentance. This shows that baptism and repentance are different things. 3. How do baptism and repentance coincide ? It must be in a sense of baptism — which excludes the ordinance of baptism, otherwise the rite is a part of repentance. If it is in a sense that excludes the ordinance, then we have nothing to do with it in that sense: our inquiry is about the meaning of the word, as the name of the rite. If a person wiU give the name REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 349 of baptism to repentance, lie must be left with other fanatics to enjoy his own whim. 4. Repentance may be imported in a rite, though the name of the ordinance may not be repentance. 5. Repentance and purification are not the same thing, though they are essentially connected. If baptism signifies pimfication, it does not signify repentance ; if it signifies repentance, it cannot sigm.ij purification. 6. With much better reason it might be said, that the words repentance and faith, and repentance and sanctification, coincide : they all imply each other, yet they are all diflferent. But the word repentance, and the word baptism, do not coincide in name, and they do not necessarily imply each other. Repentance may exist without baptism, and baptism without repentance. " Repentance," says the ^vriter, " is not a dipping, nor an immersion, but it is a purification." The words dipping, immersion, purification, must be taken as the names of the rite, otherwise the observation is nothing to the purpose. Now repentance is not a purification, as that term is the name of a rite, more than it is immersion, as the name of the same rite. " The phrase haptisma meta7ioias," says he, " might mean either the corporeal baptism, connected with repentance, or the spiritual baptism, consisting of repentance." 1. The phrase baptism of repentance, most evidently means the rite which is performed on those who profess repentance. No one can mistake this, Avho looks for truth. But if any one will be ignorant, let him be ignorant. The baptisms under the law were for ceremonial pxirifications ; but the baptism of John, and of our Lord, imply spiritual purification in those who receive them. 2. The writer makes repentance and spiritual baptism coincide ; the spiritual baptism, then, of repentance, is the repentance of repentance. 3. This exposition excludes the rite of baptism altogether from the preaching of John. He preached only repentance, if the baptism of repentance is nothing but repentance. But even granting that the phrase "baptism of repentance" has no reference to baptism as a rite, does this imply that the word baptism, in reference to the rite, miist signify purification, or that it cannot signify immersion ? This has nothing to do with the question in any point of view. " ApoUos," he tells us, '' taught diligently the things of the Lord, being acquainted only Avith the baptism of John. If only acquainted with the dipping of John, he woiild have been little fitted for the oflfice of a religious instructor." Would ApoUos have been a more competent rehgious instructor, on the supposition that the rite had been called purification? Is it not evident that the word baptism here refers to the rite of baptism, whatever may be the meaning of the word ? But the writer, as usual, errs from inattention to the effect of appropriation. The baptism of John includes every thing included in John's commission, and implied in the rite which he practised. Does not the apostle Paul speak in the same way about preaching circumcision ? The baptism of John must surely be the baptism which John preached. The rite, then, must be referred to, whatever may be its name. Section IX. — Author's Explication of the Passages avhich refer to Christian Baptism. — The author comes next to the examination of the 350 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. passages wliich refer to Christian baptism. The first to which he refers is John iii. 25, 26. " What is called a pimfying in the twenty-fifth verse, is called a baptizing in the twenty-sixth verse." The lesson which I gave to President Beecher on this allegation, seems to have had its proper eiFect on this writer ; for he grounds no argument for identity of meaning on this fact. But he derives evidence from the passage on another ground. "Neither in this passage," says he, "nor in one of all the passages which mention Christian baptism, is the word construed with the preposition m, or with any other word that accords with the sense of dipping. In no single instance are we told that persons were baptized into the water, which would be the proper phrase, if to baptize meant to dip. The word is here used alone, and as many other passages, both the noim and verb are similarly situated. From this, it is probable that the object signified by them was commonly and properly regarded alone, and was in some measure complete in itself." It is to me astonishing, beyond what I can express, that any person accustomed to reflect on language, were he unable even to read, should make the observation with regard to the defect of the regimen of the verb. Every ear is familiarly accustomed to such grammatical deficiency of expression ; and every hearer and reader can instantaneously supply the elhpsis: it is a common case with aU grammatical appropriations. The expression of the regimen would be quite useless. I have already, again and again, illustrated this by examples; and every hour's con- versation will supply instances. Can we not say, " Was the child sprinkled ?" Can we not say, " Was su.ch a person immersed ?" Would any child need the regimen to be expressed ? Try the experiment on an idiot, and I venture to say, he will not ask for the regimen of the verb. Critics should be ashamed of having recourse to such philology. Is it not strange that the ghost of our old friend, the word circumcision, does not rise up to their imagination, and frighten them, when they make such observations ? Should a modern Jew be asked if he was circumcised; woiild he need the grammatical regimen to be expressed, before he would answer ? It might as well be said, that the English word immerse cannot signify dip, because it is used in reference to the ordinance, without any regimen. Let us try this criticism on a sample of English. Let the critic be a foreigner, knowing the Enghsh language through grammars and dictionaries, and determining meaning according to the canons of this writer. Let the text be. Were you immersed since you believed? "Nothing," says the critic, "can be more evident than that the word immerse cannot here signify dip, because there is no regimen to the verb." With respect to the preposition eis, I have shown that it is construed with the verb, with respect to John's baptism ; and in this respect there can be no difference between the word in reference to the baptism of John, and that of Christ. Besides, it is used by the early Christians, which, is as good an authority, as to syntax, as is the Scripture itself. Inspiration does not give law to syntax, but must use the syntax of the language which it employs; otherwise, it could not give a revelation. Besides, en is construed with the verb, as well as eis, when immerse is spoken of; and in English, KEPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 351 we use m much more frequently than into. Indeed, when we wish merely to designate the place of baptism, we always use in. — They were baptized in the Thames. I might add, that the preposition eis is in the Scriptures construed with the verb, in reference to Christian baptism ; and as to the syntax, there is no difference whether the regimen be water, or anything else. But I do not recognise the demand ; I will not plead on the ground of its authority. A phrase might occur only once in Scripture; and on the ground of the author's criticism, it could not have its common meaning, without alleging at least one instance of every variety of its syntax. I denounce this canon as unsound and unauthoritative. But what does the writer mean, when he says that the object signified, is regarded alone and complete in itself ? Must not every active verb have a regimen, either expressed or understood ? Purify must have its regimen, as well as immerse : the thuig or means used to effect purification must be suppUed, either in expression or by ellip'sis. He says, indeed, " the term to purify, exhibits a particular end, on which the mind naturally rests, and from which accessory ideas are fitly removed." It ex^presses purification ; but it expresses neither the end nor the means of purification, more than does immerse. Wliether the purification is for the end of natural, emblematical, or spiritual cleansing ; and whether by means of water, or fire, or sulphiir, or anything else, deponent saith not. " The term to dip," says he, " exhibits a general mode of acting, and could not so well be used alone " Here, again, he overlooks the effect of the principle of grammatical appropriation. Either immersion or sprinkling could be used alone in appropriation, as freely as purification. The Baptists can use the word immerse in this way ; though from the usual custom of speaking of this ordinance, imder the name baptism, the word immerse is more seldom used in an appropriated way. The harshness and abruptness which the author fancies, arise solely from the want of constant appropriation. It is reaUy irksome beyond expression, to be obliged to notice reasoning so totally "without apphcation. When there is a real difificulty presented to us, the mind rouses to exertion; and from the pleasm^e of discovery, is insensible of fatigue. But to be obliged to reply to arguments which have not even plausibility to recommend them, is an intolerable grievance. " It may be asked," says the writer, " Why was baptizo ever used, if katharizo would express the same meaning ? We reply, that though they both convey the sense of purifying, they do not exactly agree in signification. We have no Enghsh words corresponding to the various Greek words, agiaso, baptizo, katharizo, rantizo, &c., because we have not rites of purification corresponding to the various rites to which these words were apphed; and they may all, in some cases, be translated by the one word purify. While from the passages exammed, it appears that baptizo does mean to purify, it also appears that when used in reference to the body, it is applied especially to the more solemn purifications, by means of water; and we shall find that in its applica- tion to mind, it has a corresponding intensity of meaning." The writer here endeavours to avoid the absurdity of the view of 352 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. President Beecher, who makes baptize and katliarizo identical. Biit he has phmged into numerous absurdities to avoid one. 1 . Nothing here alleged unfits katliarizo from being applied to desig- nate the ordinance, if it was designed to name it by a word signifying purification. It is not necessary that the peculiarities of purification should be specified in the name of a rite of purification. The water of purification was of a peculiar kind ; yet the term purification designates it. If the ordinance is called sprinkling, it is a sprinkhng of water, not of blood; yet sprinkling appHes to every fluid equally. If immersion is the name of the ordinance, it is immersion in water; yet immersion equally apphes to all substances in which anything can be dipped. I still ask, then, why was not katliarizo employed, if the name of the ordinance is to express purification ? 2. Does not the writer call the ordinance purification ? Yet the term purify is as general as katharizo. If in EngHsh, a purification of a par- ticular kind is named by the general word purification, why may not the same thing be done in Greek ? There is not the smallest apology for iaptizo, to thrust itself into office ; nor is there the least ground for its adoption on any occasion of the meaning purification. Its services can never be required. 3. "We have English words to represent the Greek words specified. 4. The ground on which it is asserted, that we have no words to translate the words specified, is unsoimd. Similarity of rites in two languages, is not necessary to translate ah. words employed in one of them, to designate rehgious rites. The word rantizo could be trans- lated equally well into our language, if there never had been a sprinkling rite in use amongst us. 5. The words specified, are not always applied in Greek to rehgious rites. Why then shoiold similar religious rites be necessary to trans- late them ? 6. So far firom its being true, that all the specified words may be, in some cases, translated by the one word purify, not one of them, but two can, in any case, be translated by the word purify. Rantizo cannot be translated purify, though purification is effected by sprinkling. The phrase sprinkling of the cotiscience, is not translated hj purification of the conscience. This might give the general meaning, but it would not translate the original. The Holy Spirit, by this phraseology, designs not only to designate the purification of the conscience, but to show us that the sprinkhng of the blood of the sacrifice was emblematical of this. A version that would here substitiite purification for sprinkling, I would renoimce, as inadequate and corrupt. I say the same thing with respect to agiazo — ^it never is purify. Holiness and purification are quite difi^erent ideas. 7. Even when there is a rite in the language of the original, without any similar rite in the language of the translation, the words that desig- nate the rite, are capable of translation, as far as the language of the rite employs words that also apply to common actions. 8. And in all such cases the common words of the translation are as capable of assuming an appropriated meaning as the original itself. The word passover, is as much appropriated in Enghsh as is the word in the REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 353 original. The word circumcision has received a similar appropriation; yet we have no similar rite. In like manner sprinkling, and perfusion, and immersion, may be applied to the ordinance, according to different views of the import of its name. Though from the more common usage employed by all parties, of speaking of the rite by the name baptism, the other terms are less used in an appropriated way ; yet they are occa- sionally used both with propriety and perspicuity. A rehgious rite of immersion previously existing, is not necessary in order to translate the word which signifies immersion in the original. Immersion itself is kno^vn to all nations, though some of them may have no religious immer- sion previously to the introduction of Christianity. 9. The Greek word specified by the writer, and words in general, have the same meaning, when applied to religious rites, that they have when apj)lied to common things. It is from their meaning as applied to common things, that they are fitted to apply to rehgious rites. The writer, with many others, seems to think that Avhen a word is applied to a sacred rite, it must itself become sacred. This is jDhilological Puseyism_ A word may apply to common and sacred tilings perfectly in the same meaning. The word sprinkle has the same meaning when applied to- the sprinkling of the streets to lay the dust, as when applied to sprinkling Avith holy water. 10. Even had katharismos itself been used as the designation of this rite, immersion might have been its mode, for an emblematical purpose. In this sense it is explained in the Scriptures. 11. The author tells us that we have no word corresponding to katharizo. Will he tell us in what respect purify fails ? 12. Wlien haptizo is used in reference to the loody, it applies to other purposes as well as ritual purification. Aristobulus was dro-\vned by it, and Naaman was bathed by it. 13. Wlien haptizo is used in reference to the body, it applies to other things as well as to water. Nothing was more common than to speak of a baptism in blood. It is quite indifferent as to the means which it employs, provided it can penetrate. 14. In reference to ritual purification, it applies to every thing as well as to body. It was applied to the pots and cups and vessels of the kitchen, as well as to the persons of the Pharisees. 15. It applies to common washing as well as to sacred Avashing. It is altogether, in reference to cleansing, as general in its application as is katharizo, though it does not itself in any instance signify to cleanse ; while it equally refers to defihng as to cleansing. 16. The applications of the word in reference to mind are all figurative. In such instances the word has always its proper meaning ; and they are all not only in perfect harmony with oiu' view, but many of them absolutely require it. 17. It is absurd to speak of the word as having a different meaning in reference to the body, from what it has in reference to otlier things. 18. It is equally erroneoiis to speak of a word as being used -with different degrees of intensity, though some hermeneiitical writers employ this distinction in their Liavs of exegesis. 2 A 354 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE, 19. The author seems to think that a word derives a portion of its meaning from its situation with respect to other words. Connexion may sometimes be absolutely necessary to determine which of two or more meanings is the meaning in the passage ; but connexion never bestows a particle of meaning. 20. By the hypothesis of our opponents, this word, from the fact that immersion was so much used for cleansing, came at length to signify cleansing, as the parent word came to signify dyeing. Had this been the case, washing, not purification in general, would have been the secondary meaning. Purification has no pretensions to competition on any ground whatever. "With respect to John iv. 1, 2, the author says, " Eemarks, similar to those abeady made, may be repeated here. The verb has not the context appropriate to the sense of dipping." And to these similar observations I give the same answer; they are founded on the same inattention to the effect of grammatical appropriation, that meets us every where in this writer. Even had the word katharizo itself been used, it must be supplied with its regimen by ellipsis. The thing with which a purification is performed, is as necessary as the thing in which an immersion takes place. When the Lord's supper is designated by the phrase breaking bread, there is a perfectly similar elhpsis : the eating of the bread for a particular purpose, and the drinking of the wine for a particular purpose, are to be supplied elliptically. How could the writer overlook facts so glaringly conspicuous, and so decidedly opposed to his doctrine ! The author next refers to the supposed improbability of immersion with respect to the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost. Had it been related in the word of God that every man and woman in Jerusalem were baptized on the same day, it would not, in the estimation of any sound and candid mind, form the slightest objection to the meaning of this word as immersion. There could be no difficulty in the business. Comparatively few of the Jews, either from the requirements of the law of Moses, or the traditions of the elders, could be a single day without immersion. But even without reference to this point, that the thing alleged Acts ii. 38, 41, was practicable, is sufficiently attested by the fact that it was practised. What that thing is, must be learned from the testimony of the word employed to convey the testimony, ascertained by its occurrence in the language. I will not suffer my opponents to call on me to gauge the fountains and ponds that were in Jerusalem eighteen centuries back. Whether they used baths or cisterns, is quite alike to me : the word provides every thing necessary for me. They must have been immersed, for the word has no other meaning. Should an English traveller inform us that in a very distant country, on a certain great festival, there were three thousand persons immersed in observance of a rehgious custom, should we either refuse to beUeve him, or explain the Avord immerse in the sense of purification by sprinkling ? Why then do we find a difficulty in regard to three thousand Jews, who were as familiar with the water as water-fowls ? In Acts viii. 12, 13, 16, he brings the same complaint as to the REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 355 regimen, which surely I have answered often enough. He thinks it very improbable, also, that the great number of behevers on that occasion should be immersed. Especially he is overwhelmed with astonishment that, if they were immersed, there should be no account of the inquiries of the Gentiles about the new rite. Does the author really expect a detail of every thing that happened on such occasions ? Wlaat sort of a book would the Bible be, had it been formed on this gossiping principle ? But from the conduct of Phihp in preaching to the eunuch, we may learn that the new rite would be sufficiently explained both to Jews and Gentiles. The author thinks that immersed into the name of Christ, is unsuitable phraseology. The Baptists, and milHons of others, have found this phraseology very intelligible and edifying. But does not the author perceive that, except he has taken out a patent for his translation of eis in this place, we can have the benefit of it ? We may be immersed for the name of Jesus, as well as he can be purified for it. I reject this translation, however, though it is no part of my duty to refute it. With respect to Acts viii. 38, I have already shown that ek is decisive evidence that Philip and the eunuch were in the water. It never, in a single instance, designates merely from; it is always out of. I admit that eis means unto as well as into. I will not take a particle of evidence from a word, but what it legitimately contains. I write not for a party, but for the people of God without exception — not for the praise of reviewers, but for the judgment seat of Christ. But whUe I admit this variety of meaning in this preposition, I will not give up its testimony in this place. A word that has two meanings may be definitely ascertained, and all good composition must afford evidence to ascertain it, where it is used. That eis hudor here is not unto the water, but into the water, appears evident from the fact, that the persons to whom the fact refers, are previously brought to the water by another verb and another preposition. Epi is the preposition that gives them their station at the Avater. When, then, after coming to the water, they are said both to go down eis hudor, what can it be but into the water ? Let this be coupled with the fact which our opponents themselves cannot deny, that immersion is frequently the meaning of the verb which designates the action which they are about to perform. Let the testimony of ek, which I have shown never wavers, and which this writer himself must admit to be its usual meaning, be viewed in combination with all this, and what doubt can remain on the mind of any man who really Avishes to come at truth on the subject ? "If it were stated," says the author, "that both these persons went into the water, this would be very different from the statement that one dipped the other into the water." These two statements are indeed very different, but it must be obvious to any child that the first was in order to effect the last. Can any man think that they would go both into the water, when a feAV drops AvoiUd serve in any place ? Every candid mind must see that going into the water was here necessary for the performance of baptism. Such obstinacy can never be cured by argument. Were this a matter of 2 a2 356 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. heathen antiquity, is there a man in existence, who would question the meaning ? With respect to Acts ix. 18; xxii. 16, the author thinks that Paul being a sick man, it is not probable that he was immersed. I see nothing in Paul's case, to prevent his immediate immersion: I consider such reasoning as the most egregious trifling. Can anything be more unrea- sonable than to attempt to evade the established meaning of a word, and confer on it a meaning that cannot plead the authority of a single example, on the pretence of such improbabiUties ? I object to this, not merely as it aiFects the point in question, but as it estabhshes a false principle of interpretation. If a similar document came from the Baptist missionaries in any very distant country, Avould there be any hesitation as to the meaning ? Would any one allege that it was probable that sprinkhng was used instead of immersion, or that the word immersion signifies sprinkling or purification ? Were we to admit, as a canon of interpretation, that difficulties and views of probabihty ought to set aside the usual meaning of words, and give them meanings for which there is no other sanction, Avhat facts in history could stand their ground ? Every fanatic, every rehgionist, every heretic, would give words whatever meaning they pleased. In all cases of contested meaning, we must proceed on the au- thority of ascertained examples, without any deference to the authority of previous probability. K Paul was baptized in a state of exhaustion, before partaking of refreshment, we are not from this to deny the meaning of the word, but to learn that baptism ought to be attended to immediately on beheving. It is connected with the faith that saves the soul, and ought as closely as possible to be connected with it in practice. " It was either performed," says he, " while the person stood up, or it so quickly foUowed his rising from a couch, that it might be said. He rising up was baptized." I care not that it was expressly said that he was baptized in the very room where he was then sitting, immediately after the address of Ananias. This would not create the smallest difficulty. Yet I am utterly astonished that a literary man should interpret such forms of expression in this manner. They are quite consistent with the supposition that some time might intervene between the command and the execution ; and at some distance from the place. When Ulysses returned to the ship with a stag, throAving it from his shoulders, he called on his hungry companions, saying, Rise and eat. Yet the stag must be skinned, spitted, and cooked, before it was eaten; and it was eaten in a difierent place from that in which the address was made. In the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, the herald that proclaimed war against the frogs, says : — "Leaders of the host of frogs, put on Your armour, and draw forth your bands to battle !" The frogs were now in council, and some time must intervene before the bands could be led forth. God says to Moses, " Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh." There was some time before his REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 357 rising and liis standing before the king ; and some space between the place where he rose and Avhere he afterwards stood. " Now rise up, said I, and get you over the brook Zered." There was some time between the command and the performance of the thing commanded ; and some space between the place of rising and the place where they were com- manded to go. " Rise, go up, take your joui'ney, and pass over the river Arnon." &c. &c. The author tells us that the word has here "that connexion with terms of religion which favours the supposition that it had a sacred meaning, such as to purify, and not a common meaning, such as to dip, — "Dip and cleanse away thy sins, invoking his name." Upon this I remark: — 1 . What does he mean by terms of religion ? Does he mean words that are used in religion oiily ? There are no such terms here. All the Avords referred to are used in common as well as in sacred things. Does he mean words that are often used in reKgion ? Any word may be used with respect to religion when its meaning is suitable. 2. Do we not find a similar connexion Avith respect to the words loash, cleanse, sprinkle? yet they are common Avords. 3. A Avord does not become a rehgious Avord by being appHed to religion; to wash, to cleanse, to purify, are common words. A common word may apply to a sacred object Avithout becoming sacred. The hog and the devotee are cleansed by the same word. 4. If immersion, as a mode, is employed by God to designate a rite, is it not as holy as any word in the language ? I make no such objection to sprinkling ox pouring, as the appointed mode of this ordinance. 5. Wliat are the consecrated terms Avith which baptize is here associated ? The first of them is ivash away. Is louo a consecrated Avord ? Invoking — the Avord calls on man as weU as on God. 6. The word is indeed associated here AAdth a word that determines its meaning. It is coupled with louo, to bathe, Avhich always respects the person in general when no part is named. " The additional clause, cleanse away thy sins," says he, " is to be regarded as additional in sense, and not as merely explanatory. Baptize is the first injunction; Cleanse away thy sins, that is, repent, is the second; Become a worshipper of Jesus Christ, is the third." This is a very pure specimen of Puseyism. It is incontrovertibly evident that the command, " Wash away thy sins," respects Avhat Avas to take place in baptism. If then it was not spnbolical washing, it must be Puseyite regeneration. It is equally evident that this AA'ashing is per- formed by the rite itself, and not by the Ploly Spirit, for the command about it is given to Paul. There is a place in the north of Ireland, called the Plolestone, named from a certain stone AAdth a hole in it suffi- cient, AAath difficult)^, to alloAv a man to pass through it. In ancient times, it is said, that there Avas a ceremony of passing through this hole by which persons Avere horn again. Noav I think it might be expedient to revive this ceremony; for I cannot percei\'e any respect in AA-'hich the Holestone regeneration is inferior to baptismal regeneration. This theology is very different from that of our Lord and his apostles. It connnanded them to make men disciples, and then to baptize them; and they said, Repent and be baptized, or, Believe and be baptized. Where 358 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. does tlie writer learn that cleanse away sins and repent axe the same ? They are always connected, but they are perfectly different. Repentance is the duty of man ; washing away of sins is solely the work of the Spirit. Paul had already repented ; his sins also were already washed away. In baptism this was to be exhibited in a symbohcal washing. Paul had already become a worshipper of the Lord Jesus; he had previously called on the Lord Jesus. Why is it supposed that this was the first time in which he called on him ? But the author is not contented with making cleanse away sins to be repent. By a second process in the manufacture, he converts it into '*' let there be in your heart that purity which, commencing with repentance, is by regeneration perfected in those that trust in the Lord Jesus," &c. What a bright specimen of theology ! On Acts X. 47, 48, the author remarks, " The word here used in connexion with water is, in the New Testament, always construed with the object whose action or movement to any place is hindered or forbidden." Profound philology ! This surely will settle the question. What can stand against such a battery of metaphysics? But let us examine it, and we shall find that it is metaj)hysical only in form, and profound only to those who have not a rule to dip it. I remark, then, 1. Were it perfectly correct, it is quite consonant with immersion. I have no objection at all, that the water should be brought into the room. I have no doubt that, whatever may have been the case on this occasion, the thing was often practised. 2. There is here no movement of the water expressed, nor does the verb require movement at all. It is frequently used when there is no motion of an object from one place to another. 3. It is not philosophical, but absurd, to speak of action here with respect to the water. Water is not considered as an agent, but as the thing employed by the agents. 4. In Avhatever way the phrase forbid water, is understood, no person can suppose that the command is given to the water, and that it was the water that was forbidden to come into the room. If the prohibition respects the bringing of water into the room, it must be directed to the persons, and not to the water. This is as necessary in the sense of the phrase, according to this writer, as it is in oxu-s. 5. The writer says, " It is most properly employed, if the water for baptism was brought into the room in which the persons were." Granting this for a moment, what is the elhpsis ? Would it not be : " Who can forbid water to be brought into the roomf'' Now is not a like ellipsis warrantable on our side? Who can forbid water to be brought for immersing these persons? 6. The conversation of every day exemplifies the phrase in our meaning. The physician foi'bicls wine, &c. &c. Does not this mean, he forbids the invahd the use of wine ? 7. Forbid water has not, even to a child, the appearance of relation to the question whether water was to be brought, or they were to go to the water. Common sense at once declares the meaning to be, JVho can forbid baptism ? WT^to can forbid the external rite, when the thing of which it is an emblem, is verified? If they have received the Spirit, what ordi- nance should be denied them? 8. We have in Luke vi. 29, the very REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 359 same word similarly construed. " Forhid not the coat.'''' Was this com- mand to the coat ? Was it the action or the movement of the coat that was forbidden ? Can we not ourselves say, Can any forbid the Lord's supper ? The phraseology of this passage will eqiiaUy suit every mode of this ordinance, and any ordinance that employs water. With respect to Acts xvi. 15, I certainly can have no objection to the opinion of the writer, that Lydia was baptized in the place where Paul preached: the sooner the better. As to her dress, and anything that is not. matter of Divine prescription, I leave to the discretion of those concerned on the occasion. I shall neither be the master of the ceremo- nies myself, nor allow my opponent to undertake that service. The author, as usual, complains of the want of regimen. It cannot be necessary for me to return to this subject. He tells us that " It cannot be inferred from the mention of the river, that a large quantity of water was necessary for Christian baptism." I admit this most fully, and most cheerftdly. I have no doubt that the river would have been in that place, and that it would have contained as much water, had sprinkling been the mode of the ordinance of Christ. But the writer forgets that this is the very kind of proof the burden of which he demands from us. Does he forget that he calls on us to gauge the fountain of BethuHa? I shall take on me no such burden. When a word requires water, it must have it, wherever it may find it. Had Lydia been said to be bap- tized on the spot where she believed, without the mention of fountain or river, I should have perfectly the same confidence in the mode of her baptism. Little value, however, as the writer sets upon the river here, had Lydia been said to be baptized in the place where Paul preached, vdthout any evidence that a river or fotmtain was near, I am ftdly convinced he would have loudly complained of want of water. Still the river would have been there. Taking it for granted, then, that she was baptized at the river, and that her house, as the author seems to think, was in the city, does not the phraseology annihilate the distance as much as that in Acts x.? When she was baptized she said, " Come into my house, and abide;" or, "Having entered into my house, abide." Similar phraseology occurs in verse 40, " They went out of prison, and entered into the house of Lydia." Here the time and distance, according to this writer, are annihilated. Let the unlearned reader here take notice, that the place of preaching is said to be para, at, or near the river — not en, in the river, as it might be, according to the criticism of oiu* author. The author comes next to the baptism of the jailor. He usually translates for himself, as if the common version were in every thing Avrong. I am not to be supposed as approving his version, as often as I pass it without censure. I notice no errors, but such as concern the point in hand. What o\^x version calls " ivashed their stripes" he trans- lates, " made them clean from their wounds." The author's translation is inferior, both in elegance and in correctness. The original is stripes, not wounds: the term wounds is too generic. The original is bathed, not made clean: the latter is generic, the former is specific. Bathing, 360 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. and making clean, are not eqmvalent. Homer represents Jupiter as giving directions to Apollo, to cleanse the body of Sarpedon, slain in battle, and afterwards to bathe it in a river. " Phcebus, my son, delay not : from beneath Yon hill of weapons drawn, cleanse from his blood Sarpedon's corse ; then, bearing him remote, Lave him in waters of the running stream." — Cowper. The jailor, then, might have cleansed them from their wounds without bathing them; but the original imports, that they were cleansed by bathing. All cleansing is not washing ; and all washing is not bathing. When Achilles sends out his friend Patroclus to battle, he took out his goblet of exquisite workmanship to make hbation to Jupiter. But first he purified it with sulphur, and then washed it in running water. " That cup producing from the chest, he first With sulphur fumed it, then with water rinsed Pellucid of the running stream." — Cowper. Cleanse, or make clean, is, then, quite a different thing from bathe. It may here be observed also, that this was a sacred rite, yet the same Avords are tised for ritual purification, that are employed for common purification. The author is of opinion, that there is an apparent connexion between the washing of the wounds and the performance of the rite. Be it so ; why might they not immerse the jailor and his family in the same bath in which they were washed from their stripes ? But there is no such connexion as this writer fancies. The baptism and the bathing, as far as the passage is concerned, might not have been at the same time, or the same place. Had there been no conveniences for immersion in the prison, what would prevent them from going to the Strymon, on which the city was situated ? But where they were baptized, I neither know nor care. It is of importance, however, to consider the intimate connexion between baptism and the faith of the Gospel, as it is exhibited in this transaction. Not-withstanding the miserable plight of Paul and his com- panion, the baptism was performed before they partook of refreshment in the jailor's hoiTse. Can anything more clearly indicate the importance of this ordinance ? The author speaks of " the assumption of the axiom, that haptizo must mean to dip." Wlio is it that assumes this as an axiom ? I assume nothing but what is self-evident, which the meaning of no word is. As far, then, as I am concerned, this representation is calumnious ; I never assume the meaning of any word : I assign no rneaning till the occur- rences of a word are ascertained and examined. Whether a word has one meaning, or several meanings, I determine by this examination on philosophical principles. When I have ascertained the primary meaning of a word, I apply it to every case where it will serve, admitting no new meaning till occiuTences prove it. When I have ascertained a second meaning, I will not admit a thfrd as long as the first or second will serve. REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 361 Thus I proceed with respect to any number of meanings, never admitting a new meaning without proof. Submission to these principles I demand on the ground of self-evidence. Submission to them, I yield with respect to every opponent. These laws are for truth — not for party. Perverseness may reject them — perverseness has rejected every first principle ; but I have no doubt that all candid persons will acquiesce in them. "Without first principles interpretation is imjDossible. Mathematics may as well demonstrate without axioms. The criticism of oux oppo- nents is altogether without science: instead of leading to sound con- clusions, it introduces universal confusion and uiicertainty. Now, let us for a moment compare the assumptions of this writer with mine. Let us take an example from the very case in hand. Having enumerated a great number of his improbabilities, he concludes : " But if this was not Christian duty and practice, then haptizo does not signify to dip." Now, does not the writer here assume the very point in debate ? He assumes a view of Christian duty and practice ; and on that ground determines the meaning of the word totally without reference to its use in the language. AVliat is Christian duty and practice, we nuist learn from the words of Scripture, — not from a crazy imagination. Wliether this word signifies to immerse, we must learn, not from our own views of probabihty, but from the examples in which it is found in the language. Had Abraham used this principle of inter- pretation, he never would have submitted to circiuncision — he never would have consented to kill Isaac. I refuse to listen to any testimony but that of the word itself, speaking in the instances in which it is found m the language. All persons who attempt to settle the question on any other ground, I denounce as fanatics in criticism. With respect to Acts xviii. 8, and 1 Cor. i. 13 — 17, the author says, "In both of these passages the verb is used alone; and that the special and sacred sense of purify^ is more siutable to such a usage, than the general common sense of dip, is immediately obvious. On the one supposition, we have the strange sentences. They beHeved and were dipped,'' &c. Here, again, our author's error arises from his inattention to gram- matical appropriation. I have, again and again, shoAvn that even where purify is apphed to a sacred rite, it acquires no sacred or special signifi- cation. It is just the common signification, apphed in reference to a sacred thing; and in like manner dip, in its common signification, applies to thie most sacred things. As to the sense of the word, there is no diiference between the common and sacred. What the author caUs strange sentences, are exemplified in all lan- guages evezy hour : it is what must happen -with respect to aU appro- priations. It is strange beyond conception, that the author did not perceive that the very same thing takes place with respect to the word circumcise. This word can be used alone :" Ye on the sabbath-day cir- cumcise a man." What a strange sentence! Cut a man around! But I need not waste time in proving what must be familiar to every reader. " That baptizing," says the writer, " Avas regarded by St. Paul as a purifying or consecrating to the service of Him for whom the rite was 362 REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. administered, agrees exactly mtli the train of thought exhibited in the latter passage," &c. Might not baptizing be viewed as a purification, though its name is not purification ? Purifying may be the emblem of the rite, as well when it is called immersion, as if purification were its name. It is strange that the author brings this so often forward, without perceiving its fallacy. One would think that he never heard of circumcision. It is not my object to discover the errors of the writer on any other subject than that of the meaning of the word in question; but I strongly suspect that he has some Puseyite view of the nature of this rite. It is no consecration ; it is no ceremonial purification ; it is only an emblem- atical cleansing. The question. Acts xix. 4 — 7, has to the writer the same appearance of strangeness in our view of the meaning of the disputed word. I hope I have, by this time, made him a Uttle more famihar with this style, from circumcision and other appropriations. His anointed king or priest, would be famihar to every one; an oiled king, would appear strange. I could bear such criticism from the vulgar ; but it is intolerable from a man of letters. Did the writer ever hear of dubbing a man a knight? To dub, means to strike ; and knights were constituted by the blow of a sword. Let us try the writer's criticism on this expression: " On the supposition that dub signifies to strike, we have this strange question, Were you struck a knight ? Dub, then, cannot signify to strike ; but purify will suit to admiration. Were you purified a knight? is most natural and appropriate." On the supposition that the persons referred to in this passage were baptized in the first interview, the author complains with respect to a change of raiment. Such inquiries show more perverseness than wisdom. I hold such things as iitterly unworthy of mention. The meaning of the word can never be affected by such scruples. As they were baptized, they were immersed. I care not how they were provided on the occasion. I have now gone through this series of papers, and examined every thing that has the appearance of argument, with a minuteness that must appear tedious to most readers. Two ways suggested themselves to me for my procedure. The first was, to detect the false principles on which both the arguments and objections rest, and leave the reader to make the application. The second was, to follow the writer, and refute every thing in detail. The first would have been more suitable to my general luider- taking ; but the second is the most satisfactory for most readers, especially as the controversy immediately concerns the interpretation of so many passages of Scripture, and so vast a range of Greek hterature. Had I contented myself with showing that when he takes out of the word in question continuation, effect, intention, with many other things that the word itself does not contain, I might have done enough for the learned world ; but readers in general, Avill wish to have the principles unfolded by illustration. At first, I determined to dismiss the consideration of the prepositions concerned in the controversy, with a few observations ; but I afterwards considered that, however tedious the task, it would be more REPLY TO THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. 363 satisfactory to give a particular account of every passage in Greek lite- rature, to which the wiiter appeals for his doctrine, as to the testimony of the prepositions. This I thought the more necessary, as some of the most essential principles on this subject have been overlooked, or mis- taken, by the most distinguished grammarians; while their doctrine has been used for pxirposes they never contemplated. The fundamental error of my opponent, with regard to the prepositions concerned in this controversy is, that in ascertaining their testimony, he makes the English idiom the standard to which the Greek must conform. I have shown, that with as good reason the EngHsh might be made to conform to the Greek ; but that neither should be obliged to conform to the other. It is not certain that a Greek preposition has such a meaning in such a place, because in such a situation we should use such a prepo- sition; for the idioms of the two tongues may be, in this respect, different. We may sometimes use an English preposition to translate a Greek one, when the two prepositions are by no means coincident in meaning. This is a canon of great importance. My opponent, so far from being aware of it, interprets the Greek prepositions by whatever English prepositions would be used by us in the same situation. Can anything more strongly show the necessity of sound principles as the foundation of sound interpretation ? CHAPTER VII. OBSERVATIONS ON THE VIEW OF DR. MILLER, OF NEW YORK, WITH RESPECT TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTISM. Section I. — " If I know my own heart," says Dr. Miller, " it is ray purpose to exhibit the subject in the hght of truth, and to advance nothing but that which appears to rest on the authority of Him who instituted the ordinance under consideration, and who is alone competent to declare his will concerning it." Though this is of no value as to his argument, yet it is of infinite value as to himself; and the expression of such a sentiment cannot fail to be satisfactory to his opponents, while it entitles him to that " candid and patient hearing" Avhich he requests. K I forget it in any of my obsen'^ations on his work, it is far from my intention in the commencement. My design is to examine his reason- ing fairly, candidly, and patiently. If he has a single particle of truth, which I have not yet discovered, I Avill accept it with gratitude. Truth is my riches : to contend for it in the sight of God, is my highest glory. Men of sincerity and men of God may be in error as to the meaning of Scripture, yet in no instance is error either innocent or harmless. We should know, and it must be in all cases important to know, what God has revealed for our behef and practice. If attachment to a favourite view makes its evidence appear stronger than it reaUy is, or makes us view as evidence that wliich is not of the nature of evidence ; if it pre- vents opposite evidence from having its due weight, our sincerity is no security for arriving at a just conclusion. NotAvithstanding the favourable impression made on nie by the declaration quoted above, I am greatly impressed with a conidction that in announcing his very design, he manifests symptoms of distrust in his own cause. He seems to me hardly to knoAV with precision what he is to state as his beUef on the subject, and what he is to prove. " Sprink- ling or affusion," he tells us, " is a method of baptism just as vahd and lawful as any other." And while he announces it as his object to prove this, he says, in the same breath, " or rather to maintain, from Scriptiu-e, and from the best usages of the Christian chiu-ch, that baptism by sprinkhng or affusion, not only rests on as good authority as immer- sion, but that it is a method decisively more scriptural, suitable, and edifying." REPLY TO DR. MILLER- 3G5 Here there is an utter want of precision. He does not tell us what is the meaning of the word; and throughout his whole work I have not learned what he makes its meaning in the ordinance of Christ. He confounds sprinkling and affusion, which are different modes, and which are expounded by their friends as being different emblems. He siip- poses that several modes, or all modes, are equally la'wful, yet that sprinkling or affusion is more scripttual, suitable, and edifying, than any of them. If it is more scriptural than the rest, how can all modes be included in the meaning of the word ? If all modes are included in the meaning of the word, no mode can be more scriptural than any other. If sprinkUng is decisively more suitable and edifying than any other mode, does he not bring a charge against the Institutor for not restrict- ing the observance to this mode ? " Now we contend," says Dr. M., " that this word does not neces- sarily, nor even commonly, signify to immerse, but also impHes to wash, to sprinkle, to poiir on water, and to tinge or dye with any liqiiid ; and therefore accords very well Avith the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion." You contend. Dr. M. ! Where do you thus contend ? Say rather you assert, for there is not even an attempt to prove this diversity of meaning. I have gone through a vast range of Greek hteratui'e ; and from all the examples I could meet, I have shown that the word has but one meaning, and that this one meaning is immersion. Dr. M. meets me by an objection that he contends that the word has not only a secondary meaning, but a variety of meanings that no word in any language could have ; and all this without even an attempt at proof by examples and criticism. If Dr. M. and his friends think that tliis is evidence, they may be sincere in beUeving anything. Dr. M. not only asserts what he has not attempted to prove, but what is contrary to self- evidence. There is not in any language a word that signifies the three modes in question, or any two of them. If a word extends to all of them, it can signify none of them. It might as well be said that the word immer'se in English signifies to dijj, to pour, to sprinkle, as that the Greek word has such significations ; or that pour signifies to dip and to sprinkle; and that sprinkle signifies to ^02plication as a symbol.''' Here, as almost eA^ery Avhere else, I find this Avriter remark- ably deficient as a reasoner. There are, in this extract, ahnost as many faults as there are fines. 1. He grounds the non-essentiahty of immer- sion, on the fact that " the significance of baptism depends not on the physical influence of water." This impHes that God could not make immersion, or any other mode, necessary to an ordinance, A\'ithout making the significance of the ordinance depend on the physical influ- ence of the water. This is absurd. The mode of the apphcation of water has nothing to do Avith its physical influence. 2. This supposes that Ave contend for mode, as it respects quantity of water. We hold that there is nothing in quantity, if it is sufficient to immerse. What AAoll bury the belicA^er is as good as the Southern Ocean. The dispute is not about the greater virtue of a large quantity of water, but about the mode as a command of God, and an emblem of burial Avith Christ. 3. This dii'ectly asserts that the significance of baptism depends not on the phj^sical influence of Avater ; but a part of its significance does depend on the physical influence of water. Water is an emblem of purification from sin, because its physical influence is to purify. 4. The author here tells us, that the significance of baptism depends on its symbolical meaning ! What is the amount of this ? It is, that its significance depends on its significance. Is not its significance its symboHcal mean- ing ? Is not its symbolical meaning its significance ? 5. Tliis supposes that immersion cannot haA^e a symboHcal meaning. We practise im- mersion because it is commanded; but we hold it to be commanded because of its s}rmbolical meaning. This makes it still more essential. 6. This supposes that it is not necessary to obey God in the manner of KJiPLY TO DR. JlILLEll. 3^ doiug anything, except that manner is sj'mboHcal. This is teaching rebellion against God. 7. This designates strict obedience to the forms that God prescribes as being superstitious, unless these forms are sym- boHcal. This is an odd kmd of superstition. 8. This mistakes the nature of superstition. A mistake in interpreting a law of God, with practice accordingly, is not superstition, though it is error. 9. TVTiat does the author mean by the effect of baptism ? I wash to know what amou.nt of Puseyism the writer holds. Is there anything to be expected from the performance of any rite, but the blessing of obedience and the edification conveyed by the Sj^irit tlirough it ? 10. Have we any right to expect the blessing of obedience, Avhen we do not obey ? Have we any right to expect the blessing of edification through the Spirit, when we reject the symbol appointed to convey it ? If Christ has appointed immersion, can we look for his blessing on a different observance ? If immersion is a symbol, can we expect a blessing on a rite which rejects the symbol ? Water, no doubt, is a symbol, but it is only a part of the symbol of this ordinance. God, no doubt, will pardon the ignorance of his people ; but I have never seen the Scripture which warrants us to expect the blessing of obedience to the commandments of God, on the observance of the ordinances of man. When the Lord's supper was abused, Paul would not give it the name of the ordinance. To alter or modify the ordinances of Christ is anti-christian arrogance ; though great divines may think it not only harmless, but a praiseworthy thing. Section XVI. — Dr. M. tells us that Protestants consider the stress that Roman Catholics lay on rites, " as superstitious and dangerous." There is great confusion of thought in this observation. To lay stress, as to salvation, even on the ordinances of God, is to tiu'n away from the Gospel; but to observe them most strictly is tlie duty of every Christian. To observe rites not of Divine appointment, is an abomina- tion to God: this is the thing in which consistent Protestants blame Koman Catholics, as superstitious. They are never charged as super- stitious for the most exact observance of any of the laws of God. To make the observation apphcable, the parallel must run thus: As we call Roman Catholics superstitious, because they rigidly practise aU the rites of the church, and lay on them the stress of salvation, so if any one will scrupulously practise every ordinance of God, he is superstitious, and lays on them the stress of his salvation. Is this a just parallel ? If Roman Cathohcs are superstitious because they observe as doctrines the commandments of men, are we superstitious because we most scru- pulously observe the ordinances of God ? Must we show our hberty by plunging into licentiousness ? Must we sin, that we may prove that grace abounds ? This is the spirit of the reasoning of this author. Shall we take the liberty of disobeying what God commands, in order to show that we are not saved by our obedience to his commands ? There are very many of the observations of this writer which have this dangerous tendency. " We beheve," says he, " that no external ordi- nance has any power in itself," &c. I believe the same thing. What then ? Shall we teach Christians to neglect the external rites appointed 390 REPLY TO DR. MILLER. by God, or to alter or modify them at pleasure, in order to show that we believe that there is no power in the ordinances themselves ? If this is not antinomianisin, I have never met a specimen of it. If immersion is of Divine appointment, to argue that it is not necessary, because to make it necessary is to lay stress on ordinances, is directly to turn the grace of God into licentiousness. If it is not of Divine appointment, then it is absirrd to oppose it on the groimd that no external ordinance has any power in itself. Nothing can relieve Dr. M. He tells us again, " There is no disposition in depraved human nature more deeply in- wrought, or more necessarily operative, than the disposition to rely upon something done by us for securing the Divine favour." I most cordially agree with this statement; nothing can be more true. But, as it stands here, it is most dangerously erroneous. It stands as a warrant to neglect what God has appointed, in order to avoid a legal spirit. Must I plunge into antinomianism with Dr. M. to show that I do not look for salvation by my exactness in following the ordinances of Christ ? What other tendency can this observation have, than to indixce the disciples of Christ to neglect the commandments of God, that they may show that they do not depend on works of law for their salvation ? I have never read any work of a more dangerous tendency than this, from a professor of the true Gospel of God. On the supposition that the benefit of the ordinance depended on the physical influence of water, he says, that it would " be wise to insist on a rigorous adherence to that form." Pray, Dr. M., is it not enough that God has commanded that mode ? And, on the supposition that he has not commanded that mode, it is not insisted on. But Dr. M. does not here draw the proper inference. He argues, that as the benefit depends not on the mode, the mode may be changed. In like manner, if the benefit depends not on the physical nature of water, the water may be changed. So Sir Walter Scott's Moslems in the desert observed their ablutions with sand. " In an instant each Moslem cast himself from his horse, turned towards Mecca, and performed with sand an emblem of their ablutions, which were elsewhere required to be made with water." Christians, then, in chang- ing the water in baptism for sand, in a case of necessity, are justified by the followers of the prophet of Mecca ! " The benefit," he says, " is the result solely of a Divine blessing on a prescribed and striking emblem." Do we teach otherwise ? Do Ave teach sacramental efficacy ? Do we hold that the benefit of immersion depends on the mode without the blessing of God ? This is idle reason- ing. But Avhat is the prescribed emblem ? It is both water and mode — purification and burial. Shall we look for a blessing while we trample on the mode through the observance of which the blessing is to be given ? But he adds, " and as the word of God has nowhere informed us of the precise mode in which that emblem should be applied." Is not this to assume the very point in dispute ? If this is taken for granted, there is no controversy. Does any man insist that immersion is essential, while he grants that the word of God is silent as to mode ? What sort of reasoning is this ? But let it be observed that REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 391 the author here admits that the mode is not fixed by Scriptui'e, while he prefers sprinkling, or jjouring, for an emblematical purpose. Has he a license from Rome for this popish manufacture ? Section XVII. — Dr. M. adverts to the conduct of Peter, on the occa- sion of Christ's washing the disciples' feet. A finer or more appropriate condemnation of his own party could not be found. Peter, influenced by his own wisdom, would not sxibmit to this, as it appeared a degrada- tion to his Master. " Jesus answered and said unto him. What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter." Is not this enough for thee, Peter ? No, replies the arrogant fisherman, " Thou shalt never wash my feet." "What petulance imder the guise of humility, though mingled with sincerity ! Who does not see in Peter the opposers of Christian immersion ? From their own views of decency, propriety, &c., combined with a number of forced improbabilities and difficulties, that are mere phantoms, they cry out against immersion, though Jesus has positively enjoined it. Peter's obstinacy at last gave way; biit his own wisdom is still his guide, instead of the wisdom of his Master ; and he cries out, Not my feet only, but my hands and my head. WiU nothing restrain the arrogance of thy wisdom, Peter ? Will you never learn that true wisdom teaches submission in all things to the wisdom of God ? When Peter saw that it was a good thing to be washed by Christ, he must have more washing than Christ commanded. Just so with our psedo-baptist brethren. Christ commands believers to be bap- tized; they cry out. Not ourselves only, but our little ones. In like manner, in early times, naked baptism, trine immersion, &c. &c. Section XVIII. — " Another, and in my view," says the writer, " con- clusive reason for beUeving that oiu* Baptist brethren are in error, in insisting that no baptism, unless by immersion, is valid, is, that the native tendency of this doctrine is to superstition and abuse.'''' Here again I charge the writer as being unphilosophical in his principles, and illogical in his reasoning. He assumes the point in debate, by taking it for granted that God has not appointed immersion: for if God has ap- pointed it, would it tend to superstition to insist on obedience ? Again, if the thing is believed to be of Divine appointment, even although this should be a mistake, it has no tendency to superstition. If any one believes that Christ has appointed sprinkling, I know he is in error ; but to charge him with superstition, or his practice as having a native ten- dency to superstition, would be an abuse of words. But while they who practise infant sprinkling, believing it to be an ordinance of God, are not superstitious, they are superstitious who practise it as a human tradition. How can the native tendency of the doctrine, that nothing bxit im- mersion is baptism, be to superstition ? Would the native tendency of the doctrine, that water is essential to baptism, lead to superstition ? And how can one of those tend more to superstition than the other, if they are both commanded ? If God has not commanded immersion, then it is foolish to talk of it as tending to superstition : it is itself super- 393 REPLY TO DR. MILLER. sMtious, if practised on that ground. Nothing can be superstition which God has appointed. When God appointed circumcision, would it have tended to superstition to insist on the tiling commanded, and that paring the nails was not vaUd circumcision ? What does Dr. M. mean by saying, that the native tendency of the doctrine is to abuse ? Is this philosophy ? Is it Scripture ? Is it common sense ? If the native tendency of a doctrine is bad, bad must be the doctrine itself. If the bad consequence is not in the doctrine, but in its abuse, the consequence is not native. If Christ appointed immer- sion, to hold that it is essential to the ordinance cannot have a bad tendency. If he did not appoint it, the bad tendency is not an abuse. It is foohsh to argue against the abuse of a thing which has not been divinely appointed. To argue against the abuse of any observance, takes it for granted that the observance is duty: to argue against it as natively tending to superstition, takes it for granted that it is not divinely appointed. Here, then, Dr. M., in the very same sentence, in the im- mediate junction of two words, considers immersion to be both true and false. If Dr. M. has met with any who beheve that there is some inlierent efficacy in " being buried under water," and that those that have sub- mitted to it " are, of course, real Christians," I give them up to his unmitigated reprobation. But when he contends that this is the natui'al tendency of the Baptist doctrine, I must affirm that this is downright misrepresentation. Our doctrine is that the word signifies immersion, and consequently nothing but immersion can be a fulfilment of the com- mand. This is saying no more than that nothing but immersion is immersion. Sprinkhng cannot be called baptism with more propriety than sand can be called water. This I do not leave as an inference from my doctrines : I wish to proclaim it to all my brethren. Does this im- port that I lay on it any stress for salvation ? Does it import that I deny the Christianity of those who will not receive it ? Does it say, that I cannot consistently unite with every Christian in every thing in which I am agreed with him ? It imports none of these things. I can say with the utmost sincerity, grace he with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincetnty. The Christian Avho denies baptism altogether is not excluded fi:om my recognition. Section XIX. — " Finally," says Dr. M., " that immersion cannot be considered, to say the least, as essential to a valid baptism, is plain from the history of this ordinance.'''' 1. Here Dr. M. grounds on a false principle. He assumes the opinion of antiqiuty as authority. This is Popery, or Puseyism. He assimaes, that if Christians in early church history considered affusion as a vahd substitute for immersion, it must be a vahd substitute. I deny the position : this is an luiprotestant foundation. 2. Because antiquity sanctioned affusion, as a substitute for immer- sion in some circumstances, even were its opinion authoritative, does it follow that it is a lawful substitute in all circumstances ? Does it imply that the mode is optional ? REPLY TO DR. MILLER. 393 3. The Fathers were led to this by an opinion that baptism was necessary to salvation. 4. They did not consider afiiision to be baptism, but only a valid sub- stitute for baptism. Dr. M. misrepresents Eusebius, when he says, that he " states that Novatian was baptized in his bed." Eusebius says nothing Hke this. He does not say that Novatian was baptized on his bed, or that he was baptized at all ; but that, falling sick, he had water poured around him in his bed. The word used by Eusebius is perichutheis. He received the grace usually conferred by baptism, though he was not baptized, but only perichysed. There is an ellipsis both of the word water and of the word grace. He was poured around, namely, with water ; he received, namely, grace. That it is the word grace that is to be supplied by ellipsis is evident from several parts of Cyprian s letter, and the phraseology usual on such occasions. This affords the most irrefragable proof that they did not consider affusion as baptism, but that affusion in a case of necessity will serve instead of baptism. The superstition both of Christians and Mahomedans has, in cases of necessity, substituted sand for water, as Avell as sprinkHng for immersion. It is very merciful in the tioo churches to make so needfiil a commutation. 5. Nor is Dr. M. correct in reporting the testimony of his documents when he says, " And although some questioned, whether a man who had been brought to make a profession of rehgion on a sick bed, and Avhen he considered himself as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet this doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that the baptism itself was incomplete, but on the principle that he who came to the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity, ought not to be made a priest, unless his subsequent diligence and faith should be distinguished and highly commendable." Eusebius says nothing at aU about the completeness or incompleteness of Novatian's baptism. He does not represent him as baptized at all. The question was, whether a man having water poured about him on a sick bed could be said to have received the grace, and more especially whether he coiild be fit for an office in the church. Though he was jjerichysed, he was neither bap- tized nor confirmed. The words of Eusebius expressly state, that it was not lawful that a man having water poured around him in his bed should have any ecclesiastical office conferred on him. If he might by such a substitution be allowed to go to heaven, this might not be sufficient to make him a good Puseyite clergyman. And, to make the matter still worse, he had not, after this substitution for baptism, received the confirmation of the bishop, without which a man cordd not receive the Spirit, even though he had been born of water. How can Dr. M. say that the afiusion, instead of baptism, was no part of the complaint against Novatian, when the very words quoted by him- self imply this most decidedly ? Cyprian's answer shows that the question was, " whether they are to be accounted lavrful Christians because they have not been ivashed all over with the water of salvation, but have only some of it poured on themf^ After quoting this, liow could Dr. M. say that the complaint did not respect the want of immer- sion, and the substitution of affusion ? 394 REPLY TO DR. MILLER. Dr. M. tells us that Origen was contemporary with Cyprian, and that he, in commenting on 1 Kings xviii. 33, tells lis that " Elijah baptized the wood on the altar." This proceeds on a principle I have often explained and illustrated. Every child knows that oiu' word immerse may be used in the same way. Dr. Miller's work can have no pretensions, as a work of controversy, founded on criticism. He merely asserts the meaning of the word by solemn declaration, or rests it on the testimony of others without pro- ducing their proofs. If I have paid him the compHment to notice him as a controversial writer on the meaning of the word in question, he is indebted to his fame on other subjects. In his reasoning he either assumes false first principles, or from sound principles deduces false conclusions. CHAPTER YIIL EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF MR. HALL OF AMERICA, ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTISM. Section I. — While Mr. Hall thinks that pouring and sprinkling are '' the only modes for which we have any clear scriptiiral example, or even clear scriptural aiithority," he also thinks, that the mode of the application is a " matter of entire indifference," and that " immersion is a valid baptism." Here Mr. H. and I differ fundamentally, with respect to the obhgation of scriptural example and authority. If there is clear scriptural example, and clear scriptural authority, for pouring and sprinkling, and neither scriptural authority, nor example, for immersion, I cannot admit that immersion is baptism. Can anything be vahd, which is not scriptiu:al? Can a thing be scriptural, which has no scriptural authority ? This is a valid invalid. If the Avord in question is so extensive in its meaning as to include immersion, then how can it be said, that there is no scriptural authority for the mode ? On that groimd it has the clearest proof, though not to the exclusion of other modes. It is evident that the author has no clear conception of his own meaning of the word that designates this ordinance. He cares not what the meaning is, provided it has sufficient extension for poiu-ing and sprinkhng. The command to baptize, he thinks refers to the thing done, rather than to the mode of doing it. But what is the thing done? As far as respects the word, mode is the very thing in command; the water itself is usually suppHed by ellipsis. Wlien Mr. H. asserts of himself and others, that " they would as soon throw their bodies into the fire, as refuse to be immersed, were they convinced that immersion is essential to baptism," I give him full credit, and rejoice in the behef of his integrity At the same time, I must say, that as long as he grounds on the rules of interpretation adopted by him, overlooking the fondamental laws of language, I can see no reason for his changing his convictions on any subject. Section II. — He commences with some observations on the laws of interpretation. This is as it should be. On the soimdness of the philosophy of this procedure, the whole question must for ever depend. It is hardly ever named by the generaUty of our opponents. I am, then, 396 EEPLY TO MB. HALL. mucli pleased, to find this writer commencing so auspiciously. Even though here in error, he may, by the habit of pui'suing first principles, find the truth at last. With a view, by one stroke, to set aside all the authorities on our side, for the meaning of the disputed word, he alleges the use of the word provisions. All the dictionaries, he says, give victuals as the meaning. Yet in a law of Edward III., forbidding all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it means 7iomination to henefices by the pope. But how does this example stand in my way ? Is it by the authority of dictionaries that I determine the meaning of any word ? The language, and not lexicons, is my authority ; and the language in the alleged example, gives the word provisions a secondary meaning, which is of equal authority with the primary. Nothing can be in more perfect accordance with my doctrine. It is just an example that I would select to illustrate my views of the laws of language. The English language gives nomination to ecclesiastical henefices by the pope, as one of the meanings of the word provisions ; and when used in reference to ecclesiastical things, it is self-evidently clear that this, and not victuals, is its meaning. How does this apply to my doctrine with respect to the word in question ? In what department, in what author, Jew or Gentile, is it used in any sense but that of immersion ? Here, Josephus and the Septuagint agree with the heathen poets ; the latest wi'iters agree with the earhest. K one decided example, in any author, of any age or country, gives a secondary meaning, I will admit such meaning to a fair competition. Mr. H. thinks he has here the strength of demonstration, yet he proves nothing that I will not assert. It is my own doctrine. Mr. H., with my other opponents, represents me as resting the proof on the classics alone. This, as I have again and again showed, is a gross misrepresentation. I begin with the classics, I end only with the hour of the institution of the ordinance. If Josephus and the Septuagint estabhshed a secondary meaning, corresponding to the meaning of the word provisions in the canon law, I would admit it with the greatest promptness ; but if ancient authors establish but one meaning of a word, a secondary should not be supposed in later writers, excej)t in proof of its existence. A good deal of unsound observation has been employed by the learned, on the subject of the distinction between classic and Hellenistic Greek, and torrents of nonsense and of ignorance have been poured forth by those who adopt their conclusions. I may yet have an opportunity of stating my views on the subject. But here, the question has no concern. The fact to be ascertained is the change — ■ not the cause of the change. If a change is proved, I will admit it, whatever may be supjoosed the cause. He alludes triumphantly to the case mentioned Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30. The baptizing here, he thinks, was done by sprinkling. Demonstrably it was not; it was a bath. As the words baptize and loiio here refer to the same thing, Mr. H. thinks that this is evidence that they are synonymous. I have often been obhged, gratuitously, to teach my opponents that words may refer to the same thing without being SYNONYMOUS. I bestow on him this canon. If he looks through what I REPLY TO MR. HALL. 397 have written on the subject, he will see it proved. When words refer to the same thing, they must be consistent in what they express; but one may express more or less than the other. As Mr. H. appears to have a turn for the philosophy of first principles, I hope this will not be lost on him. I had said that, " When I have proved the meaning of a word by the authority of the whole consent of Greek literature, I will not surrender it to the supposition of the strict adherence of the Jewish nation, in the time of writing the Apocrypha, to the Mosaic ritual." I have no need of avaiUng myself of the aid of this observation ; but I still rigorously adhere to it as a sound principle. A change in a rite is freqtient; and a change is rather to be admitted than to disregard the authority of language. " The question, then," says Mr. H., comes to this dilemma: either the JeAVS had abandoned the mode of purifying ft'om a dead body, as speci- fically and minutely pointed out by God; or, here was a baptism by sprinkling." The question has not come to this; for I can do without this supposition altogether. In fact, I have no need of it: I give it merely as an ultimate possible resource, or a proof beyond what is necessary. And if it did come to this, where is the improbabihty, espe- cially where is the impossibihty of such a change ? The Jews made greater changes in their religion than this. Surely our opponents should not think this an unjustifiable change. He speaks of me, as " driven to assume, and that without the least shadow or pretence of authority, that when God had commanded a pvu-ification by sprinkling, the Jewish nation had turned about and made an immersion of it." Wliy does he say, I am driven? Does he not perceive, that I have pointed to this as a possible resource ? Have I not proved the thing without this ? Wliy does he say, that / assume'? Does he not perceive that I do not assume it as a fact ? I assume it merely as a possibihty; and while I assume it as a possibility, I do not believe it to have been a fact. The writer's observations show that he is not acquainted with the philosophy of the burden of proof. Pie supposes that it lies on me to prove that there was actually such a change as I suppose possible, before I can avail myself of the argument. But I am here only answering an objection — not establishing an affirmative; and a bare possibility is perfectly sufficient. Let Mr. H. acquaint himself with the philosophy of evidence, before he ventures to criticise my reasoning. He is strong only from his ignorance of the grounds of proof. He supposes that I must have felt great difficulty in Mark vii. 4. I can assure him, that I never felt a moment's embarrassment : it is as plain to me as any point in history. If I believe the evangehst, I can have no doubt of the fact reported. Either the persons referred to, were immersed on the occasions mentioned, or the inspired writer testifies a falsehood. Between these alternatives my faith cannot hesitate. But my opponent not only frequently tramples on self-evident first principles ; he here adopts an unsound and arbitrary first principle, as the founda- tion of his argument. He assumes that every Scripture historical fact must be authenticated by uninspii'ed history. This is not a sound first 398 REPLY TO MR. HALL. principle: it is not essential even to an uninspired historian. But the Scriptures disdain it. But even were the caiion admitted in this instance, what would it prove ? It might serve the infidel, but coidd not affect the question as to the meaning of the word. Grant to the infidel, that no historical fact in Scriptiu'e can be admitted as truth unless it is authenticated by the history of the time, — ^he will triumph in his unbelief. In vain -will you allege that the Avord may not here signify immersion ; he defies you to bring an instance, in which it has another meaning. If they were not immersed, he wiU say, the evangelist asserts a falsehood. What is meant by the word, must be proved by the usage of the language. If the word signify to immerse, then there is the best of all historical proof: there is inspired proof that the persons referred to, immersed themselves before meat, after market. Bu.t here, Mr. H. is confident that he takes aAvay my foundation. " The meaning of the word," says he, " is the very thing in question here. We cannot allow him to prove a matter in question, by first assuming it as true." To this point, I invite the rigorous exercise of discrimination in all my readers. Assume the point in question! I woidd almost as soon be con^dcted of high treason. Sound and fair reasoning is with me the point of honoiu" as a controversialist. Let truth itself fall, rather than uphold it by falsehood. But I do not assume the meaning of the word here ; I rest it on the proof previously alleged. Have I not found the meaning of the word, by the testimony of the whole range of Greek literature ? When, from this authority, I have found that it signifies immersion and nothing else, have I not an imquestionable right to allege this proved meaning in any place where the connexion itself does not decide ? Had I alleged that the Avord in Mark Adi. 4, must signify'- immersion, Avithout having submitted any prcAdous proof, then I might be charged Avith assuming the point in question. But when in a disputed passage, I allege that the word must have the meaning which in other passages it is proA^ed to have, I rest on a self-eAddent first principle; I assume merely, that the meaning of the word in the language must be the meaning of the Avord here. Is there any one possessed of a sound mind, Avho Avill dispute this ? This assumption, I grant eqiiaUy to my opponents. Had they a meaning in proof, as the only meaning of the Avord, I Avould grant that they might apply this meaning to every passage that did not decide its oAvn meardug. Is it not on the ground that I haA^e proA^ed the meaning of the Avord, and not by assumption, that I assert that it must be immersion in this place ? Suppose for instance, that Ave interpret the expression, "■ Her Majesty took an airing yesterday in her pony phaeton ;" and that Ave dispute about the meaning of the word po77y. ^'■Pony" says one, "is a small horse;" '■'■Pony,''' says another, " cannot be a small horse, for I saw her Majesty yesterday, driAdng with A^ery large horses. Pony, then, must signify'- a large horse." " I care not what you saAV," says the first, " pony is a small horse, for the use of the Avord in the language is nothing else. Either then, the accoiuit is false, or her Majesty did yesterday take an airing Avith small horses in her carriage." "Assumption, assumption!" cries Mr. H. ; " the fact must not be deteirmined by the word, but by other REPLY TO MR. HALL. 399 proof." Would not this be ridiculous? It is the very soul of Mr. H.'s objection to my doctrine on this point. In -any particular passage where my opponent may choose to dispute the meaning of the word, I rest on the meaning of it as already in proof. The word in question, signifies to immerse, as certainly as pony signifies a small horse. If it is not in proof that the word signifies to immerse., then I allow that the meaning cannot be assumed here. Siirely, this is very far from assuming its meaning. As I would not charge Mr. H. with a want of candour, I must charge on him a want of perspicacity, in not being able to discriminate between resting on previous proof, and mere assumption of the point in question. This is the only point in which Mr. H. is plausible ; and here he is plausible only to persons who have as little discrimination as himself. " What," says Mr. H., "is the historical fact, as to what the Jews did before eating, when they came from market ? Settle this, and you settle the meaning of the word baptize in this connexion." This is not the question to be settled. Uninspired testimony might say nothing on the subject. The question is not, what history says on the subject; but what the evangelist says ? Can this be knoAvn, but by the meaning of the word he employs ? I do not say that it must be the meaning that I attach to it, but its meaning in the language, whatever that may be. You must know the meaning of the word baptize, before you can know what the Jews did on the occasion, according to the evangelist. History might be silent, history might be lost, history might speak of other things done, while the thing asserted by the evangehst might be omitted. Nothing but a contradiction on the part of history, could place history in opposition to the evangelist; and even in that case, the evangehst is better proof than history. Whatever history may or may not say, it is the meaning of the word baptize, in the Greek language, that must inform us what the evangelist means on this occasion. Wlien we go to history, is it not by the meaning of the word in the language, that we are to know its meaning, in any particular case ? On the ground that the fact must be settled by the meaning of the word, he asserts, that " the thing in dispute shoidd be proved by itself" This is an amazing want of discrimination. "VAHiat is the thing in dispute in this place ? The meaning of the word in this passage, — the meaning of the assertion Avith respect to the Jews. Now, is the assertion, that the thing which they are said to do must be kno-\vn by the meaning of the word used by the evangelist, the same thing as to prove the thing in dispute by itself? It is not from this passage that I prove the meaning of the word : I bring the proved meaning, to show what must be its meaning here. I do not argue from the passage, that the word must signify to immerse : I argue that it must signify here, what it signifies elsewhere. My reasoning on the point, so far from proving the thing by itself, is perfectly consistent with the supposition that the word signifies fumigation. I argue, that if the word is proved, from its use in the language, to signify fumigate., and nothing but fumigate; fumigate it must be here, and nothing but fumigate. In determining the meaning of a word, in passages in Avhich connexion does not decide, we must be 400 REPLY TO MR. HALL. directed by tlie usage of the langiiage. Can anything but the wildest fanaticism deny, that the meaning of every assertion is the meaning of the words employed to express it ? And if the meaning of any word is not determined by the passage in which it is used, must it not be ascer- tained by its use in other places ? Whether other history confirms this, or contradicts it, is to me a matter of perfect indifference. If an Enghsh traveller relates, that on a certain occasion a particidar people immersed themselves ; and another, that on the same occasion they fumi- gated; instead of reconciling them, by making immersion coincide with fumigate, or fiimigate with immersion, I will say, " either they did both, or one of the travellers relates a falsehood." I wiU not allow any man to defend them by tampering -with the English words. I find as little troiible in immersing the couches. Whatever might have been their size, they might easily be immersed in a pond. But even on the supposition that they were too large to be immersed entire, I have contrived to take them to pieces, and immerse them in parts. This excites Mr. H.'s great admiration. I have not the smallest need for the supposition ; nevertheless I will retain it carefully, as a safe last resort. "Lideed," exclaims Mr. H., "what shall we not allow him to suppose might have been the case, rather than grant the possibihty that the Jews might have used the word baptize in a different sense from that of the old heathen Greeks ?" I will make this supposition, Mr. H., without waiting for your allow- ance: it is my right to make it. Here, again, I must disciphne him on fii'st principles. In answering an objection, anything possible may be supposed; in proof, nothing can be admitted without evidence. The greatest part of my trouble, is to teach my opponents the laws of reason- ing. Not one of them knows when proof lies upon him, and when it lies upon me. They caU for proof fi'om me, when they should prove themselves. When I answer objections by possible and even probable solutions, they call on me for absolute proof. No man is entitled to appear in the field of controversy, till he has studied the laws of the combat. It is ignorance of this, with the adoption of false first prin- ciples, that makes some ingenious men think it possible to bring immer- sion into doubt. Let a man once know on which side, in every case, the bui'den of proof lies, and let him adopt no principle of interpretation but what is self-evident, and he mil never, for a moment, consider immersion assailable. Bu.t Mr. H. here supposes that I consider it impossible for a word to be used by later writers, in a sense different from its earliest use. This is not truth. Many words have changed their meaning; but in all cases of alleged change, I demand proof of the change. What say you to this, Mr. H.? Mr. H. is pleased to say, that it would seem to make no matter to me, " how often people had been baptized in other modes than immersion, I would still maintain my ground." On what groiind does he venture this assertion ? Do I admit that people may be said to be baptized in other modes than immersion, while I contend that nothing but immersion is baptism ? If one instance of sprinkling was called immersion, I would REPLY TO MR. HALL, 401 give up the point of univocal meaning. The above assertion of my antagonist is grounded on the following passage in my work : " I care not if there never had been a human being immersed in water since the creation of the world: if the word denotes immersion, and if Christ enjoins it, I will contend for it as confidently as if all nations had been daily in the practice of immersing each other." Noav does this language give any ground for Mr. H.'s observation ? Wliat I say is, that I care not if there never had been one immersion previously to the institution : Mr. H. represents me as saying, that I care not how many people had been baptized in other modes besides that of immersion. Is this a want of discernment, or a want of honesty ? Wlaat I have said, I still say ; does Mr. H. pretend to refute it ? Does he not say, "■ True, if the word means immersion, and never means anything else ?" And is it not on that ground solely, that the assertion is rested ? " But I humbly suppose," says Mr. H., " that the common practice of a people who called a puiifying, by sprinkling or pouring, a baptism, would have some little weight upon the question, what the people did in fact understand by the words baptize and baptism." A people who called a purifying, by sprinkKng or pouring, a baptism!!! Where is such a people ? Not under the heavens. The facts alleged to prove this, are all mere assumptions. Were they admitted, then due weight would cheerfully be given them. Section III. — Mr. H. represents me as esteeming it as nothing, " that the Scriptures represent the baptism of the Spirit uniformly under the mode of pouring, ' coming down Hke rain,' and shedding forth." Is this truth ? Do I a,djm.i pouring, coming clown like rain, shedding forth, to be the thing that is called baptism, while I make no account of it ? I do not, Mr. H. ; I admit that the gift of the Spirit is spoken of under every mode of the motion of water, but I contend that this is not the thing that is called baptism. Is it not self-evident, that if the gift of the Spirit is spoken of under every mode of the motion of water, no mode can reaUy belong to it ? It cannot, then, be from mode called sprinkling or pouiung. But if in baptism it is a pouring, it cannot be a sprinkling ; and if it is a sprinkling, it cannot be a pouring. He quotes from me the following sentence: "It is a fixed point that baptism means immersion." That with respect to the baptism of the Spirit, " nothing can be admitted inconsistent with this;" and that " the baptism of the Spirit must have a reference to immersion, because baptism is immersion." Mr. H. represents me as, in these sentences, taking the thing for granted, and replies, " That is the very thing to be proved." And, Mr. H., is it not on the groimd that I have proved it, that I have made the above assertions ? Why do I call it a fixed point ? Is it not because I had fixed the point ? Is there a child, in the whole range of the American continent, who can read my book without per- ceiving that I used all these assertions on the ground of previous proof ? I must charge Mr. H. as having so little perspicacity, for I am con- vinced it is not a want of integrity, as not to perceive the nature of an assumption without proof I will make this plain even to the most 2d 403 REPLY TO MR. HALL. obtuse intellect. If any of my opponents attempt to prove that the word in question signifies to pour, or to sprinkle, or to purify ; after- wards, on the import. of the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, I will allow him to make use of the result, and adopt the language that I have used. If he has found that the word signifies to sprinkle, or to pour, or to purify, then he has a right to explain the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, accordingly. The figurative meaning, it is self-evident, must have a reference to the literal, and be exj^lained in accordance with it. The man who disputes this is not worthy of castigation. "With respect to me, he adds, " But he insists upon it directly in the same page, and puts his words in itahcs, ' Pouring cannot he the figura- tive baptism, because baptism never literally denotes pouring f'' Here again, I suppose, he thinks I beg the question, or rest it on mere asser- tion. Has he not the perspicacity to perceive that I rest this assertion on the ground which I had already gained " with my sword and my bow ?" Do I not here formd on the proof which I had previously given for the meaning of the word, and on the self-evident principle, that the meaning of a word in a figurative use must be known from its literal meaning ? After all my proof of the meaning of the word, does my assertion of its meaning rest on this assertion ? I can give argument ; but I cannot give my opponents discernment. In my treatise on baptism I had said, that " Poiu-ing could not repre- sent the pouring of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not Hterally poured." This is a fact that common sense will never question. It is so obvious, that I am astonished that it could be hid from any. Yet, obvious and self-evident as it is, I believe I am the first who pointed it out. On this I rest as on the pillar of heaven; it is an axiom that never can be questioned by a sound mind. Is there any pouring in the Godhead ? It is blasphemy to siippose it. But Mr. H. very coolly answers me, " Does not God himself say, I -will pour out my Spirit ?" Yes, Mr. H., God himself says, I will pour out my Spirit; so does God himself say, that he has hands and heart. Has he hands and heart ? To make pouring emblematic of pouring in the Spirit, makes the Godhead material. I say the same thing with regard to immersion. Immersion as a mode can be no emblem of the Spirit. But if it is pouring in bap- tism, as an emblem of the pouring of the Spirit, how can sprinkling, or immersion, or any other mode, be baptism ? Nothing can be more evident than that the phrase, baptism of the Spirit, refers to the abundance of the gift of the Spirit. It is perfectly similar to the phrase, " arrows drunk with blood." Deut. xxxii. 42. Arrows drunk with blood, means arrows that have shed much blood. What wovild be thought of the writer who should allege, that there must be in the arrows something like drunkenness ? The Holy Spirit asserts the very same sort of baptism with respect to Asher, Deut. xxxiii. 24 : " He shall dip his foot in oil." This does not mean that he was hteraUy to dip his foot in oil; it means that the tribe was to have abundance of oil. He was not to be aU immersed in oil; but his foot was to be immersed. He was immersed up to the ankle. This is entirely the same figru'e with baptism in the Spirit. It denotes plenty — ^not mode. REPLY TO MR. HALL. 403 To be baptized in the Spirit, is to have abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. I rest fnlly satisfied that no man of sense Avill ever question what I have Avritten with respect to pouring und sprinkling, as emblema- tical in baptism. Section IV. — Mr. H. disputes some of my examples from the classics. Soldiers baptized up to the middle, he thinks, could not be said to be immersed or bm-ied. They could not be said to be wholly immersed or biuied: but they are not said to be immersed or buried as to the whole person. Is not the baptism expressly -limited ? Up to the middle. This example is as good as if the soldiers had been actually biu-ied in the sea. It is to me luiaccountably astonishing that men wiU risk the credit of their tmderstanding by such observations ; keeping out of sight altogether, that it is the law of our God that we are handhug. What can the words give us but mode? Would a child imagine that the word of mode should determine the extent of an object subjected to that mode ? In determining the meaning of the word, the immersion of a joint of the Httle finger is as good as the immersion of the whole body. With respect to the Roman general Avho baptized his hand in blood, to write an inscription for a trophy, he says, " Suppose we grant it. My pen is the instrument of -writing, and I dip) it in the ink Avhen I -write ; surely I never immerse it in ink when I write. When -will our Baptist brethren cease this play upon the word dipping, when they are to prove a total immersion ?" Must I tell you again and again, Mr. H., that we never pretend to prove the extent of the immersion from the word itself? I -wish to treat my antagonist with respect; but it is difficult to avoid an expression of contempt in repelling such allegations. We can prove a total immersion ; but Ave are not to prove it from the word itself. He makes a distinction in dipping a pen in ink, and immersing it. But there is no difference as to totahty between dip and immerse; both may refer either to a part or to the whole. In the expression, dip the pen in the ink, there is an ellipsis of the part of the pen dipped, imder- stood from the commonness of the operation. Besides, dip is used as a more familiar word than immerse. What idea has the -wi'iter of the meaning of the phrase, playing upon a ivord, when he calls this a playing upon the word dipping ? Has it not the same meaning here that it has every where else ? Hoav, then, is this playing upon it ? If Ave choose to be stiff and stately, can wa not also saj^, immerse the point of the pen "? This is egregious trifling. With respect to the sinner represented by Porphjay, as baptized up to his head in Styx, he says, " He is not immersed; he is not buried in Avater." Is he not immersed as far as he is baptized ? Would Mr. IT. have him immersed farther than he is said to be baptized? What more can be required than proof that the Avord immerse corresponds to the Avord baptize ? Does he expect that if the Avord Avill extend to the Avhole person, it cannot also be capable of restriction to a part ? Was ever nonsense so nonsensical ? But is not the express restriction here subjoined, evidence that, Avithout such restriction, the baptism Avould be understood as extending to the Avhole person ? 2d2 404 REPLY TO MB. HALL. In reference to Alexander's soldiers baptized in the tide up to the middle, he says, that if this was immersion, "then, when our Baptist ministers wade out into the river with their candidates, then both the minister and the candidates are immersed mthout being put under water at all." Not so fast, IMr. H. Is this a fair representation ? Are Alexander's soldiers said to be immersed ? They are not : they are said to be immersed up to the middle. Is it, then, ]\Ir. H., consistent with your ideas of trath, to represent, that either of those things was an immersion generally ? Alexander's soldiers are expressly said to be immersed only in part : and in the situation supposed, the minister and the candidate may be both said to be immersed up to the middle. In that situation, the candidate is immersed Avithout reference to a part; that is, he is wholly immersed. Cease trifling, ]Mr. H. ; it is about a laAv of Him who shall judge the world, that we are contending. Could you not say, the woman earned the child into the river, and dipped him three times? Section V. — ^IMr. H. proposes three inquiries, which I notice merely as a specimen of his reasomng. 1. " What wotdd the immediate disciples of our Lord rmderstand as the meaning of the command, baptize ?" What could they imderstand as the meaning of the command, but the thing meant by the word ? The answer is self-evident. If the word signified to sprinkle, they Avould so understand the command; if it signified to pour, they would understand the command accordingly : and if immersion was the meaning of the word, they would understand the command to be to immerse. The true question is, what was the meaning of the word ? 2. Mr. H.'s second question is, " Is there satisfactory evidence that they always administered the ordinance by immersion ?" To this I reply, had there been no account at all of their practice, it is evident that they performed the rite in the manner commanded. We know from the word itself, what must have been their practice, had there been no account of that practice. If the word signified to immerse, must not inspired practice correspond with a Divine command ? Had the word signified to pour, the apostoHcal practice must always have been pouring. As it was to immerse, it must have been always immersion. No evidence is essentially necessary, but that of the word itself. ApostoHcal practice independently proves the same thing. ]\Ir. H.'s third question is, " On the supposition that they did so, is there evidence that they considered that one mode essential ?" To this I reply, if the command was to immerse, is not the command the same thing to us as it was to them ? Besides, if the apostles always practised immersion, when other modes were not only practicable, but more easy, their practice is equal to a command. Would they have practised immersion, if sprinkling would serve? With respect to the divej's baptisms, Heb. ix. 10, he says that Paul " specifies here, what washings (baptisms) or purifyings he speaks of; and the only ones which he specifies are here performed with blood, and with the ashes of an heifer sprinhling the unclean." Paul specifies no such thing. None of the things referred to are a specification of the REPLY TO MR, HALL. 405 baptisms. Does he refer to tlie baptisms, wbat was done witb the sprinkUng of blood ? There is not the semblance of truth for the assertion. The apostle does not call the sprinkling of blood a baptism, nor even a washing of any kind. He does not speak of washing with the ashes of an heifer. The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, are said to sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, but are not said to be baptisms. "These sprinklings," says Mr. H., " Paul calls baptisms." It is not so, Mr. H. Paul does not call these sprinklings, baptisms. Wlay will men again and again assert what has not a colour of truth ? It is painful to be obliged to give so strong a contra- diction to men who are, as Christians, worthy of esteem; but it is not from inadvertence that such assertions are made; on that ground, it would claim indulgence: hut the assertion continues to be made, after being a thousand times contradicted. The subtilty of Satan himself cannot plausibly contrive to force these sprinklings into the divers baptisms. With respect to the opinion of the Baptists that the bathing (Numb, xix. 17,18)may be one of the divers baptisms, (Heb.ix.) Mr. H. observes, " I am glad of the objection, because it distinctly recognises the fact that Paul refers to those ptuifyings as among his divers baptism.s.'''' The Baptists do not allege this as an objection; they bring it as an example. But how does it serve Mr. H. ? He says, " It recognises the purifyings as among the divers baptisms." It makes no such recognition; it recognises one of the purifications as a baptism. Does that import that aU the purifications were baptisms ? This is an amazing want of perspi- cacity. If a man presents to a banker twenty notes, does the banker recognise them all as his, because he recognises one of them ? "But the objection," says Mr. H., "is idle; as Paul does not specify the bathing as any part of what he means, but he does specify the sprinkHng." Baptists do not allege that Paul specifies the bathing as a baptism. It is enough for them that it may have been an immersion ; they need no information from the apostle on the subject. The apostle tells them, that there were under the law divers baptisms. He tells them nothing more about these baptisms; but they are entitled to include among them every thing that can come imder the meaning of the word. Here, Mr. IT. shows himself deficient as to first principles. He assiimes that the bathing, in Numb. xix. 17, 18, cannot be among the baptisms ; because Paiil does not express this. Ever}?^ thing must be included among the divers baptisms that comes tinder the meaning of the word, without any explanation of the apostle. Paul specifies none of the divers baptisms ; biit if there Avas a bathing in any of the Old Testament rites, which was performed by immersion, then such bathing was a baptism. That the sprinkUngs referred to are a specification of the divers baptisms, is a most luifoimded assumption. On similar grounds, he assures us, that ver. 15 and onward speak of baptisms. He might as well assert, that the apostle speaks of the thing referred to, as belonging to the Eleusinian mysteries. " Another of those baptisms," says Mr. H., " is mentioned, Numb, viii. 7." As I cannot think that the author wishes to impose on his 406 REPLY TO MR. HALL. readers, I must say that an argument more cliildishly weak, I have never found in controversy. The leper was cleansed by sprinkling ; but is that sprinkling ever called baptism ? Are such assumptions to be continually reiterated? "As it is the sprinkling of the blood of Christ," says Mr. H., "that does the cleansing, surely it should be the sprinkling of the Avater in baptism, that signifies the cleansing." Here, the author conveniently overlooks what I have said on the phrase, sprinkling of the blood of Christ. There is no actual sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the believer. The application of the blood of Christ is called a sprinkling, in allusion to the type, — the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice. No man of sense has ever questioned this, since I pointed it out. The man who does not acknowledge it, I cannot think worthy of being addressed by argu- ment. No axiom can be more self-evident. Neither pouring nor sprinkling can be emblematical, for the reasons alleged. But it is strange to astonishment, that the author did not see, that if baptism is a sjirinkling as an emblem of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, it cannot be a pourifig as an emblem of the pouring of the Spirit. Yet, the writer and many of my opponents ai'e so extravagantly inconsistent, that they take both emblems out of the ordinance. Dr. Miller takes both emblems, while he acknowledges that Christ has appointed neither. With respect to Mark vii. 3, 4; Luke xi. 38, he says: " The fault of the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, in the eyes of the Jews, was, that they had not first been baptized before eating; i. e., they had eaten with ruiwashed hands." Now, with respect to facts that interest the passions and prejudices, who can trust historians who report documents that never see the Hght, when a man of God makes such a representation of documents that are in the hands of all his readers ? Mr. H. tells us, that the fault of the Lord Jesus, in the eyes of the Jews, was, that he had eaten with unwashed hands. This is not a fact. Mr. H. tells us, that the fault of the disciples was, that they had not first been baptized before eating. Neither is this a fact, Mr. H. The disciples are charged as eating with unleashed hands; the Lord is charged as eating unbaptized. These are the facts, however baptism may be explained. How is it consistent with integrity to confound these facts, for the purpose of drawing the following conclusion : " The washing of the hands, there- fore, was a baptism ?" The washing of the hands is neither here nor anywhere else said to be a baptism of the person. In reference to my assertion, that the baptism afler market before eating is immersion, he asks, " What does he bring to prove it ? The word baptize !" Here we have a note of admiration. Well may we wonder that any intellect is so obtuse as not to perceive that the proof objected to, is the only proof that the case admits. What other proof could be given, than that such is the meaning of the word in the Greek language ? Should I say that the man is stupid who cannot see this, hoAv is Mr. H. to know what I here mean by the word stupid ? Is it not by its meaning every where else ? If it signifies dull of apjyrehension in the English, is it not so to be understood as here iised ? Yet, Mr. H. would call this proving a thing by itself, or assuming the point in debate. When the meaning of a word is proved, and when a secondary REPLY TO MR. HALL. 407 meaning is not in pi'oof, it is self-evident that in every situation it has its proved meaning. Tliis is as certain as proof in mathematics. Mr. H. tells us that there is no evidence that the Jews had such a practice. There is no need of such evidence; the testimony of the evangelist ought to be sufficient. It is a false first princij)le to assume, that a fact in Scriptiu'e cannot be beheved, imless it is proved by the history of the times. This is not essential even to civil history. He refers with astonishment to my assertion, that " even an inexplicable difficulty could not affect the certainty of my conclusions." Is he so little conversant with the nature of evidence, as to think this a bold assertion? The Bible itself could not stand without the assumption of its truth. But in the question at issue, there is not one inexplicable difficulty — indeed, to learning and skill there is not a single difficulty at all. I made the observation for the sake of truth in general, rather than its bearing on this point. " To my mind," says Mr. H., " here is, so far, demonstration — proof which puts it beyond my power to doubt — that sprinkling and pouring are scriptural modes of baptism." Here we have a specimen of what, in the estimation of Mr. H., is demonstration. Because the Jews were displeased with the disciples for not washing their hands before eating, and with Jesus, for not baptizing himself before dinner, therefore, sprinkling or pouring is a mode of baptism ! Demonstration, admirable demonstration ! Because the Jews had water-pots for purification, there- fore, sprinkling and pouring are modes of baptism ! Such demonstration is not to be found in Euclid. Even were immersion out of the question, Mr. H. and the rest of my opponents, Avho allege an imjorobability from this passage, assume a false principle. They assimie, that if it is not immerse, it must be what they mean. It might be neither sprinkle, nor pour, nor purify; it might be any one of many other things. This is another instance in which they assume what they ought to prove. With respect to Acts ii. 17; xi. 15, 16, he says, " the mode of baj)tism here spoken of, is under the figure of pouring and shedding forth." The gift of the Spirit is spoken of imder the figure of pouring and shedding forthi but the pouring and shedding forth are not called baptism. The gift of the Spirit may be figuratively spoken of under any mode of the figurative object. But there is no mode in the operations of the Spirit. The likeness of the figure is always in the effects. The gift of the Spirit is spoken of under all the modes of the motion of water. Does this imply, that any one of these motions is the same as any other ? or, that there is any real motion in the Spirit like the motion of water ? Surely any portion of discernment may perceive that the same object may be figured under different modes. Moses says, " My doctrine shall di'op as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew." Is the dropping of rain the same figure with the distilling of dew ? And is there any likeness in mode, between docti'ine and the thing referred to ? Nothing but ignorance of the philosophy of language could embolden our oppo- nents to use such arguments. May not a child perceive, that if the gift of the SjiU'it is spoken of, both as a pouring and a shedding forth, the likeness in the figure cannot be in mode, as the same motion cannot r 408 KEPLY TO MR. HALL. have two modes ? Shall I never be able to teach my opponents, that whenever mode is ascribed to the Spirit, the phraseology is accom- modated to the emblem — instead of mode being employed as an emblem ? Speaking with respect to pouring, sprinkling, &c., he says : " I cannot but wonder that those who insist so much upon the words, ' buried with him in baptism,' are not able to see in these also an equal authority for proper modes of baptism." A very little penetration would entirely relieve the patient from this malady. His wonder, as in most instances, wordd cease, with a httle more knowledge. Baptists cannot but see immersion in the phrases ^'■buried in baptism,'' and " buried by baptism;" because beUevers cannot be buried in baptism without being immersed in the water of baptism. They cannot see a mode of baptism in sprinkling, pouring, shedding forth, falling as rain, and because none of these are ever called baptism. Cannot Mr. H. see, that if pouring and sprinkling are both apphed to the gift of the Spirit, without implying that they are the same mode, immersion may likewise be apphed to the same gift, while it is a mode different from both ? Section YI. — Mr. H. thinks it strange that Baptists dwell so much on the much water at Enon, while they find enough in Jerusalem to baptize three thousand converts in a small part of one day. Here he thinks he has shiit us up in a dilemma, from which there is no escape. We must either give up a sufficiency of water in Jerusalem, or we must set no value on the abundance of it in Enon. But a httle discrimination would have prevented this observation. There is not the shghtest inconsistency in our sentiments on this subject. The writer assumes that we think that John the Baptist declined Jerusalem for want of water. This is not the fact : he chose the wilderness for other reasons, and in the wilderness he chose the place most fit for his purpose of baptism. Had there been a lake at Jerusalem, John would have chosen the wilderness as the station of his labours. He thinks it strange, also, that if the much water in Enon was necessary for the purpose of baptism, we never hear a complaint about the want of water with the apostles. The apostles, however, did not confine themselves to the wilderness; and, wherever they went, they could find as much water as would immerse their converts. For the multitudes baptized by John at the same place, mtich water was necessary ; no such thing was necessary for the immersion of a few. Much water, he says, was necessary for siipplying John's hearers with druik, as he wrought no miracle. Our Lord had as great crowds to hear him, yet he did not supply them mfraculously with di'ink. John is not said to have preached at Enon, because there was much water there. Not only is the drink apocryphal, but the use of the water is expressly stated. He baptized at Enon, because there Avas much water. It is also stated, that it was to be baptized the people went. He quotes from traveUers an account of the destitution of water in the Avilderness of Judea. Well, was not this the very reason why John bap- tized in Enon ? He could have sprinkled any where. He thinks it might be necessary for purification. But there is no purification in REPLY TO MR. HALL. 409 the narrative. Perhaps it was for swimming, or sailing, that the much water was necessary. Is there no end to extravagance ? But for purifi- cation it could not be necessary, as they need not delay a moment after baptism. The Spirit of God assigns the use of the much water ; dare arrogant mortals give another and a different use ? Section VII. — With respect to our Lord's baptism, Mr. H. tells us, that " the original language here is such as can have no reference to emerging from under water." He alleges a concession of mine with respect to the preposition apo ; but he does not, it seems, imderstand the criticism. Apo commences its motion /?'om the object: the edge of the object, then, is a fulfilment of its meaning. But it is obvious that it may commence in any part of the object, while its commencement is still equally from the object. Accordingly, it is frequently used when the motion commences within the object : but for the reason alleged, it cannot definitely express this. To express this definitely, ek is necessary. But to say, with Mr. H., that the Greek language forbids the idea of emerging from imder water, is unwarranted by the use of the word. It does not decisively express that idea, but it may be used when the motion commenced in any point of the water. As to the verb, I suppose Mr. H. rests on the authority of Professor Stuart, of Andover. But I tell both these gentlemen, that the verb does not forbid emersion. On the contrary, the verb, compounded wdth kata, is used by ^sop as signifying to dive. When Mercury, compassionating the woodman who let his axe di-op into the river, dived three times, one of the dips was by kataduo^ and the other two by katabas. Anabas, then, would be the exact word for emerging, corresponding to the word that expresses the diving. I will tell Mr. H. another secret. Justin Martyr uses the word anaduntos (emerging) instead of anabainontos. in relating this transaction. Did not Justin know, as well as Mr. H., what is consistent with the original language? We have Justin's authority, that this account of the evangelist refers to the immersion and emersion of Jesus. He understood the passage as asserting that the Spirit of God descended on Jesus as he emerged from the water ; and he uses the very preposition apo., which Mr. H. represents as precluding the idea of emersion. After all, I freely admit that the phrase itself is not decisive. It would be amply verified if the motion commenced at the edge of the water. Instead of being a partizan to force evidence, it Avill ever be my piu'pose to represent evidence as in the sight of God. Let my opponents take this concession also. I am too strong in truth, to be afraid of conceding anything that truth requires. But is it not absurd to ground anything here on the difference between apo and ek, when we have ek in tlie case of the eunuch ? He alleges that the phrase, coming up out of the water, " does not necessarily imply that one has been under water." Very true ; but if persons are represented as going into water for the performance of a certain rite, there must be something in the nature of the rite tliat obliges them to go there, in order to perform the rite. Perverseness 410 REPLY TO MR. HALL. may cavil, but no fair answer can ever be given to this. If the answer usually given can satisfy any conscience, I do not envy that conscience. Section VIII. — Mr. H. thinks that Jesus was baptized as a priest, and, therefore, that he was purified by sprinkhng. He was not baptized as a priest. This is extravagantly absurd. 1. John's baptism did not belong to the old dispensation. It made no distinction between priests and the rest of the Jews. 2. Jesus could not be baptized as a priest, because he was not of the priesthood to which the Levitical ceremonies belonged: these belonged only to the priesthood of the tribe of Levi and of the house of Aaron. 3. Had he been consecrated as a Levitical priest, all the ceremonies of consecration would have been employed as well as sprinkling. 4. John had nothing to do "with the consecration of priests, 5. It was the baptism that others received from John to which Jesus submitted. 6. Justin Martyr had a better ^'iew of the necessity of baptism with respect to Jesus. He was not baptized, he said, for his own sins, but for the sins of the human race, which had fallen vinder death by the seduction of the serpent. There was in Christ's immersion the same figure as in that of his people. They are cleared of sin by feUoAVship with him in his death, which is figured in their burial with him by baptism. He took their sins oif them, and cancelled them by his death : the blood of his death washed them away. His own baptism, then, had as much propriety in the figure as the baptism of his people. Section IX. — Mr. H., as well as Dr. Miller, adopts the silly evasion, with respect to Phihp and the eunuch going into the water, which alleges that it equally proves that they were both immersed, if it proves that either of them was immersed. He entirely mistakes the argument. No man reasons so foolishly as to assert that every one who is in water must be totally immersed. The argument is, that nothing but the necessity of immersion, as to one of them, could take them both into the water. Indeed, what can be the use of telling us that they went into the water, if it is not for our instruction ? He tells us, that it is not certain " that they went farther than to the river." What ! Not certain that they went into the river ? How, then, could they come out of it ? If I have admitted this as to apo, I have not admitted it as to ek. He gives us a number of passages in which eis, the preposition signifying into, signifies unto. This is no news to us ; it needed no proof. Our proof is independent of this. "Who will prove to me," says Mr. H., "that the stream was a foot deep?" If he means proof independent of the passage, there is no need of such proof. A controversialist that knows his biisiness will never attempt this ; nor will he demand it. The proof is, that Phihp and the eunuch went into it in order to the performance of the rite, and nothing but immersion could make it necessary to go into the water. If the baptism was an immersion, I suppose that it may be taken for granted that the water was deep enough for immersion. Had poui'ing or sprink- ling been used, they would neither of them have gone into the water. REPLY TO Mil. HALL. 411 " Wlao," says Mr. H., "-will prove it a stream at all?" Wisdom will never undertake the proof — -wisdom will never ask the question. Whether it was a fountain or a pond, a river or a lake, makes no differ- ence. Could any fact in history afford proof on such a principle ? Indeed, had there been no mention of water, and had it been in a desert, the word baptize proves that there must have been water for immersion. WTiat folly is it, then, when the water is mentioned, to demand proof that it was a stream! " Wlio will prove," he asks, " the quantity of water there was siiffi- cient to render an immersion possible ?" If they went into the water for the purpose of performing the ordinance, pouring or sprhiMing a little water could not have been the thing performed. If, then, immer- sion is the only thing that will give a reason for their going into the water, there is proof that the water was deep enough for immersion. " If it was," he continues, " who will prove that the eunuch was im- mersed ?" The passage proves it. He was the person baptized, and to perform the baptism they went into the water. Mr. H. thinks that there is some probabihty in favour of sprinkling on this occasion. Philip expounded the chapter of the prophecy which the eunuch was reading: in that cha^oter there is something about sprinkling : this would naturally bring on a conversation about baptism, which is sprinkling, &c. &c. Am I to refute dreams and visions ? But the dream, like other dreams, is inconsistent. It supposes that sprinMing is the meaning of the word baptism, which is inconsistent mth the author's theory. He gives it a general meaning, though I caimot dis- cover exactly what that general meaning is. Whatever it is, it must include all modes, and therefore it cannot be modal at all. Here he makes it one precise mode. Section X. — With respect to Eom. vi. 1, and Col. ii. 12, he says, " There is just as much reason to argue fi'om them that believers are literally pnt to death in baptism, as that they are literally bui'ied under water in baptism." To this I reply, that they are literally immersed, but the burial is equally figurative as the death ; and they die in baptism as well as they are buried in baptism. Indeed, it is by being buried that they die. That this figurative burial is under loater is not in the passage : this is known fi'om the rite, and is here suppHed by ellipsis. " They are planted together," says the author, " in the likeness (not of his grave or biu-ial) but in the likeness of his death." This is ex- quisite criticism. He here confounds burying and planting. Axq not these two different things, and have we not here two figures ? Believers are said to be buried with Christ by baptism, and to be planted with him in the Hkeness of his death. The burying and the planting both refer to baptism, but they are not the same figiu'e, but exhibit the object in a different point of view. " If," says Mr. H., " we are to infer the mode of baptism from these figures, the evidence is strongest for drawing a resemblance for the mode of baptism from hanging on the cross, for that was the mode of his dying; and the passage says, we are crucified with him." How extra- 412 REPLY TO MR. HALL. vagantly absurd is tliis ! We are, indeed, said to be crucified with Christ, but are we said to be crucified in baptism? But we are said to be buried in baptism. Besides, crucrfixion is still a different thing from both planting and burial. Does he expect the same Ukeness in all ? Are we said to be crucified in baptism in the hkeness of Christ's death ? There is no criticism in these observations. " The argument," says the Avriter, "is, "We are dead with Christ, and we must no more live to sin than a dead body must hve." I am not sure that I understand this commentary. ^Vhat is meant by the phrase, " than a dead body must live ?" - I suppose, by the phrase, must not live to sin, he means the duty of not Hving to sin. But in the contrast he cannot mean the duty of a dead body. A dead body cannot live ; the contrast, then, would be that behevers cannot hve in sin more than a dead body can live. This supposes that the security against being in sin is the total extinction of sin in the Christian. I do not understand this theology. " We are dead," says Mr. H., " and more — we are buried; as we often say, to express strongly the fact that a person has ceased from living, He is dead and buried." But, Mr. H., this is not the apostle's phrase- ology; he does not say that behevers are dead and biu'ied, but that they are buried into death, and that bruial into death is in and by baptism. Behevers are not merely said to be dead and buried, but to die and to be buried in baptism. They are buried by baptism into death. TAvist and twist as you ■will, still there is burial in baptism. There must be something in baptism to emblematize death and burial ; no sophistry can evade this. " The burying," says he, " is the conckisive token of his being dead." But, I ask, how is the token found in baptism, if it is not in its mode ? There is no token of death in pouring or sprinkling. " So," continues IMr. H., " the baptism is a token — not of the burying — but of the death." Why does he so directly contradict the apostle ? Does not Paul expressly say, that we are buried in baptism and by baptism, which necessarily imports that there is a burial in baptism ? But how is baptism a token of death, if there is no figurative death in baptism ? How is baptism a token of death, but by its being a burial ? The death here spoken of takes place in the burial. Behevers are buried into death. It is not, they die and are buried, but, they are buried and die. " It is not," says ]\ir. H., " the mode of the baptism that is referred to, but the effect of the baptism." "\^'Tiat! the mode of baptism not referred to in the plirase, buried in baptism! Can there be any figurative burial, without something to represent the body as buried ? But what is the effect of baptism ? INIr. H., as plainly as Dr. Pusey could do, tells us that it is the crucifixion of the old man. No wonder that this leprosy of Oxford has spread so "widely in the Church of England. But INIi'. H., it is not the effect of baptism, whatever that effect may be supposed to be, that is here referred to. Our old man is indeed here said to be crucified with Christ, but not in baptism. There is in baptism no crucifixion. The argument which we draw from 1 Cor. x. 1, and 1 Pet. iii. 21, Mr. H. understands to be rested on the quantity of water in the Red REPLY TO MR. HALL. 413 Sea, and in the deluge. I can see neither vnt nor refiitation in this. He knows well, what we have said on these passages. But he tells us, that the eight souls " were in the ark, and neither biu-ied nor immersed." What could be a more expressive burial in water than to be in the ark, when it was floating ? As well might it be said that a person is not buried in earth, when Ijdng in his coffin covered ^vith earth. May not persons in a ship be said figuratively to be bimed in the sea ? They who were in the ark were deeply immersed. " Moses," Mr. H. tells us, " walked on dry ground." Yes, and he got a dry dip. And could not a person, Hterally covered with oil-cloth, get a dry immersion in water ? Are not the Israelites said to go into the sea ? Was it sea were they walked ? It is called sea on a principle similar to that on which it is called baptism. Mr. H.'s charge of failure in making out an immersion in the case of the ark, and of the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, shows a total inattention to the processes of thought in language. " Few, few shall part where many meet; The snow shall he their winding sheet ; And every turf beneath their feet Shall be a soldier's sepulchre." Would any Goth object that the snow cannot be a winding sheet, because it does not wind round the whole body of the dying soldier ? As the soldier, says the critic, was imcovered above, the snow cannot be his winding sheet. And is he not a Goth, who says that the Israelites could not be buried or immersed in the sea, because they were not covered with the water ? But our critic must proceed. As the soldier lies on the turf without any covering from it, it cannot be said to be the soldier's sepulchre. Wliat sort of criticism is this ? " Look into my face, dear cousin," said one pitted by the small-pox, " and tell me, are there not pit-holes deep enough to bury a million of Cupids?" The critic replies, with triumph, " However deep the pits may be, no one can be buried in them, seeing they are open at top." This is the very criticism of our opponents. If Mr. H. is unreasonably obstinate in not finding an immersion here, he makes ample amends by his faciUty in finding S2:)ray for sprinkling. / But not only is the spray a creation of the imagination, it is a creation unsuitable to the occasion. It would have been an annoyance ; and the wind that blew the water from them could not blow the spray on them. Yes, and the very tempest that God sent on their enemies for their de- struction, Mr. H. employs for the baptism of the host of Israel, Psalm Ixxvii. On the Israelites there was neither spray, nor rain, nor storm. Will Mr. H. say, what is the baptism of the Red Sea ? Mr. H. comes next to the consideration of a number of passages in which he alleges that we are compelled to take the labouring oar, and render that certain or probable, which in the face of it seems impossible. Here, Mr. H. manifests that he has insiifficient skill in the ftmdamental laws of controversy. I tell him, that in these instances, proof does not lie on us : we are not bound to prove, independently of the word, that 414 REPLY TO MR. HALL. tliere was a sufficiency of water in any of tlie situations referred to. If we have proved the meaning of the word, the word commands the water, in opposition to any number of improbabilities. The proof of impossi- bility Hes on him. Go, then, Mr. H., and study the princijoles of reason- ing. You should know when it is youi' duty to prove, and when you have the privilege of caUing on your antagonist to prove. I tell Mr. H. that I can immerse the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, without the assistance of the brook Kedron, or any proof from history. I will not take the trouble even to gauge the ponds and reservoirs in Jerusalem. There may have been many conveniences on that occasion in Jerusalem, of Avhich we can know nothing. This is enough for me, had it been situated in a desert. I have been formerly too good-natured in making faith easy to my opponents, by putting the water before their eyes: I shall, henceforth, obhge them to go and look for it. " NoAv," says Mr. H., " what do those who make John take Jerusalem and Judea out to Enon, to immerse them, because there is much water there ? All at once, and very conveniently, there are discovered a number of reservoirs and hathsT Here, surely, he has got us into a net ; but it is a weak fish that cannot break the meshes of this net. The author foimds on a false assumption : he assumes that John avoided Jerusalem for want of a sufficiency of water. This is not the fact. Had there been a lake in Jerusalem, John would have chosen the wilderness ; and in the wilderness he chose the place most convenient for the immersion of great multitudes. If we refer to the number of reservoirs, and baths, and pools in Jerusalem, it is out of compassion for the weak- ness of oiu" opponents. In a city where puiifications by bathing were every day so numerous, -with respect to both rich and poor, there could be no want of conveniencies for immersion. But I care not if there were not in proof a single pool in the city: I will force water out of the word, as used in the ordinance, although there is no water in the word itself. But " a simple mathematical calculation," says Mr. H., " Avill show that the eleven apostles could hardly have immersed three thousand persons in so short a time." Here again Mr. H. grounds on a false assumption. He assumes that none but the apostles baptized. Where is this taught ? I promise, in the name of Dr. Pusey, to offer him a premium if he will prove this. What a great evil is siiperstition ! To make anything necessary in religion, that God has not commanded, is to lay a foimdation for Babylon the Great. IVIr. H. thinks he has here the certainty of mathematical calculation, when his reasoning is fomided on his siTperstition. Next comes the jailor. ]\Ir. H. thinks that he makes out a strong- point of inconsistency on oiu- part, when he observes that we find means of immersion even in a prison, wliile we are obliged to send John to Jordan and Enon. But I have shown that the appearance of inconsist- ency here, is in the false conceptions of those who allege it. We did not send John out of Jerusalem for want of water: he chose the wilderness as the theatre of his labours, and chose siich places in it as suited the REPLY TO MR. HALL. 415 immersion of siich multitudes as came to his baptism. Does this imply- that water may not be found in any inhabited part of the country suffi- cient to baptize individuals ? Shame to common sense if it stumble here ! He tells us with an air of triimiph, that there is not a " scrap of evidence in the history, to show that an immersion was possible." Here, again, I arraign my antagonist as ignorant of his duty as a controversialist. He comes into the arena, without a knowledge of the laws of the tournament. He calls on us for proof, when proof lies on himself. We are bound to prove the meaning of the word. If an objector alleges the inapphcability of such a meaning in any case, he is bound to prove that it is inappHcable. An unproved objection, is no objection. Is there in the passage any proof of the possibiUty even of sprinkling ? It may be alleged that there is no need of this. I admit the truth of this; but this shows us that there is no need of proof from the passage, that the thing asserted was possible. That it was possible, is assumed in the word, whatever the word may signify. If we read that a sportsman was drowned in crossing a certain district, are we obliged to prove the existence of a river or pond, before we know the meaning of the word drowned'? Were we even certain that in that district, there was not as much water as would cover him, we should discredit the report, but never question the meaning of the word. The meaning of no word could, in every instance, be proved, if it is not lawful, in cases in which context does not decide, to rest on previous proof: the meaning of no word could in any case be proved, if it is necessary, in every case, to prove the possibility of the alleged meaning by historical evidence. The confidence of our opponents rests entirely on the assumption of false principles. Instead of thinking myself obHged to prove the existence of a bath in the jailor's house of Philippi, or the possibility of going to. the Strymon, I utterly refuse to be called on for proof. I prove the possibility of immersion, by the fact that there was an immersion. Mr. H. thinks he finds an inconsistency in us in flying from the bath to the river. Here, again, he has demonstration. " Now," says he, " this is to give up the baptism in a bath within the prison ; for I take it as a point not to be debated, that he was not baptized both iri the prison and out of it, in one and the same baptism." This has, to superficial thinkers, an appearance of acuteness, but it really manifests a Avant of discernment. In holding the possibility of an immersion, both in the jail and in the river, are we bound to hold that it was actually per- formed in both ? Can any intellect make such an assertion ? We might prove the probabihty of immersion in a third different place, while we believe that it actually takes place only in one. I beUeve that the passage affords evidence that the immersion takes place without, yet I shall strenuously contend for the possibility of immersion in the jail. With respect to Patd's baptism, Mi\ H. asks, " What pretence for a bath in the chamber ?" What pretence, I reply, for denying the pos- sibility of a bath in this chamber ? And a possibility is all I want, to enable me to work the miracle. I ask in return, what is the necessity 416 REPLY TO MR. HALL. of confining the baptism to this chamber ? Vfhere did you learn that they did not go to another chamber ? Where did jow learn that they did not go out of the house altogether ? Where or how the immersion was performed, I neither know nor care. All I know is, and that I thoroughly know, Paul was immersed; for the word tells me this. Will my opponents learn when they are to jDrove, and when they may demand proof? But I refuse to give proof, though I have proof. Paul was bathed in baptism, therefore he was immersed. In Judea, where the law forced them so often into the water, baths must have been as common as ovens in Enghsh farm-houses. In the accoimt of the baptism of Cornelius, Mr. H. thinks that the idea of Peter " seems to be, not that they might be carried and applied to the water, but that water might be brought and applied to them." Whether they were to go to the water, or the water was to be brought to them, is not in evidence from the document. And the water might have been brought for immersion as well as sprinkhng, even had it been implied that the water was brought. " The Spirit's mode of baptism," he tells us, " was by falling upon." The Spirit is indeed said to fall upon them, but that falling is not called baptism. There is no mode in the operation of the Spirit. Whether the Spirit is said to fall on per- sons, or to be poured on them, or they are said to be immersed in the Spirit, there is no mode in the working of the Spirit. " That immersion," says Mr. H., " was early and extensively prac- tised is certain. That it was not considered essential is also certain." It is true that very early in cases of necessity, pouring water around persons on a sick bed, was admitted a substitute for immersion; but it is not true that they called the substitute by the name of baptism. Now it is only with the meaning of the word in the writings of the earliest fathers that we have any concern. Their opinion as to the effect of baptism, or as a substitute, I despise as much as I do the opinions of Dr. Pusey. The following extract he quotes from the Eev. William T. Hamilton: " For any one to assume that one mode only was employed, and then demand that all should comply with that mode, while they can produce neither express command nor an imdeniable example of baptism by immersion in the Bible, is rather a bold stand to take, especially for those who insist that in a positive ordinance, the law of the ordinance must be our guide." Who is it, Mr. Wm. T. Hamilton, that assumes this ? Did any Bap- tist ever ground the meaning of the word on assumption ? The Rev. Wm. T. Hamilton may dispute their proofs, and has a right to express his opinion of the sufficiency of their proofs ; but he should know that to allege insufficient proof, is not to assume the point at issue. This writer appears to have a loose random way of speaking ; and perhaps he has not asked himself what he means by the charge of assumption. If he really understood Avhat he was saying, can there be a greater mis- representation of Baptists than to charge them as assuming that there is but one mode of this ordinance ; and on the ground of this mere assump- tion, calling on aU Christians to comply with it ? Do they not pretend HEPLY TO MR. HALL. 417 express command and example ? If the command is not proved, and the example not satisfactory, let this be shown; biit let them not be represented as gronnding on assimiption, and forcing their assumption on their neighbours. Section XI. — ]\Ir. Hall asserts that Justin " uses such language as renders it certain that he by no means considered immersion essential, and such as renders it doubtful Avhether he meant immersion at all." Justin uses the word in the sense of immersion, whenever he does use it — never in any other sense. Mr. H. tells us that in writing to the Emperor, Justin " invariably describes the baptism, and does not iise the word baptism at all." Well, if this were so, how can his use of the word prove that he did not consider immersion essential ? If in a certain case he did not use the word at all, how can the word in that case prove that he used it in a certain meaning ? Very true, in writing to the Emperor, Jiistin describes the ordinance, withoiit using the word: but that description, so far from being inconsistent Avith immersion, adds to the proof of immersion: it proves it by other words. Is not this necessarily impHed in the fact that the candidates for baptism were led to a place where there was water ? Is it not necessarily implied in the assertion that they were there horn again in that ordinance ? Is not this a reference to their issuing out of the water of baptism ? Another of Mr. H.'s proofs is, that Justin applies louo and loutron to the ordinance. I maintain that this is proof of immersion. These words apply to the bathing of the whole person. Wlien Mr. H. speaks of louo as signifying ivashing in general, he speaks not in knowledge. Baptism is represented by Justin as a lathing of the body. Yet I teU. Mr. Hall, that though louo is applied to the same ordinance as baptizo, the words are by no means synonymous. I have given a thousand proofs of this. The author's own quotation from Cyprian, might show him that even that Father, who makes perfusion a valid substitute for baptism in case of necessity, does not consider perfusion to be baptism. " Perfusion," says he, " is of hke value with the salutary bath." Does not this import that perfiision is not the same thing as the salutary bath ? Per- fusion, then, is not baptism, in the estimation of this Father, although he made it serve the same purpose. Mr. H. qiiotes the case of the Jew, who, falling sick wliile travelling with Christians, was sprinkled with sand, for want of water. Yes ; and if this is proof that sprinkling wiU serve for immersion, it equally proves that sand will serve for water. This trash -will find no piu-chasers except the Puseyites. Section XH. — Mr. H. inquires, " On the supposition that the early disciples always baptized by immersion, is there evidence that they con- sidered that mode essential ? " To this I reply: 1. This supposition is not fully and fairly stated. It ought to be included in the supposition that the Avord in the command 2 E 418 REPLY TO MR. HALL. signifies to immerse. K we are right as to the meaning of the word, the thing commanded is in all ages the same. 2. Even on the defective supposition stated, the answer must be in the affirmative. If they who practised according to the command of the apostles, always observed the ordinance in one mode, while several other modes were practicable and were much more easily observed, it is evident that the mode cannot be indifferent. Besides, the apostle Paul fiilly teaches this : " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I dehvered them imto you." Even the covering and imcovering of the head in public worship, and the wearing of short or long hair, are things thought worthy of Divine regulation. Should any be contentious with respect to the forbidden practices, it was deemed a sufficient answer, that " neither the apostles nor the churches had any such custom." This estabhshes the customs of the apostoUcal churches as firmly as if all those customs were in all the formahty of an act of parhament. 3. Mr. H.'s supposed case in answer to his question is not parallel to the case put by himself. The case put is example ; the case in illus- tration is command. " Suppose," says he, " the command had been, ' Let every believer go down to Jericho.'' Suppose that the Saviour and his early disciples all went by one particular way, and always rode on ass colts, must we always go in that road ?" &c. To this I reply : The way by which they are to go to Jericho not being included in the command, can never by any example be brought into it. To go to Jericho in any way to the end of the world, is a perfect fulfil- ment of the command. K they always go to Jericho by one way, while that way is fifty times as long as others, it cannot be without design. But this has no bearing on the question at issue. The command is to immerse, and immersion must ever continue to be obedience to the command. As they always actually immersed, it shows that they understood the command as an immersion. To make the supposed case in point, the command should be to go to Jericho, while it is obeyed by going to Damascus. This is the principle on which our opponents act. They justify a change of the mode on the principle of expediency. Section XIEI. — " The thing is commanded," says j\Ir. H., " the mode is not commanded." I have proved a thousand times that mode is the very thing directly commanded. But what is the meaning of the com- mand, according to Mr. H. ? I can understand those who say that the word in this command signifies neither to pour, nor to sprinkle, nor to immerse, but that it signifies to purify^ and may be fulfilled in any mode. This is bolder extravagance than that of Mr. H., but it is consistent extravagance : I cannot find that Mr. H. has any definite idea as to the meaning of the word in the command. It is with him sometimes one thing and sometimes another, as it suits the occasion. Here it is pouring — ^there it is sprinkling ; while on some occasions he appears to favour the supposition that it signifies to purify. These REPLY TO MR. UALL. 419 views are perfectly inconsistent. If it is pour, it cannot be sprinkle: if it is either, it cannot be purify ; if it is pui-iiy, it cannot be mode at all. Mr. H. illustrates, by six examples in a note, -vvith respect to tlie Lord's supper, none of which have any application to the subject. It teas at night. This fact has no feature of an example. Every fact is not an example. When a thing could not be otherwise, it cannot be an example. But it does not even suit the case put by him. Does not the case put suppose universal practice ? Is not this a sohtary fact, evidently without an intention of being an example ? I need not waste time by running over the six examples: they are all of the same stamp. " So here," says Mi-. H., " we are to be baptized, and simply bap- tized." Certainly: but what is this to the purpose of the argument alleging universal practice as an insufficient proof? AU we want is, that our opponents should comply -with the command. " But I have shown," says he, " that the words baptized and baptism were in common use among the Jews of that time to denote ritual purification by sprinkling or pouring." Yoii have sho-^vn no such thing , Mr. H. : but had you shown it, what has this to do with universal practice ? This extract shows that the author has no definite view of the meaning of the word. Had he understood and adopted the theory that makes the word signify to purify, he would not have spoken of proof with respect to sprinkle or pour. AU modes on that supposition ai'e indifferent. When he speaks as if the word designates both piirification and different modes, he speaks most unphilosophically. On the subject of the variety of baptism, under different modes, Mr. IT. tells iis, with respect to the difference between John's baptism and that of our Lord, " Here were two baptisms, while dotibtless there was but one mode." Thank, you, Mr. HaU, I never could get an antagonist to confess this honestly on Ileb. ix. 10. There may then be divers haptisins ; while doubtless there is in them all but one mode. But though there may be two or more baptisms . n one mode, this does not prove that there may be two or more modes in one baptism. In another pubHcation, Mr. H. asserts, with respect to my views of Mark vii. 4, that I see and feel the difficulties. There is no truth in the assertion; I neither feel a difficulty in the passage, nor see one. I beheve God on his own testimony, without the shghtest msh for other proof to confirm his statement. His testimony I cannot but understand in the sense of the language which he employs. Instead of feeling diffi- culty, I am more inchned to feel contempt for the understanding that hesitates in beUeving the fact without the co-operation of uninspired history. This lays down, as a first principle, that nothing in Scriptxure is to be received, but what is proved by the history of the times. This is a false axiom : this is not essential even to uninspired history. If a modern traveller relates that a certain nation immerses before meat after market, we shall not think of giving a meaning to the word immerses, to suit our view of probabihty. As some who make the word signify immersion, imderstand this passage of the immersing of the hands, Mr. H. thinks he makes us 2 E 2 420 REPLY TO MB. HALL. destroy each other. Now this is a species of argument which has its use, and if well used it is very powerful. Baptists have often used it with great success against their opponents. But the ground of it is not well iinderstood, and Mr. H. entirely mistakes it. I shall not, however, at present enter into the subject, farther than the refutation of the writer in the present instance demands. Let us see, then, with what skill Mr. H. wields this sharp and powerful weapon. It is the sword of Goliath, but with ]Mi\ H. it is in the hands of an infant : he is not able to raise it above his head. The fact on which he grounds is, that while I contend for a total immersion before dinner; others, on the same side, are satisfied with immersing their hands. How do we destroy each other ? With respect to the subject at issue we never clash. The same common truth as to the mode of baptism equally stands, whichever of us is correct as to the baptism of the Jews. We differ only about the extent of a certain Jewish baptism. As to the mode, there is no differ- ence between us ; and mode is the point at issue, and is the only thing signified by the word itself. On the meaning of the word there is no difierence between me and Dr. George Campbell, whom, as to the extent of the baptism, I refute. Whether, according to him, the hands only were immersed, or, according to me, the whole body, the word itself does not testify ; this must be decided by connexion. In the same way he makes us strangle one another on Eom. vi. 1. Some Baptists, it seems, do not perceive the force of the argument which others ground on this passage. Well, is this a difierence as to the meaning of the word ? At the very worst, it is only the loss of a single argument — an argument, however, which I would hold, were an angel to reject it. Must a cause fall, if aU its supporters do not support it with all the same arguments ? In like manner many Baptists contend strongly that Acts xix. does not prove that they who are spoken of as baptized into John's baptism, were on that occasion baptized into Christ, while I admit this withoiit hesitation ; — what then ? Has this anythiug to do with the mode of baptism ? With respect to the points at issiie, namely, the mode and subjects of baptism, there is no difference between Baptists; and these are the only essential points of unity on this question. But we can bring the charge home to our opponents with tremendous effect. Their differ- ences are such, that they reaUy destroy each other. I have no time at present to pursue the subject, but it has been done by many. The different grounds on which a deviation from immersion is defended, effectually destroy each other. K it is pour, it cannot be sprinkle; if it is purify, it can be neither. The different grounds of infant baptism in like manner destroy each other. If the baptism of the one is truth, the other is falsehood. CHAPTER IX. REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO'S WORK, ENTITLED "MODERN IMMERSION," &c. Section I. — In reference to my denial that in Heb. ix. 10, the divers baptisms include sprinklings, Mr. Munro exclaims, " WMch are we to adopt, — Mr. Carson's bold denial, or the apostle's expHcit affirmation ?" The apostle's expHcit affirmation ! Does the apostle expHcitly affirm what I deny ? Does he, in the 13th verse, affirm that sprinkhngs are included in the baptisms of the 10th verse ? The man who takes this for proof, need never want proof for anything which he chooses to assert. Mr. M. denies as exphcitly as I do that the word in question signifies washing, or sprinkling, or pouring, or purifying ; but in all his work I cannot find that he gives it any meaning at aU. He tells us, that it is applied to designate a sprinkling ordinance; but its own meaning he leaves in mystery. Surely, if it was appHed to designate an ordinance, it must have had a meaning in the language which fitted it for such a designation. Of all that I have found advanced with respect to this word, this is the most irrational. Section IT. — Mr. M.'s exploits at the Eed Sea surpass every thing attempted by his predecessors. It seems, the Red Sea had no concern with the baptism spoken of 1 Cor. x. 2. The baptism took place at Mount Sinai, after the giving of the law. This extravagance is so extravagant that I am convinced it needs no refutation -with respect to psedo-baptists themselves. That the people of Israel were baptized in the sea, is the explicit assertion of the Holy Spirit. Could sobriety of judgment assert that what is described Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8 is the baptism of 1 Cor. X. 2 ? Wliat must be the strength of evidence on our side, when men are driven to suppositions so extravagant, to explanations so forced, in order to evade it ! Ought not this to rouse psedo-baptists to inquiry ? Can it be truth that requires such a defence ? The baptism 1 Cor. x. 2, Mr. M. alleges, cannot have taken place on passing the sea, because no part of the covenant had been pubhshed at that time. What had the covenant to do with the baptism ? In reference to Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8, Mr. Munro says, that " Moses sprinkled, baptized, or piu-ified the altar." Where is it said that he 433 REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO's WORK. baptized the altar ? and why does he assume that sprinkling is baptizing ? Is there any reasoning in this ? He tells us also, that " with that half of the blood which Moses had put in basins for the purpose, he baptized the great congregation." Where is this called a baptism ? Is not this an assumption of the point in debate ? Not one of the sprinklings, which this writer calls baptisms is ever so designated in Scripture. A thousand folio volumes of such reasoning could not produce the smallest degree of evidence to a rational mind. We are told by this writer, that " the baptisms and the washings included in the law were perfectly distinct ordinances." What he calls baptisms are, no doubt, perfectly distinct from the washings. But what he calls baptisms are never so called in Scripture. All he advances, then, on this head, is without reference to the point, till he proves that the sprinkhngs are called baptisms. In replying to the argument, that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured out, and therefore to represent the pouring out of the Spirit, baptism must be pouring, I used very strong language. I still adhere to my argument in the strongest language in which it can be expressed. No man of common sense will ever call it in question: it is self-evident. On this point, I have satisfied all rational psedo-baptists. It requires nothing but to point out the fallacy. My argument is, that, as there CAN BE NO MODE IN THE OPERATIONS OP THE SpIRIT, SO NO MODE IN ANY ORDINANCE CAN BE AN EMBLEM OF MODE IN THE SPIRIT ; AND THAT WHEN MODE IS ASCRIBED TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE SpIRIT, IT IS IN ACCOMMODATION TO THE EMBLEM ^NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE THING SIGNIFIED. Accord- ingly, different modes, and all the modes of the emblem, are ascribed to the work of the Spirit, which imphes that none of them can be intended to represent mode in the thing expressed. In Uke manner I disposed of sprinlding as an emblem of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. It cannot be an emblem of this, because the blood of Christ is not literally sprinkled on the behever ; it is said to be sprinkled in reference to its emblem, the blood of the sacrifices. With all sober men this point raust be settled for ever. All the language of Scripture referred to by this writer, ascribing mode to the Holy Spirit, is suited merely to the emblem. Mr. M. disclaims the imputation of holding that the Spirit is literally poured out. This is aU I want to prove that pouring in baptism can- not be an emblem of mode in the operations of the Spirit. If there is no mode in the work of the Spirit, there can be no emblem of mode. No axiom is clearer than this. To hold that mode in baptism is em- blematical as to the operations of the Spirit, necessarily makes the Godhead material. I care not whether my opponents avow or disclaim the imputation ; it is necessarily contained in their doctrine. But what does the author mean when he says, that " sprinkhng or pouring is the only mode which can properly represent the thing signified ?" Does not this avow the very thing he disclaims ? Does not this imply that there is mode in the thing signified which can be represented by a certain mode in the emblem, and properly by that mode only ? If there is no REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO's WORK. 423 mode in the thing signified, how can pouring and sprinkling, as modes, be necessary to represent it ? He tells us, that " in Scripture language sprinkling and pouring are terms of the same import." Neither in Scripture nor any where else are the terms of the same import: they express modes essentially dif- ferent— as diiFerent as either of them is from immersion. But it is idle to reason with persons who can make such assertions. Mr. M. alleges, that any " definition of the baptism of the Spirit sup- poses the subject to be put into the Spirit; whereas the Spirit is invariably represented as poured out, so as to be put into them." I give no definition of the baptism of the Spirit ; I merely explain the figura- tive expression. The fact that the Spirit, in allusion to its emblem, is spoken of tmder other modes, does not prevent the apphcation of the mode of immersion. Pouring, and sprinkling, and distilling, and im- mersing, &c., may all be appHcable, because they are all suited to the emblem, and mode in the thing signified is not designed to be represented. He says, also, that I confound the baptism of the Spirit with the effects of it. To this I reply in Uke manner, that I do not define the baptism of the Spirit, but explain the expression as a figiu-e. Mr. M. is persuaded that Rom. vi. 3, refers to the baptism of the Spirit, and not to water baptism. Baptism into Christ, he says, cannot be done with hands. As well might he say that Ananias did not speak of water baptism in addressing Paul, because he calls on Paul to wash away his sins. As well might he say that Peter does not refer to water baptism, becauses he says that it saves us. This conceit is perfectly groundless. When the disciples at Ephesus declared that they had not heard of the Holy Ghost, Paul asked them, " Into what then were ye baptized ?" This impHes that water baptism is baptism into the Spirit. He groimds another argument on the parallel passage. Col. ii. 12. As their circumcision was not Uteral, he tliinks their baptism could not be literal. But there is no force in this argiunent : they might be said to be spiritually circumcised, while they are said also to be HteraUy baptized. The same persons might be said to be both literally and spiritually circumcised. Why, then, may they not be said to be spirit- ually circumcised, and hteraUy baptized ? The baptism here must be literal, because in no other is there a biirial. They are not only said to have been baptized, but to have been hurled in baptism. This must for ever settle the point, both that hteral baptism is meant, and that baptism is immersion. Even were the phrase huried in baptism, supposed to be figurative, it equally impHes that Uteral baptism is a burial. That it is a literal baptism is evident also, from its having a Hkeness to Christ's resurrection, and implying, with respect to us, a new hfe. It is only in the ordinance that such likeness can exist. That it is a literal baptism is also clear, from its being called a planting in the hke- ness of Christ's death. Indeed, whether it is planting or anything else, still there is hkeness, and likeness imphes something external. Mr. M. tells us that the word hkeness is not apphed to baptism, but to 424 EEMAKKS ON MR. MUNRo's WORK. planting. Bnt it is baptism that is here called a planting. Between planting, then, and baptism there mtist be a Ukeness. This baptism, or figurative planting, has a likeness to Christ's death, by its likeness to burial. Baptism is both a planting and a burial. But -whatever the word likeness may be supposed to respect, still it equally implies that the baptism is literal. Mr. M. tells us that the hkeness is not to the burial, but to the death of Christ. But the likeness to Christ's burial is a Ukeness to his death : it is a likeness to him in the state of death. Besides, the phrase buried with Mm in baptism, shows that the hkeness to death respects burial. But whatever the hkeness respects, still it equally implies hteral baptism. When he says the hkeness is to the death of Christ, what is the thing that has the hkeness to Christ's death ? Is it not baptism ? How can it have this hkeness unless it is hteral baptism ? Hoav can it have this hkeness, but as death is implied in burial ? Like others, Mr. M. insists on the want of resemblance between bap- tism and burial. The resemblance is perfectly sufficient as an emblem; and it was not intended to be a di'amatic representation. But what does he mean when he tells us that Joseph did not dig a pit in the rock, nor cover the dead body of Christ ? If this has any bearing, it must be to prove that Christ was not buried, and that there is no burial in baptism. For the purpose of this figure, it is quite enough that baptism is a burial in any way. Does not the experience of every day show us that being covered with water, in any way, may be called a burial ? In an account of a shipwreck it is said, " Boils appeared on all the seamen's legs at once, and they were benumbed by being continually buried in water." Here is a burial in water, when the water rose on the baptized from a leak. The seamen did not dig a pit in a rock, for this burial. "With respect to Enon, Mr. M. alleges that much water was as neces- sary for dipping as for sprinkling. This observation is not very profound. Much water is not necessary for the immersion of a fewjpersons; but for the immersion of multitudes very important. The water of a foun- tain would soon become unfit for baptism, if used for the multitudes baptized by John. Whether the phrase denotes one collection or many collections of water, is quite immaterial. He asks: " If baptism must be administered by immersion, why did not Christ or the apostles ordain the construction of baptismal cisterns?" What an argument ! We might as well ask, if sprinkling had been appointed, why was not the construction of basins ordained by the apostles ? Why ordain the construction of baptisteries, when all means of immersion are equal ? Wliat must be the degree of prejudice and blindness in the mind, that sees an argiunent in this ! He tells us, that the much water was necessary for other purposes to the multitudes who attended John. To this I reply: 1. The cause assigned is not known to exist. It is not in evidence, that the multitudes remained Avith John any length of time. 2. Had the cause existed, it is insufficient to produce the effect. The multitudes might have remained Avith John days and nights, though there had not been a single fountain. Might they not have brought their Avater as weU as theu' Adctuals ? REMARKS ON MR. MUNRo's WORK. 425 3. The cause alleged by us is expressly mentioned in the passage : John was baptizing in that place, because there ivas there much water. The much water, then, was for the baptism. 4. It was also for the purpose of being baptized, that they came to this place of water. With respect to the eunuch he says, " Among the myriads of baptisms of which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, with the single exception of that of the eunuch, there is not a hint about going to or from any pool or river." Does any rational man expect that every accoimt of baptism will record every circumstance in the transaction ? One example is perfectly sufficient. He demands an example of going from any chapel or house to the river, or of going to any font of water in a house. Such an example is not necessary. If they went to the water, in any case in which a few drops of water could be brought to them, sprinkling could not have been the mode. But they not only went to the water, but both of them went into the water, for it is on record that they came out of the water. I have, again and again, proved that the preposition signifies out of, not from. I had said, that there is not a spot in which a human being can be found, in which a few drops of water cannot be foimd. Mr. M. alleges the fact of great tracts of cotmtry being totally destitute of water. Is this an answer to me ? Does any human being reside in a country, where a few drops of water cannot be found ? If the eunuch travelled through such a country, it is self-evident that he had a supply of water with him. I speak of the retinue of the eunuch. That such a man as the eunuch took a retinue, needs not to be proved by record ; it is self-evident. But for my pui'pose, there is no need of a retinue. One servant will siiffice ; and it is expressly on evidence that he had attendants : he commanded to stop the chariot. Yet both Phihp and the eunuch went not only to the water, but both of them into the water, which lunacy itself would not allege as necessary for sprinkHug. Mr. M. says that " they went down to the water, because they needed water, and because the water would not oome up to them." There is neither wit nor strength in this remark. Do all men go to the water who need water ? The water would have come up to them, had a few dr-ops been sufficient. The eimuch could have commanded the water to come up, as well as the chariot to stand still. He says, that " I would persuade my readers that my opponents maintain that the Greek word signifies to pour, but that I know they do no such thing." I do not represent all my opponents as maintaining that the word signifies to poiu", for I have shown that some of them think that it signifies to sprinkle ; and that there is an endless diversity of opinion among them, as to the meaning of the word. But is there any one who does not know that many of them make the word signify to poiu- ? But what does he make the word signify ? This he does not tell us. Of aU the absurdities that I have met in criticism, this is the most absiu-d — a treatise to ascertain the meaning of a word in an ordinance ; yet in all the treatise there is no meaning assigned to the Avord I He says, that he can assign a probable reason for the selection of this word, as the designation of the ordinance. The reason is, " Dipping is 426 REMARKS ON MR. MUNRO^S WORK. included in any scripttiral baptism." Does not tMs take for granted that the word signifies to dip ? But if the word signifies to dip, the person baptized must be dipped. The baptism is not the dipping of the head of the baptized, or water made to sprinMe the baptized ; but the dipping of the person who receives the ordinance. The priest, indeed, dipped his finger in the blood of the sacrifice, in order to sprinkle it; but this was not called the dipping of the altar. Mr. M. asks where I got the information, that the eunuch did not ask for baptism till he saw the water in which it might be performed ? But is it not obvious to the smallest degree of discernment, that I speak from the testimony of the documents, and not as regards abstract possibility ? Besides, there is positive evidence from the passage, that the eunuch considered baptism impossible, tiU the appearance of this water. It is equally evident that this is the first time he asked for baptism ; for had he asked before, he would have got an answer that would have prevented this question. In every point of view, then, the author's objection manifests as great a degree of captiousness, as want of penetration. CHAPTEK X. REMARKS ON MR. THORN'S "MODERN IMMERSION NOT CHRISTIAN BAPTISM." The work of Mr. Thorn discovers very great industry, and an exten- sive acqviaintance with books on both sides of the question, as to the meaning of the word in dispute. He manifests that, if the cause which he has espoused is not successful in proof, it has not failed for want of zeal and study. He has raked together all that lexicons, concordances, and the other usual resources of second-hand critics, could afford ; and he has enriched the treatise by long contributions of original trifling. There is no science in his criticism, no philosophy in the principles on which he assigns meaning. His intei'pretation is extravagant and wild beyond almost any of his fellow-labourers. Yet there is one thing in him with which I am well pleased; — ^he appears perfectly convinced of the truth of the point which he labours to prove. He does not, Hke some, labour to produce confession; as if the object were gained when decision is rendered doubtfid or impossible. He writes like a man in earnest, and I cannot but respect sincerity even in its errors. As a defender of sprinkJing, it is fortunate for Mr. Thorn that he was not acquainted with the philosophy of language, and the laws which operate in varying the meaning of words. The sounder a writer's first principles are, Tinder the greater necessity will he be to give evidence when he defends error. Wlaere a Person would faU, a Thorn would triiimph. His examples are fully met in my work, and I need not waste time in running over the same ground ia reference to his interpretations. As a specimen of his criticism, I shall produce a few short examples. As an objection to our meaning of the word in certain passages, he alleges (p. 124) that it is "partial dipping." Would any critic speak thus ? Would any man who knows anjrthing of language, expect that the word itself was to determine whether the dipping were total or partial ? He tells us in the same page, that " the moistening of the bread and wetting of the finger are the ultimate intentions of the several expres- sions, and not the present mode of doing it." When I say, Dip your pitcher in the fountain, is not filling of the pitcher the intention of the dipping ? Is such an objection to be dignified with the name of criticism ? He tells us (p. 128) that " it cannot be asserted, that it is expressive 438 REMARKS ON MR. THORn's WORK. of one person dipping another." Would any writer, wonld any man of ordinary acquaintance with language, expect that any word should express this ? Whether in baptism the believer is to dip himself, or to be dipped by another, is not to be kno'vvn from any word signifying immersion, but from other criticism. He makes the same complaint with respect to the twofold action of sinking and raising. Does any one pretend that the raising is expressed by the word ? He alleges, (page 139,) that according to us, the verb with the pre- position in its syntax must express a double dipping. Was ever ignorance so consummate under the guise of knoAvledge ? Will not the objection apply equally to the English phrase dip in or into ? Does it not apply with greater plausibility to immerse in or into ? There is in accurately expressed in the verb, while it is repeated in the preposition. Are we obhged to meet such objection as criticism ? Are writers of this stamp worthy of our rebuke ? CHAPTEK XL BAPTISM NOT PURIFICATION; IN REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. Section I. — Mr. Beeclier, President of the College of Illinois, America, has lately written on the import of the word baptismos, undertaking to prove that it refers not to mode at all, but signifies purification in general. Consequently, while we are on both sides of the question wrong, we are still right. We are wrong in believing that mode is designated, but we are on both sides right, because any mode of the rehgious appHcation of water is baptism. This is the happy theory by which harmony is to be effected on this much and long-controverted subject. To much of the former part of the work I can have no possible objec- tion, because it is a mere echo of my own philological doctrines, illustrated with different examples. In a work controverting the conclusions Avhich I have drawn in my treatise on baptism, it surely was very uimecessary to prove that Avords may have a secondary meaning, wandering very far from their original import. Can any writer be pointed out who has shown this more fiilly than I have done ? I do not question this principle : I have laid it doAvn for him as a foundation. All I require is proof of the existence of the secondary meaning, and proof of the existence of the secondary meaning which he alleges. Had he given this, I would admit such secondary meaning ; but would still show that the word in reference to the rite appointed by Christ, has its name from the primary meaning of this word. Mr. B. has done nothing of aU this. He has not proved that the word, in reference to the ordinance of Clmst, signi&es purijicatio7i ; he has not proved that in any reference it signifies purificatioii ; he has not proved that it has any secondary signification at all. His dissertation is no more to critical deduction, than Waverley or Kenilworth is to history. Indeed the relation is not so true ; it wants that verisimihtxide which is to be found in the novels of the illustrious Scott. To the ignorant there is an appearance of pliilosophy and learning ; but soimd criticism mil have little difiiculty in taking the foundation from imder the edifice which he has laboured to erect. The first argument which he alleges to prove that baptisinos signifies purification, is drawn from John iii. 25. " In John iii. 25, kathai'ismos is used as synonymous Avith haptismos; and the usus loquendi, as it regards the religious rite, is clearly decided. The facts of the case are these, 430 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. ver. 22, 23. John and Jesus were baptizing, one in Judea, the other in Enon, near to SaHm, and in stich circumstances that to an unintelligent observer there would seem to be a rivahy between the claims of the two. The disciples of John might naturally feel that Jesus was intruding into the province of their master: they might even beheve John to be the Messiah, and thus give rise to the sect that held that belief. On this point a dispute arose between the disciples of John and the Jews, (or a Jew, as many copies read,) verse 25. They come to John and state the case, verse 26 : ' Eabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold^ the same baptizeth, and all men come to him-' plainly implying that in so doing he was improperly interfering with the claims of John. John in reply, verse 27 — 31, disclaims all honour except that bestowed on him by God, of being the forerunner of the Messiah, and rejoices to decrease in order that he may increase — thus justifying the course which was so offensive to his disciples, and settling the dispute in favour of the claims of Christ. The argument from these facts is this : The dispute in question was plainly a specific dispute con- cerning baptism, as practised by Jesus and John, and not a general dispute on the subject of purification at large ; so that zetesisjyeii baptismou is the true sense ; and if it had been so written, the passage would have been regarded by all as perfectly plain. But instead of baptismou, John has used katharismou, because the sense is entirely the same. In other words ' a question concerning baptism,' and ' a question concerning purification,' were at that time modes of expression perfectly equivalent ; that is, baptismos is a synonyme of katharismosy To this I reply, 1. INIr. B. says, " On this point a dispute arose." On what point ? As I understand the author, it is with respect to the conflict- ing claims of John and Jesus. This is the obvious reference, and this is confirmed as his meaning, by his afterwards saying that John settled this dispute in favour of the claims of Chidst. Now this is not at aU the point to which the question at issue between the disciples of John and the Jews had reference. That question was about jJurifying, and not at all about the claims of John and Jesus. For anj'thing that appears in the document, the Jews might never have heard of Jesus. 2. The author says, " They come to John and state the case." They did not state to John the case concerning purification ; they stated another case quite different. What they stated to John was an expres- sion of surprise that another person was baptizing, and especially that he was more successful than John himself. As this statement was for the purpose of ehciting a reply from John, I have no objection that it .shall be called a qtiestion, though not so in form. But if it is a question, it is one different fi'om that at issue between the disciples of John and the Jews. John rephes to this question, but says nothing about purifica- tion, because nothing with respect to it was submitted to him. 3. Mr. B. says that " the dispute in question was plainly a specific dispute concerning baptism as practised by John and Jesus." The dis- pute had no relation to the baptism of John and Jesus; the dispute does not imply the existence of the baptism of Jesus, nor of himself. 4. The author tells us that it Avas not " a general dispute on the sub- FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 431 ject at large." The dispute was a dispute on the subject of purification generally. This does not admit dispute with respect to any who submit to the assertion of the document. Katharismos is not a species of purifi- cation, bxit purification without reference to species. Mr. B. assumes that katharismos is the appropriated name of the rite of baptism. This is not only a groundless, but a false assumption. In early chiu-ch history, it came with a multitude of other words and phrases to be apphed to baptism, but at this period of its history it had no such apphcation. At this period, to speak among the Jews of baptism under the appropriated name katharismos, would be to speak unintelligibly. Mr. B. mistakes the meaning of katharismos as well as of baptismos. It could not come to designate baptism specifically on any other principle than that of appropriation, by which, though general in its original extent, it might be Hmited by use. If assumption would do the business, Mr. B. would prove his point. 5. The writer tells us here that the phrase a question about purifica- tion, is in sense the same as if it had been said, a question about baptism. I have shown that this is false. But in addition to tliis I remark, that even if the word baptism itself had been used instead oi purification, it would not have referred to a dispute concerning the conflicting claims of John and Jesus. A question about baptism, and a question about the conflicting claims of two persons engaged in baptizing, are surely two very different questions. This confusion of ideas does not argue well for the perspicacity of the antagonist with whom I am now about to engage. Even on this supposition the dispu.te between the disciples of John and the Jews about baptism, would have been a different matter from that submitted to John, and to which nothing in philosophy at aU applies. 6. Mr. B. makes the general word katharismos specific, in conformity to the word baptize, and the specific word baptizo he makes general, in conformity to the word katharismos, so that in fact he makes each of the words both general and specific. Why does he consider katharismos specific? Because it here, he thinks, refers to the specific rite of baptism. Why does he make baptizo here signify piirification in general ? Because he thinks it to be a synonyxne of katharizo. Does not this make each of the words both general and specific, at the same time ? Is this philo- logical ? This is critical legerdemain. So confident is the writer that he has succeeded on this part of the subject, that he adds, " The only mode of escaping this result is to say, that as immersion in water involves piu-ification, and is a kind of purifi- cation, so it may have given rise to a question on the subject of pui-ification at large : but to this I reply, that the whole scope of the passage forbids such an idea. The question was not general, but specific, being caused by the concurrence of two claims to baptize ; and so Avas the reply of John." It is no part of my duty to show the process which led from one of those questions to the other; this it might be impossible to ascertain without any injiury to my cause. But nothing can be more natural than that a question about purification should be suggested by a rite that was 432 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. an emblem of purification, and that this shotild lead to a comparison of the baptism of John and of Jesus. But I will not deign to allege this in argument: my business is with the document before me. Anything expressed or necessarily implied, I will meet; but I sternly refuse to know anything but what is in evidence. But what sort of a reply is this which the author gives to the argu- ment which he professes to meet ? The question, he says, is not general, but specific. The question is expressly stated as general, and uot specific; for it is a question about katharismos, which is purification without regard to species. The word is as general as is purification, the corresponding word in EngKsh. " It was caused," he says, " by the concurrence of two claims to baptize." It was not caused by the con- currence of two claims to baptize ; for these claims are never mentioned with regard to the dispute. If we had not the document in our hands, we should be led to think, from Mr. B.'s representation, that the dispute was between the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus, with respect to conflicting claims between their masters. " Moreover," continues Mr. B., "to assume a general dispute on purification renders the whole scope of the passage obscure ; as is evident from the fact, that those who have not seen that in this case katharismos is a synonyme of baptismos, are much perplexed to see what a dispute on purification in general has to do with the facts of the case." Assiune ! Who is it that makes assumptions ? We assume nothing in the whole controversy. That the dispute was about purification, and not about a specific rite of purification, is in express evidence from the word. And what necessity is there to show how the statement to John, and John's answer, bear on the subject of purification, when that state- ment and that answer never glance at the question of purification ? " The origin of the dispute, from the concurrence of two claims to baptize," says the author, " is obviously indicated by the particle oun, in ver. 25, showing undeniably that the events just narrated gave rise to the question." How can any particle in the twenty-fifth verse indicate the origin of the dispute, from the concurrence of two claims to baptize, when previously to that verse there is no mention of such concurrence ? If the question arose from the events just narrated, how could it arise from a concurrence of conflicting claims ? No doubt the dispute about purification originated in the baptism of John ; but this does not imply that baptism signifies purification, nor that purification signifies baptism. " And what reason is there," says Mr. B., " for denying this conclu- sion ? None but the fear of the result." It is not so. President Beecher : fear of the result never in a single instance prevented me from admitting a sound argument. I do not fear the result; for truth is my object, wherever it may lie. But in this instance I can have no temptation to fear the result, because I could admit that purification here refers to baptism specifically, and still defeat President Beecher. He has laboured in vain; he builds on a false first principle. He assumes that if two words refer to the same ordinance, they must be identical in meaning. Nothing is more unfounded — palpably unfounded. There are situations in which two words may be interchanged at the option of the writer, FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 433 while they are not perfectly synonymous. They may so far agree that they may be equally fitted to fill a situation, while each has a distinct meaning. This is so obvious a truth, that I am perfectly astonished that it should He hid from the President of the College of Illinois. This is a fact that hes on the very surface of philosophy ; there is hardly a page of writing in which it might not be illustrated. The varied desig- nations given to the ordinance of baptism by the ancients, fully manifest the truth of this obsei-vation. Baptism they called regeneration, yet they did not consider that the word baptism and the word regeneration were identical in meaning. Baptism was the name of the rite from its mode, regeneration was the effect produced by the observance of the rite. They called baptism reneiving, renovation, or restoration, for a Hke reason; but they did not understand the word baptism to signify any of these. Without exception, they all considered the word to mean immersion, while they gave it other names from its natiu'e, effects, &c. They called baptism sanctification, because they supposed persons to be sanctified by it ; not because they considered the two words as synonymous. They called baptism illumination, and the baptized they called the illuminated ; yet they did not understand the word baptism as signifying illumination. niiimination was the effect of the rite. They called baptism consecration, yet they did not do so because they considered the word to have this meaning, but because the rite had this effect. They called baptism initiation, because initiation was effected by the rite, not because it was signified by the word baptism. They called baptism the laver or washing; not because they considered the word to signify this, but because washing was effected by immersion in piire water. They called baptism the anointing ; because, in their view, persons are anointed with the Spirit in baptism ; not because baptism signifies anointing. They called baptism the gift or grace ; yet they did not suppose that the word baptism denoted gift or grace. They spoke of baptism as the seal, yet they did not understand the word baptism as signifying seal. They called baptism purification; yet they did not on that account, with President Beecher, maderstand the word baptism as signifying purifi- cation. Baptism was an immersion which produced purification. Woiild he deserve the name of a philologist, who would say, that the word baptism is identical in signification with all these words, and that all these woi'ds are identical in signification with each other ? I might illustrate my doctrine by the various names which ai-e given to the followers of Christ. They are called Christians, disciples, believers, saints, ^c. Are these words identical in meaning ? Does not each of these names designate the persons in a different manner ? The very case in hand may be verified in our own language. "Wlien it is asked, what is the name of the child ? it may sometimes be answered, " it is not yet baptized." Are we from this to conclude that the word baptism is supposed to mean the giving of a name ? This is not implied; the thing impHed is that the name is given in baptism. In like manner, a vast variety of names is given to the rite of baptism , not implying that they are synonymous with the word, but that they are designations of the same ordinance. 2 F 434 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. The English word immerse itself, according to Mr. B.'s philology, may- be made to signify cleanse. The surgeon, after an operation, says, " cleanse the instrument." The assistant immerses it in water. Im- merse, then, signifies to cleanse. Sprinkle may on the same principle be made to signify to purify. Purification is effected by sprinkUng, therefore sprinkling signifies pTirification. In Heb. ix. 22, the same thing that is called purging with blood, is in the preceding case called sprinkling with blood. Does it not follow from Mr. B.'s philology, that sprinkling means purging ? But is it not obvious to every child, that sprinkhng designates the mode of applying the blood, and purging the effect of the blood so apphed ? Mr. B., then, has failed in every point. He has laboured to prove that katharismos, John iii. 25, refers specifically to baptism, as practised by John and Jesus. His proof I have demohshed. He assumes that if katharismos here refers to baptism, the words must be identical in meaning. This I have shown to be a gross fallacy. Section II. — The next argument by which Mr. B. endeavours to prove that haptismos signifies purification, is taken from Malachi. " This view alone," says he, " fully explains the existing expectation that the Mes- siah would baptize. That the Messiah should immerse, is nowhere foretold ; but that he should purify, is often and fully predicted : but especially is this foretold in that last and prominent prophecy of Malachi, (iii. 1 — 3,) which was designed to fill the eye of the mind of the nation, until he came. He is here represented to the mind in all his majesty and power, but amid all other ideas that of purifying is most prominent. He was above all things to purify and purge, and that with power so great, that few could endure the fiery day. Who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth ?" This is so destitute of all appearance of a bearing on the subject, that it deserves no attention. It is answer sufficient to this allegation that this prophecy could have been perfectly fulfilled, had no rite of purifi- cation, in any mode, ever been appointed. It requires more than the patience of tfob, to be able to mention such an argument without ex- pressing strong feehngs. Could not Christ have been a Purifier, though he had instituted neither baptism nor the Lord's supper ? His being said then to be a Purifier, does not imply that a certain rite implying purification, must be called purification. May not a rite import purifi- cation, though purification is not its name ? Even if it had been foretold by Malachi that the Messiah should appoint a rite of purification, that rite might have been designated, not purificatioii, but have had its name from its mode, or a thousand other circumstances. It might have been called immersion, or sprinkling, or effusion, according to the mode appointed ; as it might have been designated from any one of a multitude of other relations. Circumcision denoted purification, yet it had its name from the external operation. The passover had its name on the same principle. This argument manifests such a want of discrimination, and a confusion of things which differ, that the mind on which it has force, must be essentially deficient in those powers that qualify for the discussion of critical questions. FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 435 " Suppose, now, the word haiotizo to mean as I affirm," says the author, " the whole nation are expecting the predicted purifier; all at once the news goes forth that a great purifier has appeared, and that all men flock to him and are purified in the Jordan. How natural the inference! The gi'eat ptirifier so long foretold, has at last appeared, and how natural the embassy of the priests and Levites to inquire. Who art thou ? And when he denied that he was the Messiah, or either of his expected attendants, how natural the inquiry, ' "Why purifiest thou, then ? It is his work — of him it is foretold, why dost thou intrude into his place and do his work ? ' " I might with perfect safety admit that on John's appearance, the report went forth that a great purifier had appeared. For if he was a great immerser, he was a great purifier, as immersion was for the purpose of emblematical purification. He might, fi-om the administration of this ordinance, have been called a great purifier, while the name of the ordi- nance was immersion, or sprinkling, or anytliing whatever. As a matter of fact, however, the news did not go forth that a great purifier, but a great immerser had appeared ; and it is not said that all men came and were purified by him in Jordan, but that they were immersed. The question of the priests and Levites was as apposite, on the supposition that the word haptizo signified to immerse, or sprinkle, or pour, as if it signified to purify ; because whatever was the mode and whatever was the name, the nature of the ordinance impHed purification. There is no evidence that a general expectation prevailed that the Messiah should baptize, or use any rite of purification; and had there been such an expectation, and even a prophecy on which to foimd it, the fact coiild make no difference. The question put to John, on the supposition that he was not the Messiah, was not foimded either on the name or the nature of the rite, but on his employing a new rite. K he was not the Messiah, or at least Ehas, or the prophet, they judged it improper for him to introduce a new baptism. It was not with the name of the rite they quarrelled. Does IVIr. B. imagine that had the name of the rite been immersion, the question of the priests and Levites would have been pre- cluded ? Such reasoning is perfectly an astonishment to me. I have greater difficulty in conceiving how it can have force on any mind, than- I have in refuting it. How can any discriminating person thinli that the priests and Levites objected to John's baptism on the ground that to use this rite was to intrude into the work of the Messiah, when on the very ques- tion it is admitted that the thing might be done by Elias or the prophet? Is it not astonishing that gentlemen in eminent situations, wiU risk the character of their understanding by pouring forth such crudities? It is painflil for me to use the knife so freely: but I must, for the sake of the Christian pubhc, find out the disease under which my patient laboiu's. It is better that one dehnquent should siiffer, than that a multitude should be dra'wn into error by his transgression. " In view of these facts," says the writer, " I do not hesitate to beheve most fiilly, that the idea which came up before the mind of tlie Jews when the words loannes o Baptistes were iised, was not Jolm the immerser, or John the dipper, but John the purifier, a name pecuUarly 2 K 2 436 . FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. appropriate to him as a reformer — as Puritan was to our ancestors, and for the same reason." In view of these facts ! Shall he by sleight of hand be allowed to convert his suppositions into facts ? Wliat are the facts ?' Are we with the child to take his dreams for reahties ? There is not in all the references one fact that will bear the conclusion. But there is an inconsistency in this specimen of philology : it makes the title of John originate in the administration of a rite of purification, yet its adaptation to him is grounded on his being a reformer, for the same reason that our ancestors were called Puritans. Now, if John was the purifier as the administrator of a rite, he was not a purifier as a reformer. If he was a purifier as a reformer, he would have been a purifier had he administered no baptism at all. There is great confusion in the ideas of this writer. If John was called the purifier on account of the rite which he administered, he was not so called, as a Puritan. This is my philology. Section III. — ^Mr. B.'s next argument is, " The contrast made by John between his own baptism and that of Christ, illustrates and con- firms the same view." Without adverting to Acts ii. 1, which is evidently a fulfilment of John's declaration referred to, the phrase immersed in the Spirit, as refer- ring to the ordinary work of the Spirit, is perfectly analogous to steeping the senses in forgetfulness, with which all are acquainted ; and the contrast between the immersion of the rite, and the sanctification of the Spirit, is exactly on the same principle with " Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit." The abundance of the Spirit in sanctification is contrasted with the abundance of wine in the drunkard. If we may be said to be filled with the Spirit, in contrast with the drunkard filled with wine, may we not be said to be immersed in the Spirit, in contrast with the immersion in water in the rite of baptism ? The contrast is obvious and just. Is it not sometimes said of persons distinguished for humanity and kindness, that their souls are steeped in the milk of human nature ? There is no more incongruity in immersing a person in the Spirit, than there is in steeping a soul in milk. Such arguments and such objections are mere trifling. " This sense," continues Mr. B., " is never transferred to the mind, in any language, so far as I know, to indicate anything like the effects of the agency of the Holy Spirit." Were this true, it is nothing to the purpose ; but having by the use of the language found that the word has this meaning, and no other, the example in question is an instance in which it is applied to the Holy Spirit. Mr. B. has adopted some of my philological doctrines. I will give him another lesson, Avhich will prevent him from again alleging such an objection. It is this : Metaphor is not bound to find examples to justify its particular figures ; btit may indulge itself wherever it finds resemblance. It gives words a new application, but does not invest them with a new meaning. It is not, then, subject to the law of literal language, which for the sense of every word needs the authority of use. FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 437 This I have estabhshed in my Treatise on the Figiires of Speech, in oppo- sition to the common doctrine of rhetoricians. With respect to the point in hand, I would maintain my ground, if a single other example of the figurative use of this word coidd not be produced. Any word may be used figuratively in any view in which there is likeness. This argu- ment of Mr. B. is perfectly the same with that of Dr. "Wiseman in proof of transubstantiation. He admits that the phrases, this is my body, and eat my fleshy may be used figuratively ; but if they are used figura- tively, they are always used in a bad sense. He challenges his opponents to show an instance in which it is otherwise. Now this sophism has, in my doctrine of the metaphor, a complete answer. Metaphors are not bound by the law of literal language : they need not the sanction of use. A writer may use as many as are just in resemblance ; and the more original they are, they are the more meritorious. But what shall we think of the philologist, who says, " When the agent is spiritual, the object spiritual, and the means spiritual, and the end purity, immersion is out of the question ?" Must I dignify such triflhig with refutation ? When God says, / will pour out my Spirit^ is not the agent spiritual, the object spiritual, and the means spiritual, and the end purity ? Shall we, then, blaspheme the word of God, and say, pouring is out of the qiiestion ? Literal pouring and imtiiersing are out of the question, not figurative pouring and immersing. K one mode of employ- ing water may be figuratively applied to the Spirit, what will prevent another mode from being applied ? Ignorant persons in reading Mr. B.'s work will think that he is a deep philosopher, and that he is a profound philologist. But the smallest degree of perspicacity will enable any one to see that his philosophy is very shallow sophistry. I have no msh to be severe; but no man ought with impunity to be allowed to trifle so egregiously with the disciples of Christ, and with the a^vfol command- ments of the eternal Jehovah. The author thinks that his view is confirmed by comparing the language of John with the passage from Malachi, and refers to the word diakathariei. But how could it escape him that the purging of the floor refers not to baptism at all in any view ? Indeed, it refers not even to the work of the Spirit in sanctification, but is the separating of the chaff from the wheat. But I will for a moment indidge him in his whim. Let this purging be baptism; may it not be immersion in mode, and purging as an emblem ? The language of Malachi and the purification of John would equally accord with any meaning that may be assigned to the word baptism. I have never found a greater want of discrimina- tion in any writer. Section TV. — Mr. B. deduces another argument, from 1 Cor. xii. 13. In this passage, he tells us, " The Holy Spirit is directly said to baptize, and in this case all external acts are of course excluded, and purify is theonly appropriate sense: ' For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one Spiiit.' " Now can anything be more extravagantly idle than this ? Wlien the Holy Spirit is said to be poui'ed out by God, are not all external acts equally 438 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. excluded ? Are we, then, to say tliat cheo does not signify to pour ? Believers are said to have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience. All external acts are out of the question. Shall we, then, say that rantizo does not signify to sprinkle ? Behevers are said to wash their robes, and to make them white in the blood of the Lamb. All external acts are out of the question. Are we, then, to say that pluno does not signify to wash ? Am I to war eternally against nonsense ? Even the very examples alleged by himself from Chrysostom, p. 23, refute him. Is there any literal immersion in the phrases immersed in cares., immersed in sins, immersed in business ? " But this baptism," says Mr. B., " is as much a real work of the Spirit, as the causing to drink into one Spirit, which is not external, but internal and real." Who doubts it ? But how can he be so blind as not to perceive that though " causing to drink of the Spirit," is an in- ternal work of the Spirit, yet drink of the Spirit is as much a figure relating to an external action, as is immerse hy the Spirit '? If believers are here said to be immersed hy the Spirit, they are also said to be made to drink by the same Spirit. Is not drinking as much an external action as immersing ? K we may figuratively drink, may we not figura- tively he immersed? The writer has so httle perspicacity as to argue against a figurative meaning with respect to the word immerse, by the very authority of a hke figurative meaning with regard to drink. If there is spiritual drinking, may there not be spiritual immersing ? But we have not yet done with Mr. B.'s exploits in figurative language. He says that the drinking here referred to is not external, but internal and real. According to this philosophy, literal drinking is not real drinking. " To immerse in water," he tells us, " is not the work of the Spirit." Where is it said, Mr. B., that the Holy Spirit baptizes in water ? And is it the work of the Spirit to pour himself out on believers HteraUy ? Is it the work of the Spirit hterally to sprinkle the heart ? Such cavil- ling is unworthy of a candid mind and a soimd understanding. Mr. B. foimds another argument on the relation which the words baptize and purify have to the forgiveness of sins. ^^ Baptize and katharizo," says he, " are so similarly used in connexion with the for- giveness of sins, as decidedly to favour the idea that they are in a rehgious sense synonymous." This is philological mathematics ; and if there is no error in the statement, or in the process, it is the evidence of an axiom. — Two quantities that are equal to a third are equal to one another. But a mere breath will destroy this mathematical bubble. It is not as words that baptize and purify agree with forgiveness of sins : for neither baptism nor purification is as a word identical in meaning with forgiveness of sins. Baptism is connected Avith the forgiveness of sins, not from its name, but from the natiu-e and import of the rite. If baptism in its import is essentially connected with forgiveness of sins, it will have the same relation to purification, whatever be its name. Faith is essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins, as well as purification. Is faith purification? Holiness is essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins, as well as faith. Is holiness faith ? Repent- ance is essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins as weU as FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDExNT BEECHER. 439 purification. Is repentance purification? On the same principle Unitarians allege that forgiveness of sins, in reference to Christ, is synonymous with healing diseases. But it is strange to astonishment that President Beecher has not per- ceived that baptism would have the same connexion "with the forgiveness of sins, whatever might have been the word employed as its designation. If the nature of the rite imports purification, though its name is immersion^ has it not perfectly the same relation to the forgiveness of sins, as if its name were purification ? Take any of the names assigned to it by the ancients, and you will still have the same connexion with the forgiveness of sins. But does each of these words signify purification ? If baptism is called regeneration, it is connected with the forgiveness of sins. Must the word regeneration on that account signify jmrification ? This argu- ment proceeds on an amazing want of discrimination. Many things essentially connected with the forgiveness of sins are entirely different from one another. Baptism is a rite emblematical of purification; but this does not imply that its name must signify purification. The pass- over was a rite which was an emblem of atonement through the blood of Christ, or if you will, of purification. Does this imply that the word passover signifies purification or atonement ? Whether the rite of bap- tism is called pouring, or sprinkling, or immersing, or popping, or purifying, or consecrating, or initiating, or regeneration, &c. &c., it has the same rela- tion to the forgiveness of sins. The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin : baptism emblematically cleanses from sin : the blood of Christ, then, and the emblematical meaning of baptism, have the same relations to the forgiveness of sins. Does it follow that the phrases, blood of Christ and the word baptism, are synonymous ? Mr. B. gives us a dissertation on purification, which is no more to the purpose than a treatise on logarithms. He then tells us, " between immersion and the forgiveness of sins no such associations had ever been estabhshed." Does not the writer here take for granted the very thing in dispute ? He set out with saying that baptize and katharizo are similarly used Avith respect to the forgiveness of sins : now he says that immersion has no such connexion. But if haptizo has such a connexion, immerse must have the same connexion, as it is the only proper transla- tion of the word that has this connexion. Wliatever coimexion haptizo has with the forgiveness of sins, immerse has the same connexion. There is another false principle at the bottom of this remark : it supposes that if baptism is connected with the forgiveness of sins, its name must denote this connexion. It supposes also, that if a word has the same connexion with the forgiveness of sins -with another word, it must have the same meaning with that word. This is another false principle. Circumcision was connected with the forgiveness of sins in the same manner as purification; but did the word circumcision denote either purification or forgiveness of sins ? It was the natiu'e of the rite of which circumcision was the name, which indicated purification, and was connected Avith the forgiveness of sins. It is the water in baptism that indicates purification, not the name of the rite. Immersion is an emblem of the believer's communion and oneness with Christ, in his 440 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. death, burial, and resurrection. If mere purification was designated by baptism, sprinhling or pouring might have been used as well as immerse. But immersion represents the whole spiritual body of Christ as dying with him, buried ynih. him, risen vnXh him. As members of the body of Christ, they have done and suffered whatever Christ has done and suf- fered for them. True views of the import of baptism are essentially connected with clear views of the Gospel. "Now if any word," says Mr. B., "is found to sustain the same rela- tions as katharizo to the same idea, forgiveness of sins, we have reason to think that it is used in the same sense." Here is a philological axiom ; but it is a philological sophism. First, it assumes that it is baptismos as a word, that is, that it is the meaning of the word, that has the supposed relation to the forgiveness of sins. But baptismos has this relation only as designatory of an ordinance, which in its nature implies purification. Baptismos has this relation to the forgiveness of sins, only as it refers to the rite of baptism. Secondly, the conclusion is false, even on the ground on which it pro- ceeds. Two words may have the same relation to the forgiveness of sins, yet not be identical in meaning. Faith, repentance, regeneration, &c., have the same relation to the forgiveness of sins, yet they are very far from being identical. If each of the words signified forgiveness of sins, they must all indeed have the same signification; but none of these signifies forgiveness of sins. This is a childish fallacy. He concludes this argimient with the following deduction: " Hence, as hapjtizo has the same extent of application mth katharizo, and as it stands in the same relations with it to the forgiveness of sins, it is highly probable that it has the same sense." Here, again, he assumes the point in debate. Has he foimd that baptizo has the same extent of application with katharizo ? If this is in evidence, what is the dispute ? It has not the same extent of application ; for it appHes to no purifica- tions but such as were immersions. His business is to prove that it has sxich an extent of apphcation — not to assume this as a ground of argument. But the author is very modest ; having assumed that baptizo has the same extent of application with katharizo, instead of bearing down on me Avith all the force of an axiom, he is contented with claiming a high probabiUty. What! highly probable! K the words are of the same extent in apphcation, they are perfectly identical in meaning. What is sameness of sense, but sameness of extent of apphcation ? Not only has Mr. B. failed in proving his point by this argument, but I maintain that on such ground it is impossible to prove the meaning of a word. No soimd philologist would ever think of availing himself of such a resource. Mr. B.'s next argument is, that " the accotmt of baptism given by Jose- phus, a contemporary Jew, is perfectly in accordance with this view." The account which Josephus gives of the baptism of John in no respect confirms the view of President Beecher. WTiy did he not produce his document ? Is he to decide as a judge ? Ought he not as a lawyer to exhibit his documents and his statutes, reasoning from their necessary import ? Josephus represents John as exliorting the people, practising justice towards each other, and piety towards God, to come to immersion; FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 441 declaring that the immersing would be acceptable to God, when done, not in deprecation of the punishment of any sins, but for the purification or lustration of the body, — the soul being previously purified by righte- ousness. Josephus, as might be expected, gives a very false view of the object of John's baptism; but with respect to the meaning of its name he could not be mistaken. Instead of representing this name as signify- ing purification in its meaning, he represents the object of it to be pui-ification. They come to baptism for the lustration (epi agneia^ of the body. Does not this imply that baptism is one thing, and lustration another ? Mr. B. confounds a thing with its effect. Baptism is the name of the rite from its mode : lustration is its effect from its natT-ire, being an immersion in pure water. This is confirmed by the contrast which Josephus states, denying it to be the proper object of baptism — namely the deprecation of pimish- ment (epi paraitesei). This is an object which he supposes some might have, but which would not be acceptable to God. Here purification of the body is the lawful object of baptism : deprecation of punishment is a wrong object. Now we might as well confound deprecation of punish- ment with the meaning of the word baptism, as confound purification with it; for both are supposed to be its object — the one a lawful object, the other an unlawful one. Does baptism, then, signify deprecation of punishment, because it may be used for that purpose ? It is this excessive deficiency in perspicacity that has emboldened Mr. B. to undertake to prove that baptismos signifies purification. He every where confounds things that are different. From this he thinks that he has succeeded, when he finds baptism spoken of as a purification ; not dis- tinguishing between the name of the rite and its object. If one word can supply the place of another in a certain situation, he thinks they must be synonymous. If Josephus speaks of baptism as performed on account of purification, he states that he has proved the word baptism signifies purification. By this philology he might prove that the word bapto signifies to draw water, or to fill, because these words could sometimes be substituted for it. In one of the examples of the occurrence of this word, which I gave in my Treatise, the translation is: "the youth held the capacious urn over the water, hasting to dip> it." Here fill might be substituted for dip; but does dip signify to fill? Dipping is the mode by which the vessel is to be filled. The filling of the vessel was the effect of the dipping ; just so with the case in hand. Immersion is the mode — purification is the object. They were two things as different as dipping and filling. One of the schoHasts, in expoiuiding my next example, actually substitutes the words aruomai and chemizo, I draw water — Ifill. " Take a vessel, ancient servant, and having dipped it in the sea, brmg it hither." On Mr. B.'s principles of criticism, this would be sufficient authority to say that aruomai and chemizo are synonymous Avith bapto. Even our oym word dip might be made synonymous with fill. We may say either dip the bucket, or fill the bucket. The writer who confounds distinctions on accoiuit of such facts, has not a soid. for philological discussion. But were we at a loss, on this occasion, to know in what sense Josephus 443 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. here uses the word in question, where can we learn this with such authority as from his own use of the word in other places? In every instance in which he uses the word, he employs it for immersion^ and never for purification or anything else. Section V. — ^Mr. B. passes next to Heb. ix. 10. But this passage cannot afford him any proof. For argument sake, I avlH first admit that the word here is used for purification in general. As it does not refer to the rite of baptism, it may have a secondarj^ signification here, without affecting its modal meaning in the Christian ordinance. Had a word twenty significations, they must in every instance be capable of being definitely ascertaiaed; otherwise language would be unintelligible. That it is used here in a rehgious application, makes no difference. Bapto even in the art of dyeing may be used in the same page for dyeing and for dipping ; and though it has a secondary signification of dyeing, it is often used T\ith respect to rehgious dipping. The admission, then, that the word here signifies purification, does not at all affect the question at issue. I have tmdertaken to prove that the word has not a secondary meaning; but I have not done so on the ground that this is necessary for the proof of its modal meaning, in reference to the ordinance of baptism. Now, how can this prove that the word in reference to Christian baptism signifies purification, when I can admit all that IVIr. B. attempts to prove from the passage, without admitting his conclusion ? The proof which I have adduced for the modal meaning of the word in reference to the ordinance of Christ, remains still unaffected. But instead of surrendering this passage, I utterly refuse to admit that the word has here a secondary signification. It is immersion here as well as every where else. Let us now examine my antagonist's reasoning. 1. " Those tilings only are spoken of in the whole discussion," says he, " which have a reference to action on the worshippers ; that is, the whole passage relates to the effects of the Mosaic ritual entirely on persoTis, and not on things. The gifts, the sacrifices, the blood of sprinkhng, the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, all relate to persons." To this I reply, — 1. Whether the word here signifies immersion or purification, it must extend to all the immersions or all the purifications tmder the laAv. I am under no concern to separate between action on persons, and action on things. If things were commanded to be im- mersed, which had no reference to persons, they miist be included here, if the word signifies immersion. Aid if the word signifies purification, and if things are commanded to be puiified which have no reference to persons, they must be here included. This distinction can bring no rehef: for whether the word signifies immersion or purification, it must extend to aU things immersed or purified. 2. The things admitted by IMr. B. to be immersed, had an equal rela- tion to the person, as "the gifts, the sacrifices, the blood of sprinkling." Every thing immersed, or sprinkled, or in any way pui'ified, had a reference to the worshippers. The vessels which they used, the gar- ments which they wore, the utensils wlaich in the service they employed, FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 443 had all a reference to tlieir persons as much as the things which they offered. 3. Are not meats and drinks among the things referred to in this chapter ? And had not their vessels, sacks and skins, a reference to their persons, as weU as the meats and drinks ? 4. Was not the blood of sprinkling sprinkled on other things beside their persons, and as ,little connected with their persons, as the things admitted to be immersed ? Was not the water of separation sprinkled on the tents and all the vessels, as well as all the persons ? 5. But I care not that every purification referred to in the whole chapter, referred to persons solely and directly, except in this instance. I am not disturbed mth the supposed fact. Whatever be the meaning of the word, it must extend to every thing it inckides, whether it signifies immersion or purification. 6. Even if the word here signified purifications, it must include the very things which Mr. B. excluded. If certain things are admitted to be immersed by the law, are they not purified by that operation ? Then, though immersion should not be the only purification here denoted, it is at least included among the purifications. This refutes the assertion that the things admitted to be immersed, cannot be included here among the things said to be purified. Mr. B. proceeds: " The baptismoi are spoken of as enjoined, as well as the other rites. But of persons no immersions at aU are enjoined under the Mosaic ritual." I have already shown that it is not necessary that immersion of persons should have been practised under the law, in order that the word should here signify immersions. There is no evidence that the baptism here spoken of must refer to persons. They are not said to be the baptisms of persons, nor are they said even to include the baptism of persons. It is enough for my purpose that there were various immer- sions under the law. ' There were immersions in blood, immersions in blood and water; immersions in water, immersions in water and the ashes of a red heifer ; immersions in oU, and immersions in fire. But even if the word were admitted here to denote p)urifications, it must include all purification, and extend to the immersion of things. But though it is not essential to the defence of my cause, to prove the immersions of persons under the law, I wiU undertake the task ^\dth aU its supposed impossibilities. I admit that the Hebrew modal verb is not used with respect to persons, yet other circumstances imply that the mode of washing was immersion. How did they wash Aaron and his sons at the door of the tabernacle ? Exod. xxix. 4. ]\Iust there not have been an immersion ? Was there not constantly an immersion of the hands and the feet of the priests before engaging in the service ? Exod. XXX. 18 — 20. Now, an immersion of the hands, or the feet, is to me as good as an immersion of the whole body fifty feet under water. Let it not be forgotten that we are not discussing a passage for an example of Christian baptism, but one that speaks of Jewish baptism: and au immersion of a part is to me as good as an immersion of the ivhole. All I want is an immersion of any part of the person. Solomon made ten lavers for the washing of such things as they 444 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. offered for the burnt offering. This was one of the baptisms under the law. But he made a sea for the priests to wash themselves. 2 Chron. iv. 6. Was not this washing performed by immersion ? Let it be observed that the apostle is here speaking of the Jewish baptisms as practised under the law, and not giving an account of their institution. It is certainly implied that the baptisms referred to were agreeable to the law, and a fulfilment of it; but it is not necessary that they should have been presented specifically as the only mode of fulfilling the law of washing. K immersion was the usual mode of washing the person, and if that mode fulfilled the law, may not a writer in giving an account of the practice, include the immersion of the person among the immersions under the law ? Was it not a fact that under the law there was an immersion of the person, when it is admitted that the washing of the person commanded by the law was usually performed by immersion, and that this immersion was a proper fulfilment of the law ? It is not necessary that immersion should be the only mode in which the law of washing the person could possibly be fulfilled ; it is quite enough that it was the usual way, and a lawful way. This may be proved by a similar fact. The immersion of Naaman was a fulfilment of the com- mand of EHsha; yet it was a specific way of fulfilling a command to wash without specification of mode. Is it not said that in obedience to the command of the prophet, Naaman dijjped himself seven times in Jordan ? Now, if the thing prescribed to Naaman had been a rite enjoined on all the Jews, which in every age they usually fulfilled by dipping, would not an historian speak of this as an immersion under the law ? I think no sound miderstanding can hesitate a moment to receive this solution. This is confirmed by the fact that Trypho in Justin Martyr, p. 228, speaks of ablution after touching any of the things for- bidden by the law of Moses, as baptism ; and Justin MartjT eveiy where uses the word for immersion. " Nor is the Avashing of the clothes," says Mr. Beecher, " so often spoken of, enjoined by a word denoting immersion.'''' Very true, but are clothes washed without immersion ? In speaking, then, of the practice under the law, was not the washing of clothes the immersion of clothes ? But are not clothes and all other things that cannot endure the purifica- tion of fire, to pass thi'ough water 7 Can they pass through water without being immersed ? Numb. xxxi. 23. Section VI. — The argument from Tobit vi. 2 is utterly valueless. — • 1. This is not ceremonial puiification, or fulfilment of the law of Moses. The young man went down to the river to bathe, not to cleanse himself from ceremonial defilement. The object of the Avriter in bringing his hero to the river, was to bring about the exploit Avith the fish. 2. That complete washing of the person "without immersion is possible, we are not obliged to deny. No other washing, however, is called baptism. If a man washes himself Avithout immersion, he washes without baptism. 3. This washing is not called baptism. 4. Mr. B. here mistakes the argument of the Baptists which he here FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 445 represents. When he asks for what purpose the yoiuig man went down to the river, he answers : " To immerse himself of course, the advocates of immersion will reply." This is not fact. Bathing or washing is the object: immersion is the mode in which that object is effected. But as the mode impKes the effect, the mode may be substituted for the object, and instead of saying he went down to bathe, it may be said he went down to dip hiinself. The Baptists Avill not say that immersion was the object, but that immersion was the mode of effecting the object. If he went down to bathe, of course he was dipped. 5. But Mr. B,'s criticism on the Greek word kluzo, here employed for washing, is entirely false. He expounds the word as signifying a wash- ing all around, "just as a man stands in a stream and throws the water all over his body, and washes himself by friction." Mr. B. criticises from imagination — not from knowledge of the language. Has he justified his criticism by a single example ? He seems better acquainted with the different cu-cumstances in the operation of bathing, than with the occurrences of the word on which he imdertakes to criticise. The simple word signifies to deluge, to overwhelm, to inundate, or flow over any- thing, and is generally apphed to water flo^ving or rolling in a horizontal manner. It is much employed in the medical art, and occurs in Hippocrates times without number. It is compounded with almost aU the prepositions, and is accordingly modified by them. It is apphed to the waves of the sea rolHng over the shores, or running in high currents or bUlows in the ocean. It is with kata apphed to the general deluge. With peri, the preposition with which it is here compounded, (periklu- sasthai) it is apphed to the earth which is all around, as to its shores, washed or overflowed by the Avaves of the ocean; and the adjective as an epithet is given as a characteristic of islands. It has no apphcation to the thromng up of water aboiit himself by a man standing in a river. There is no friction nor hand-washing in this word. It performs its purpose by running over, either gently or with violence. The word does not signify that the young man in bathmg splashed about hke a duck, or rubbed himself hke a coUier ; but that he threw himself into the river that the stream might flow over him. He was then baptized indeed, and much more than baptized. 6. Even according to his own shomng, the argument which Baptists found on going down to a river is not refuted, nor weakened. The }'oung man went down to the river to wash his whole person by friction. Does this countenance the opinion that persons usually go down to a river, to sprinkle a few drops of water on the face? He admits that it is probable that the yoimg man immersed himself also. This, then, was not less than baptism, hut more than baptism. Indeed, if the rite of Christ required a whole hogshead of water to be poured on the person, there could be no necessity to go down to the water. But in performing the rite of baptism, persons went not only down to the ivater, but mto the water, which to every candid mind must ever prove immersion. From the manner in which the author ushers in his obseiwations on this sub- ject, one would think that he had made a discovery that would silence the argument for ever. " Whole volumes," says he, " of argument, 446 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. as we all know, depend on going doivn to the river.'''' Whatever are the number of volumes that have been written to enforce tliis argument, it remains in full force for anything this author has done. But it requires only a naked statement, to make it irresistibly evident to any mind not jaundiced by prejudice. " The only immersions enjoined in the Mosaic law," says Mr. B., " were immersions of thiugs to which no reference can be had here — as vessels, sacks, skins, &c. In this case no act was performed that had any tendency to affect the worshipper^ but only the thing immersed." What ! Does Mr. B. assert that the purification of vessels, &c., had no relation to the worshipper ? Was it for the sake of the vessels, sacks, and skins, that they were piurified ? Was it not because the things immersed were used by the worshipper ? Were not their vessels piuified for the very same reason that their persons were purified ? Had not the vessels, &c. been piuified, the worshipper using them would have been defiled. What had God's law to do with the purification of the vessels, &c. of the Jews more than of the heathens, but from the connexion of those things Avith the worshippers ? Did ever so monstrous an idea enter the mind of man, as that God commanded a rite to be performed on vessels, &c. which had no reference to the worshipper, but only to the things immersed ? I should not have thovight that there could have been found a Christian child, who would make such an assertion. Had not the vessels, &c. the same relation to the worshipper, as the meats and drinks here specified ? What nearer relation had a pure sacrifice to the worsliipper, than had a pure vessel ? Are not vessels, &c. ordinances of the flesh as well as meats and drinks ? In fact, every thing enjoined or forbidden in the ritual ordinances of Moses, had a reference to the flesh ; they are all carnal ordinances. What does Mr. B. mean when he asserts, that " no reference can be had to the immersions of inanimate things^ but only to the purification of personsf Are meats and drinks persons? Are gifts and sacrifices persons ? Are the various things mentioned belonging to the tabernacle, persons ? Had not the vessels which a man used the same relation to his flesh, as the meats which he ate ? Why must the baptisms be confined to persons ? The inanimate things immersed, had the same reference to the persons of the worshippers, as had the gifts and sacrifices, as had the meats and drinks, as had all the things specified in this chapter. " What could any one think," says Mr. B., " that the immersion of vessels, of earth or wood, had to do with the purifying of the con- science or the heart of a Avorshipper ? " The immersion of those things had just as mxich to do vdth purifying the conscience, as had the piu'ifi- cation of the person. Neither of them could purify the conscience : both of them purified ceremonially as types of that which truly purifies ; and the purification of all our services is as necessary as the purification of our persons. K men. mistaking the meaning of the rites, might think that the purification of the body cleansed the conscience, so might they think of the purification of vessels. Did they immerse the vessels, sacks, and skins, to purify the conscience of the vessels, sacks, and FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 447 skins ? Can anything be more plain than that the true relation, and the falsely supposed eiFect of the Jewish rites to the persons of the worship- pers, were the same with respect to what was to be performed on inani- mate things, as to what were to be performed on the person itself? For what purpose were inanimate things purified, if they had no relation to the persons of the worshippers ? For a fiill answer to the objection from the epithet divers or different, I refer to my reply to the Presbyterian Review. I shall here merely observe, that though immersion is always the same as to mode, there may be innumerable different immersions. An immersion of the body is a different immersion from the immersion of things. An immersion of a variety of different things is in each a different immersion. An immersion of every different substance is a different immersion. Why immersions are mentioned rather than purifications in general, it is not my business to declare: all I have to do is to show that immer- sions and not purifications are mentioned. It is to me quite obvious that there is no necessity to mention purifications universally in this place : the apostle is not professing to exhaust the subject of purification, but to give a specimen of the things practised imder the law, to point out their insufficiency to purge the conscience ; and other purifications are men- tioned in other parts of the epistle. But I observe not this as a contro- versialist. In that character, I do not give an opinion, nor undertake to satisfy an opponent. There may be reasons which we cannot perceive. Our business is not to account for God's reasons for not saying what he has not said, but to discover what he has said. I act on this principle in every instance, as well as in this. I endeavour to find out the meaning of the Holy Spiiit, by the words which he has used ; not by speculations and opinions with respect to what he should say. " No man," says Mr. B., " who had not a theory to support, coi.dd bring himself to do such violence to all the laws of interpretation in a case so plain." I think I am entitled to ask, with indignation, the ground on which my antagonist presumes to make this assertion. I have no theory to support. I never use theories in ascertaining the truths and the ordinances of Christ ; I interpret by the laws of language. Neither have I any philological doctrine which demands my denial of such a secondary signification of this word. How can I have a theory to support in denying such a secondary meaning, when it is my doctrine that words might receive such secondary meanings ? The process by which, in various instances, such secondary significations are imposed on words, I have exemplified in some of their -wildest caprices. Mr. B. himself is in this doctrine merely my pupil. As far as he is right, he has adopted my philology ; and has illustrated it merely by different examples. Must I, then, in opposing his conclusion, have a theory to support in opposition to my own doctrine ? ]\ir. Bickersteth's friend, in proof that the word in question, from signifying baptism by immersion, came to signify baptism in any way, alleged the authority of my own doctrine against myself. There was, however, a trifling deficiency in his reasoning. He proved from my doctrine that the word miglit come to have such a meaning ; but he forgot to prove that it actually under- 448 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. went tlae supposed process. Perfectly on tlie same principle Mr. Beeclier shows, from my doctrine, that the word might come to signify purifica- tion ; but he has not proved that, in the history of the word before the time of Christ, it actually received such a meaning. The principle I do not dispute ; it is my own principle. What temptation, then, can I have, from any theory of mine, to dispute this secondary meaning ? Again, I can have as Httle temptation from interest or popularity, to do violence to any passage in order to prove a particular mode of any rehgious ordinance. Have I made a fortune by immersion ? Would purifications destroy me ? Should I become less popular among Chris- tians, or with the world, by returning to sprinkling ? K emblematical purification by sprinkling or pouring were optional, as well as by immer- sion, I would most assuredly never immerse. Besides, why should I do violence to this passage, in order to reject purification as its meaning, when I could admit this meaning here, and still, with the utmost ease, prove immersion to be the mode of Christ's ordinance ? Were I ever so partial to water, Mr. B.'s good-natured doctrine will indulge me, and allow me to immerse as freely as to sprinkle. I can have no possible reason, then, for confiaiing the word in this passage to immersion, but the- innumerable proofs that it has this meaning, and the absence of all proof that it ever has any other. I should act perfectly in the same way, if the dispute were solely of a literary nature, and the question were the mode of a heathen rite. But should it be admitted that the word here is confined to persons, and that it includes washings of the person in every mode, still this would not countenance the opinion that it signifies purifications. All ceremonial washings were purifications ; but all purifications were not washings. Washings and purifications are not synonymous. Section VII. — Mr. B. next presents us with the usual objection from Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. " In Mark vii. 4, 8, and in Luke xi. 38, katharizo is the natural and obvious sense of baptizo, and katharismos of haptismos.^^ Let us hear the proof. " 1. This sense," says the writer, " fulfils perfectly all the exigencies of the passages." And if it did, I care not. Many a false sense may fulfil all the exigencies of the con- nexion. This false sense, however, has not even this merit; whereas, immersion is quite suitable to the connexion, and immersion is the only meaning of the word in every instance in the whole compass of the language. " I know, indeed," says the writer, " that it is said by some, that in Mark there is a rise in the idea from the lesser washing of the hands, which was common before all meals, to the greater washing imphed in the immersion of the body after coming from the mai-ket. But, on the other hand, there is simply a rise from the specific to the general and indefinite. They always wash their hands before meals ; and when they return from market they also purify themselves (as the nature of the case may require) before they eat." A rise from the specific to the general and indefinite ! This indeed is a new chmax. This is Gothic rhetoric. A rise from the washing of the hands to the immersion of the FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 449 whole body, or to the washing of the body in any mode, is a rise which all can understand; but a rise from the washing of the hands to inde- finite purifications is a fall. Mr. B.'s own phraseology is nonsense: " They also purify themselves." Does not also imply that the washing of the hands is not purification ? This is not an advancement from a species of purification to purification in general, but an advancement from what is supposed not to be purification to purification. But such an advance might be an advance hachwards. The washing of the hands is a species of purification ; if the advance is to purification indefinitely, then it may be fulfilled by something less than washing the hands, by dipping the finger, for instance, or by touching the body on any part mth a drop of water, or even without water, with blood, &c. If any reader has a conscience at all, I ask nothing more than com- mon sense in him, to perceive in this passage, that the persons referred to usually washed their hands before eating ; and that when they came from the market, they did something more than this. What that some- thing more was, depends on the meaning of the word. " In the latter case," says Mr. B., " Mr. Bloomfield remarks, it denotes a washing of the body, but not an immersion." Now, as far as the passage itself is con- cerned, it is fully admitted that it does not determine ; and the climax would be the same to Mr. Bloomfield as to me. But I determine the meaning of the word here, by its meaning as estabhshed by the use of language: I never press an argument a hair's breadth farther than it can go. I tell Mr. Bloomfield that the word never signifies to wash, as I teU Mr. Beecher that it never signifies to purify. My axithority is the practice of the Greek language. But why does Mr. Beecher appeal to Mr. Bloomfield ? Mr. Bloom- field is as much opposed to him as he is to me. If the word here signifies to wash the body, then it does not here signify to purify in general. Mr. B.'s artifice is just that of the Socinians, when they ex- plain the Avords " Before Abraham was, I am," in the sense of the Arians. It is a dishonest and uncandid way of escaping. He does what he is able to make it purify ; but as he cannot make it purify, even to his own satisfaction, he will give it over to Mr. Bloomfield for washing the body without immersion. This is not my way of handling the word of God. Purification, then, cannot be the meaning of the word here, because it is not suitable to the phraseology in which it is employed. But let it be observed that this is more than I am bound to show. Were it suitable to the context, I would equally reject it. I dismiss it on the ground of want of a title from the use of the language. I am not here grounding a proof, but obviating an objection. It is quite sufiicient that I can show that the meaning which I assign to the word is suitable to the passage : I am not bound to show that either ivash or purify is unsuit- able. The title of my client to the whole estate is already in evidence : my opponents must show that some part of it has been alienated. Thi£ passage will not prove such alienation. Mr. B.'s second proof is, " Nothing in the context demands the sense immerse, and powerful reasons forbid it. All must confess that piu-ifi- cation is the only idea involved in the subject of thovight. Now it is no 2 (-; 450 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. more likely that a want of immersion oiFended the Pharisee, Luke xi. 38, in the case of Christ, than it is that this was the ground of offence in the case of the disciples, Mark vii. It does not appear that Christ had been to the market ; nor is it likely at all that an immersion was ex- pected, as a matter of course, before every meal, even on coming from a crowd. The offence in the case of the disciples was, that they had not washed their hands. An immersion was not expected of them, though they had been in crowds. Wliy should it be of Christ ?" It is not necessary that the context shoidd demand the true meaning of a word ; it is enough that the context does not forbid it. The usage of the language demands this meaning A\dthout any additional demand from the context. The context, however, forbids purification, though this is not necessary to me. The reasons alleged, as forbidding it to signify immersion, have no force. Might not the Pharisees expect more sanctity in the Messiah than in his disciples, or than even they themselves pro- fessed ? But I have nothing to do with conjectures. Whatever might be their reasons, they did expect that Christ would have immersed before eating. To deny this is to give the lie to the inspired narrator. The word used by the Holy Spirit signifies immersion, and immersion only. A thousand reasons might influence the Pharisees in the expecta- tion referred to, which may not at aU be kno'vvn to us. To know their reasons is not at all necessary to the knowing of the meaning of the word, Mr. B. rests this argtunent on a false principle of interpretation, namely, that to know that a word is used in its estabhshed meaning, it is necessary to know that there are sufficient reasons to warrant its truth in such an appUcation. This we are to take on the authority of the narrator. His meaning we are to know from his words, and his veracity we must rest on his character. " Eosenmiiller, on this passage," says Mr. B., " well remarks, that the existence of any such custom of regular immersion before all meals, cannot be proved." This is another false first principle. Wliat makes it necessary that a practice should be proved by foreign evidence, before the testimony of the Holy Spirit is received in its proper meaning ? Is every thing recorded in Scripture to be denied, except it is proved by history ? Am I to suspend my faith in the resurrection of Christ, till I find it proved by uninspired records ? This is a Neological canon, well worthy of its author. It tends to sap the very foimdations of Christianity. Is not the testimony of the Spirit of God sufficient to prove this fact ? And what word could he have used more decisively to assert immersion ? The custom referred to as regards immersion after market, rests on the evidence of inspired history. Is not this as vahd as the testimony of uninspired historians ? " But above all," says Mr. B., " the immersion of the couches on which they reclined at meals is out of the question." I most freely admit that the word ought to be translated couches, and not tables. It designates not only the couches on which they recHned at table, but even the beds on which they reposed at night. It appUes also to the litters on which persons of distinction were carried on the shoulders of men. I will never hesitate to recognise anything in evidence, whatever bearing FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 451 it may have on my views. " Mr. Carson," says my antagonist, " seems to feel tliis point keenly, and yet manfiilly maintains his ground." Mr. Carson does indeed feel with regard to this objection something that he does not wish to express. But he can assure President Beecher that he never felt it as a difficulty: in the strongest hght in which it can be viewed, it is futile. There is no furnitiu-e in a house that could not be immersed. I have said that the couches might have been made to be taken to pieces, in order to their more convenient immersion ; and were this necessary, it is a vaUd solution. The supposition is perfectly allow- able. The couch on which rested the lu-n containing the ashes of Cyrus, is said by Arrian, p. 144, to have had feet of solid gold; and those on either side of the throne of Alexander, for his friends to sit on, had feet of silver, p. 165. Now what could be more easy than to have the feet of the couch, of whatever materials composed, to be taken out at pleasure for the purpose of immersion ? The immersion of the couches would be a thing of little trouble. But I care not that they were baptized aU of a piece: the thing could be very easily accomplished. Ingenuity is very idly expended in making Avill- worship easy to superstition. The couches were immersed, because the word which is employed to express the operation has this signification, and no other. Mr. B., throughout his whole work, mistakes my doctrine as to apos- sible sense of a word; and labours imder a fundamental error as to the difference of founding an argument on any passage, and answering an objection from it. Wlaen we found an argument on any passage, we must prove that the passage has our meaning, and no other : for if this is not proved, the argument can have no weight. But when we answer an objection from any passage, it is sufficient that a particular word may have the sense for which we contend; because, if it may have such a sense, the objection which supposes that it has not this sense, but another sense, is unfounded. It is a contradiction to say that a word may have such a sense in such a place, yet that it cannot have this sense. If, then, the answer to the objection is possible, it is valid. "Were not this so, Christianity itself could not withstand the attacks of the infidel. Many objections must be answered by the authority of merely possible solu- tions. This is what I mean by a possible sense. I never extend this to cases in which I found an argument : I confine it resolutely to cases in which I answer objections. With respect to the passage now under dis- cussion, Mr. B. is bound to proof ; because on this he founds proof that the word in question signifies to purify. I stand only on the defence; for I do not allege the passage as proof, but repel the objection which pretends that the passage is irreconcilable with immersion. In this point my antagonist proves himself ignorant of one of the fundamental laws of controversy. He demands proof from me, when he himself is boimd to prove. He asks, " Wliat has Mr. Carson proved ? Wliy, truly, that in other instances baptizo means immerse. But does this prove that it means it here ?" Could any man who understands the self-evident laws of controversy, look for proof on my part from this passage ? Is it not enough for me to show that there is nothing to prevent the word from having its established meaning in this passage ? If this is possible, his 2 G 2 452 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. objection is removed. My antagonist is bound from this passage to show that the word signifies to purify. How can he do this, if he has not proved the word to have that signification in any other place ; and if even in this it may have its usual meaning ? If, as he admits, I have found that haptizo in other instances signifies to immerse^ there is a cer- tainty that it has this meaning here, except it is proved that it has another signification somewhere else. If another signification is found, I will not insist that immersion must of course be the signification here. In such a case as this, the meaning must be settled by additional evidence. When a word has two or more meanings, actually in proof, which of them may in any passage be the true meaning, is a question ; but if no secondary meaning is in proof, there can be no question on the subject. Now there is not in all Greek literature a single instance, ever alleged, in which this word must have a secondary meaning. Mr. B. admits that I have proved that the word signifies immersion in other places; but asks, " Does this prove that it means so here ?" I answer most decidedly that it does prove this, if the word is not proved to have another meaning. If but one instance prove a word to have a certain meaning, it is proof that every other instance has the same meaning, except a secondary meaning is proved. If a secondary mean- ing is proved, then the claimants must rest their suit on their respective peculiar resources. " The probabihty," says Mr. B., " is all the other way." Here there is a want of discrimination and a confounding of things that differ. I am not speaking of Avhat is possible, probable, or certain, independently of the testimony ; I am speaking of the testimony of the word known by its use ; I am saying that a word in a certain place must have the meaning which it is found to have in other places, when no secondary meaning has ever been proved. Mr. B. alleges not the testimony of the word, but imposes a testimony on the word. He forces it to take a meaning which use has never given it, on the authority of what he thinks probable, utterly independent of the authority of the word. He tampers with the witness, and tells him what he must say. I allow witness to tell his own story, and beheve him impHcitly on his own authority, without regard to what I might think independently probable. Mr. B.'s conduct is just the same with that of a jury who, having heard the testimony of a number of competent eye-witnesses, with regard to the way in which a man was killed, decide in opposition to their evi- dence, on the authority of the conjectures of a surgeon. This word declares that couches were purified by immersion. Mr. B., on the authority of what he thinks probable, declares that it was not by immer- sion. He dictates to the word what it must say, instead of receiving its testimony. On the contrary, my decision is, that the way in which the couches were purified, is to be known ft'om the testimony of the word, and not from what, independently of that testimony, is probable ; and that from this testimony they were immersed, because the word has no other meaning. " Hence," says Mr. B., " the demand to prove an impossibility of immersion is altogether ixnreasonable." If a secondary meaning had FIRST KEPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHEB. 453 been proved from use, then, in any instance to demand an impossibility of the primary meaning, before the secondary is admitted, would be unreasonable. But is it unreasonable that a word should be understood in this passage as it is proved to signify in other passages, when no secondary signification has ever been proved ? Instead of being unrea- sonable, the demand is founded on self-evident truth. ^Vhy shoiild the word have a meaning here, which it is not proved to have in use, when its own estabhshed meaning will serve ? How can a meaning which is not known to exist, dispute with the only established meaning ? Views of probability, independently of the testimony of the word, are not a competent witness ; for they are often mistaken. What we might, pre- viously to the hearing of evidence, judge probable, might, on the hearing of evidence, be proved most satisfactorily to be false. The meaning of this word must be known from its use — ^not from views of probability independently of this use. When we hear that a certain person has killed another, we may think the thing very improbable ; but shall we on that ground assert that kill does not signify to take away life ? In fact, to allege that the couches were not immersed, is not to decide on the authority of the word used, but in opposition to this authority ; to give the lie to the Holy Spirit. Inspiration employs a word to designate the purification of the couches, which never signifies anything but immerse. If they were not immersed, the historian is a false witness. This way of conferring meanings on words is grounded on infideHty. It dictates to inspiration instead of interpreting its language. It would be improper in ascertaining the meaning of words even in a profane his- torian. Are we to deny the meaning of words established by use, as often as, independently of the testimony of the words, we may think a thing improbable ? This would destroy the faith of history: it would destroy every doctrine of Scripture. This is a usual way with some in interpreting the Bible ; but it is not the way that any interpret the lan- guage of the profane historian. When the profane historian narrates what is thought improbable, his veracity is questioned, but his words are not tampered with. When the Holy Spirit employs words whose meanings are not relished, critics do not say that he lies, but they say what is equal to this, that his words mean what they cannot mean. If a word may have in any instance its estabhshed meaning, when it cannot be proved in any instance to have another meaning, it cannot be probable that it has in that instance a meaning which it cannot be proved to have anywhere else. Surely this is self-evident. " And it is," continues my antagonist, " against his own practice in other cases. Does he not admit that lapto means to dye, or colour, when it is applied to the beard and hair ? " Here I am caught at last : surely my feet are entangled in my own net. But let the reader see with what ease I can extricate myself. The assertion of my antagonist arises from his want of discrimination. I admit that hapto has a second- ary signification, becaxise such secondary signification is in proof, and instances may be alleged in which its primary meaning is utterly impos- sible. When applied, for instance, to the lake, the immersion of a lake in the blood of a frog, is beyond the bounds of possibility. Show me 454 FIKST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER, anything like this with respect to baptizo, and I will grant a secondary meaning; and as soon as a secondary meaning is ascertained on sirSi- cient grounds, I do not demand in every mstance a proof of impossibihty of primary meaning before the secondary is alleged. The competition between the rival meanings must then be determined on other grounds. This law I apply, not to laptizo only, but to every word of every lan- guage. The immersion of the couches, in no Hght in which it can be viewed, has the smallest difficulty. From an excess of good nature I made faith easy to the weak, by fixing the couches so as readily to be taken to pieces ; but if obstinacy will not avail itself of this help, I will force it to carry the couches to water wherever it may be found. " The fact is," says Mr. B., " that the whole reasoning against the sense claimed for baptizo in these passages, rests on false principles." False principles ! What now are our false principles ? Is it a false principle to rest on the ascertained meaning of a word, and not on pro- babilities independently of the word ? Is it a false prmciple to refuse a word a meaning in a disputed passage, till it proves itself to have such meaning in an undisputed passage ? " It assumes," says my antagonist, " a violent improbability of the meaning in question, and resorts to all manner of shifts to prove the possibility of immersion, as though that were all that the case required." AVhat shall I say of this ? Is it calumny, or is it want of perspicacity ? Assume! I assume nothing, Mr. President Beecher, but self-evident truth. My reasoning does not at all rest on assumptions. The mean- ing which you assign to the word, I reject, because it wants evidence, not on any assumption of its violent improbabihty. All manner of shifts! I repel the charge with indignation. I never used a sliift in all the con- troversy I ever "wrote. Does it require a shift to prove that in all the cases referred to, immersion was possible ? "Will any man of common sense question the possibility ? If the possibihty is unquestionable, Avhy shall I be supposed to employ all manner of shifts to prove it ? But my opponent asserts also that I consider that the possibility of immersion in the cases referred to, is aU that is required to prove it. Is this a shift? It is worse than a shift: it is not a fact. The proof that immersion was used in the cases referred to, is that the word has this mean- ing, and no other. The possibility of immersion only removes objection. But for argument's sake, I will for a moment admit that immersion was in these cases impossible: even then I wiU deny the title of purification. Washing is a meaning which would come previously to purifying. These passages, then, cannot in any view, groimd the title of purification. Section YHI. — His next argument, Mr. Beecher grounds on a pas- sage in Ecclesiasticus. " In the case," says he, " so often quoted from Sirach xxxiv. 25, baptizo requires the sense katharizo. The passage is this : Baptizomenos apo nehrou kai palin ajjtomenos autou ti ophelese to loutro autou. ' He that is cleansed from a dead body, and again touches it, of what profit to him is his cleansing ?'" No such thing is reqiured. But let us hear his proof. " 1. The sense, katharizo, purify," says he, " suits the preposition FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 455 apo; — immerse does not." The preposition, I assert, equally suits im- mersion. Immersed from a dead body, is an eUiptical expression, for immersed to purify from the polbitioii contracted hy the touch of a dead body. And on this principle it is translated into English, in the common version, though the translators were not immersers. "■ He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing ?" But it is strange beyond measure that President Beecher did not perceive that even if the word purify itself had been here used, there would have been a similar elUpsis. To j^^^'^^j]/ ffom a dead body, is to purify from the pollution contracted by touching a dead body. This is school-boy criticism, j\Ir. President. His second observation on this example is: "No immersion, in the case of touching a dead body, was enjoined, but simply a washing of the body.'''' It is not necessary that an immersion should be enjoined: it is quite sufficient that the injunction of washing the body was usually per- formed by immersion. The writer is alluding to practice, and is not relating the words of the injimction. Mr. B.'s third observation on this passage is, that " the rite of ptu-ifica- tion from a dead body was complex, and no import of the word baptizo, but the one claimed, is adapted to include the whole." The Avriter is not describing the whole process of the rite of purification according to the law of Moses. Why, then, should the word include the whole ? He is referring to a part of that rite merely as an illustration of another subject. Priests were anointed to their office, but there were other things included in the rite of inauguration, besides anointing. Might it not be said, " If a priest is anointed, and afterwards render himself imfit for his office, of what avail is his anointing ?" The washing completed the process of purification. Another touch of a dead body defiled again, and rendered the washing, consequently the whole process, useless. But in the word loutron there is the most decisive evidence that the whole process of purification is not included in baptizo. The word loutron here refers to the thing done to the person by his baptism. But loutron cannot refer to purification in general, but only to washing. It cannot include the sprinkling of the water of separation. This is purification, but not washing. On this view, Mr. B. asks: " How then is it consistent to apply it to the blood of Christ, which is spoken of as the blood of sprinkling ?" This to Mr. B. appears an unanswerable question: to me it has aiot the smallest difficulty. We are said to be washed in the blood of Christ, and we are said to be sprinlded ivith the blood of Christ. But the washing and the sprinkling are never confomided ; we are not said to be washed by being sprinkled, nor is sprinkling called washing. These two forms of speech refer to the appHcation of the blood of Christ under figiu-es entirely different. Wlien Christ's blood is said to be sprinkled on us, there is an allusion to the sprinkling of the blood under the law; when we are said to be washed in the blood of Chi-ist, there is an allusion to the washing imder the law. Does not Mr. B. know what a difference there is between a mixture of metaphors, and a succession of distinct metaphors ? Careless readers will imagine that there is 456 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. wonderful acuteness in Mr. B.'s observations. But the eye of the philo- sopher Avill perceive that they are subtle without discrimination. A little more perspicacity would have saved him from undertaking the impracticable task of proving baptism to mean purification. But were we to gi-ant that the word here signifies purification, this would not be proof that it has this signification in the rite of Christian baptism. It would give ground to send the case to the jury ; but would not decide the controversy. Still we would most satisfactorily prove that baptism must be by immersion. " The case of Judith, also," Mr. B. alleges, " sustains the same view." But what appearance of difficulty does this occurrence of the word present ? Is it a thing impossible, or even difficult, to be immersed near a fountain ? INIight she not have had attendants with her to provide her mth a bath at the fountain, had this been necessary ? From the civilities and attentions of the governor, could she be supposed to want anything that would not be most cheerfully supphed ? "Was it not usual to have stone troughs at fountains, for the purpose of watering cattle ? " Haynes informs us," says Mr. Whitecross, in his Anecdotes Illustrative of Scripture, " that having arrived at Nazareth, at the end of December, about five in the evening, upon entering the town, he and his party saw two women fiUing their pitchers with water at a formtain he had described, and about twelve others waiting for the same purpose, whom they desired to pour some into a trough which stood by, that their horses might drink ; they had no sooner made the request than the women comphed, and filled the trough, and the others waited Avith the greatest patience." p. 83. Yes, but ]\Ir. B. will say^ Mr. Carson has not proved that there was such a trough at this fountain, Mr. Carson will reply, This is not necessary, Mr. President; it is sufiicient for my purpose, if it may have been so. I am answering an objection, and if the thing might be as I suppose, the objection is invahd. But what should prevent her from bathing in the fountain, even if we were assured that there was no other way of bathing ? This is quite usual to superstition. Charlotte EUzabeth, speaking of a holy well at the top of Sheve Donard, a lofty mountain in Ireland, says, " Many a diseased creature had dragged his feeble, perhaps crippled limbs and exhausted frame, to the top of Slieve Donard, to plunge them in the so- called holy well, hoping to find a heahng power in its spring:" shall less be expected from Jewish superstition ? In iact, the English version, which was not made by immersers, actually translates the passage, " and washed herself in a foimtain of water by the camp." Judith xii. 7. It is true that the exact rendering is, immersed herself at a fou7itain, not in a fountain. The immersion is proved not by the preposition, but by the verb ; and though at a fountain does not signify in a fountain, yet it is consistent with it. A person may be said to be immersed at a fountain, when he is immersed in it. A person coming from Palestine may say, I was baptized at the Jordan, when he was immersed in it, I have said ail this, however, only to put obstinacy to the blush, and overwhelm it with confusion. Not a word of it is essentially necessary. Had Judith been most rigorously treated, and confined to her tent, when FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 457 she is said to be baptized for purification, I will make the word find her water. Can anything be more unreasonable than for persons at the end of thousands of years, to allege difficulties as in certain cases insupe- rable ? Could not innumerable circiunstances render a thing practicable, which to us are now unkno-\vn ? " We are told," says Mr. B., " of her courage, and faith, and of possible bathing places near the spring, and all for what ? To avoid so obvious a conclusion as that the writer merely means to say, that she purified or washed herself, without reference to the mode." To avoid such a conclusion, it is not necessary to allege any of the things men- tioned. The immersion would be seciired by the word, though we could see no way of its accomplishment. It is enough that nothing is seen to render it impossible. When we take the trouble of showing how the immersion might be accompHshed, it is a work of supererogation. How is the conclusion obvious that the historian means only that she purified or Avashed herself, without reference to mode, when the word that he employs designates mode in the most decisive manner ? What is the ground of the supposed obvious conclusion ? Is it that it would have been sufficient to tell us that she washed or purified herself, mthout telling us the mode ? This is no ground for such a conclusion ; this does not imply that she did not purify in the mode of immersion, or that the historian should not mention the mode employed. But can anything be sufficient ground for a conclusion as to this point, but the import of the word itself ? How do we conclude that she purified herself at all ? Is it not from the Avord used by the historian ? Ought we not, then, to ground oui' conclusion, as to the mode of that purification, on the same word, and not on independent probabiHty ? We have no testimony on the subject, but that contained in the word baptizo, and that testimony asserts immersion. How can it be concluded that the historian speaks of purifi- cation without expressing mode, when he employs the word that most definitely expresses mode ? "What reason is there," says Mr. B., "for aU this?" Astonishing demand ! What reason is there for giving a word the only meaning it is known to possess ! When a person says, / dipped myself in the river, shall we say, " what reason is there to suppose that the word dip here signifies to immerse ? Is it not here intended to tell us that he bathed himself? What reason, then, is there to suppose that dip does not sig- nify to bathe, without reference to mode ?" Our reason for beheving that Judith was immersed is, that the historian tells us that she was immersed. Is not this a sufficient reason ? " Is not the sense purify, ''' continues IMr. B., " « priori probable ?" Wliether in giving an account of the performance of a rite of purification, a writer will mention the process in the rite to be performed Avithout specification, cannot be previously knoAvn : it must be learned from the words of the naiTative. That Mr. President Beecher AviU be immersed in one of the great American rivers, is now very improbable; but should I ever read that, in obedience to Christ, he Avas immersed, I cer- tainly Avill not attempt to discredit the account by alleging that immerse does not here signify to dip. 458 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. "Does it not," continues Mr. B., "fulfil all the exigencies of the case ?" This is -no criterion. A word might fuiliil all the exigencies of the case, and yet another word, either more general or more specific, might be used. When a person says, I dipped myself in the river, either washed or bathed would fulfil aU the exigencies of the case. Does this prove that di]o signifies to vjosh or bathe withoiit referring to mode ? " Was it of any importance," «ays J\Ir. B., "to specify the mode ?" If it is truth, the importance is not to be weighed. My last reply -will serve equally here. But is it a thing of no importance to specify the mode in which a rite is performed ? " Do the circumstances of the case," continues my opponent, " call for immersion ?" The word calls for immersion ; it is enough that no circumstances forbid it. If this was the usual mode of performing the rite of washing in purification, which is admitted, why is it not demanded ? Such objections are unworthy of an answer. Suppose it is said that an army on its march forded a river near such a place. Suppose again that I know that in that neighbourhood there is a bridge over the river ; is it not probable that, if there is a bridge, the army will pass by the bridge ? Am I then to say, that ford signifies to p>ass a river by a bridge? Whitecross relates the following anecdote: " Very near Columbo is a school built in a beautiful and romantic situation, on the high bank of a noble river, across which a bridge of boats had recently been thrown for the convenience of the pubhc. A nrnnber of fine little boys residing on the side of the river, opposite the school, were exceedingly anxious to enjoy the benefits of the instruction which it afforded, but were utterly unable, fi:om their poverty, to pay the toll for passing this bridge four times every day, to and from school. Li removing this serious difficulty, the 'little fellows showed at once their eagerness to obtain instruction, and their native ingenuity. Wearing only a fight cloth around them, according to the custom of the country, they were accustomed to assemble on the bank in the morning, and the larger boys binding up the books of the smaller ones, which they had home with them to learn their tasks, to tie them on the back of their heads, and swim over, the little ones following them; and this inconvenience they constantly encountered, rather than be absent from school." Now, if instead of this particular narrative, which exj)lains every circumstance, it had been recorded only that the boys passed the river by sivimmi7ig, while we knew that a bridge of boats was near, what would be the sense in which, according to IVIr. B.'s philology, a foreigner should understand the language? "yS'it^m," says the writer, "must undoubtedly be here taken to signify to walk over a bridge of boats. It is true, in many books in the EngHsh language, the word swim has another meaning, but there is the highest probabihty that it has not this signification here. Is it to be believed that the boys swam, in the primary sense of the word, across a great river, when there was a bridge at the place ? Incredible, utterly incredible ! My opponents, it is true, may plead the authority of classical EngHsh; but I rely on Columbine English. The word swim, then, must here have the FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 459 secondary signification for which I contend." Every child who speaks English Avill langh the critic to scorn; but to his own countrymen, as little acquainted with the English langiiage as himself, he would appear to be a very profound philologist. 1 maintain that this is exactly Mr. B.'s criticism, and that it can satisfy nothing but ignorance. Is it not evident, on the face of the dociunent, that Judith went out from the camp to the fountain at Bethuha for the piu-pose of bathing, or washing her whole person ? This the law of purification requii'ed, and- no other reason made it necessary for her to go to the fomitain. Even then, supposing that it were allowed that the word signifies to wash without reference to mode, this gives no coimtenance to Mr. B.'s opinion that the word signifies to purify. To wash and to purify are not identical. On this supposition, the passage would favour those who think that the word signifies to wash — not those who think that it signifies to purify. Again, if the washing of the person in any manner was the way in which the law was fulfilled, why did she go to the fountain ? Wliy did she leave the tent ? Coidd not a small basin of water have served the purpose of successive washing ? Again, even had it been said that she washed her person at the foun- tain, was not immersion Ukely to be the mode ? Is it not the usual and the most convenient way of washing the person ? Why then shall it be supposed that it was not the mode employed here, even though the word of mode had not been used ? But especially Avhen the word of mode is used, why should supposed difficulties make it incredible ? The alleged difiiculties, however, are no difficulties. Mr. B. cannot find a tree while he is in the forest. But even were it admitted that the word signifies purify in this place, this would not prove that it has this signification in the ordinance of baptism; we cotdd stiU prove immersion to be the mode of the Christian rite. Mr. B. fails in every thing which he attempts to prove ; yet were he successful, it would not prove his position. Throughout his whole work, my antagonist labom-s under an essential error. He reasons on the supposition that every instance of the occur- rence of the word must be treated independently of its estabhshed meaning, and its meaning assigned according to views of probabihty, without reference to testimony. He imderstands not the difference between answering an objection and founding an argument; and calls upon me for proof, when he himself is bound to prove. In answering objections, a merely possible supposition is as good as demonstration: in proof, probability, even the highest probability, avails nothing against testimony. If Judith is said to have been baptized, she must have been immersed, though a thousand difficvilties may occui' in pro\dding the water. My opponents are more unreasonable with me than the Israelites were with Moses: they murmured when they had no water. Must I bring water out of the rock, when there is enough in the fountain ? Such a mode of disprovmg tlie established meaning of a word, and of giving a new and unauthorised meaning, I cannot dignify with any other designation than that of perverse cavilling. 460 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. Mr. B. alleges as another argument, that "no contrary probability, or usage, can be estabhshed from the writers of the New Testament age, or of the preceding age, who used the Alexandrian Greek." With pro- bability we have nothing to do in this question; we are inquiring about a matter of fact, namely, whether a certain word had a secondary meaning. We admit proof from writers of all classes to the time of Christ. Mr. B. tells us that to refute a secondary meaning, it is of no use to appeal to the earhest writers. This also we admit. K in all the history of the word, till its appropriation to the ordinance of Christ, he brings one instance in which it must have a secondary mean- ing, we admit that a secondary meaning is fully proved. An example from Alexandrian Greek would prove the fact, though it should not be owned by any writer of antiquity. Is not this admission sufficiently liberal ? Candour requires no less : it cannot require more. I have no object but truth; and I am so strong in truth, that I fearlessly grant every thing that candoirr can demand. But what does the Avriter mean when he asserts that no contrary usage can be estabhshed from the writers of the New Testament age, or of the age preceding ? Does he mean that during this time the word is not used in its primary sense ? If he does, the assertion is palpably false. Does he mean that during the specified time, there are examples of this secondary meaning ? Is not this the very point in dispute ? To assume it, is to assume the question at issue. There is not one instance to prove this. Here, however, ]\Ir. B. labours under his usual mistake — ^he puts proof on his opponent, when it hes upon himself. Why should we prove a contrary usage in the times of the New Testament, or the pre- ceding age ? Does not proof lie upon him ? If I prove that in its early history a word has a certain meaning, it must in every age be supposed to have the same meaning, till a contrary usage is proved. If the possessor of an estate proves that he has hitherto possessed it by a good title, his possession cannot be disturbed till ahenation is proved. It is possible that he may have sold it, but tliis is to be proved, not taken for granted. " I do not deny," says my antagonist, " that these writers do also use the word haptizo in other circumstances, and in a secular sense, to denote immersion, sinking, overwhelming, or oppression. But this only proves that the two usages did co-exist; just as Mr. Carson proves that the two usages of hapto did co-exist in Ilippocrates, and that the exist- ence of the one did not disprove the existence of the other." But is there not a great difference between i\Ir. Carson's proving, and Mr. Beecher's asserting, and supposing, and alleging probabilities, independently of the word ? All my opponents endeavour to take advantage of my candour in proving the secondary meaning of bapto, taking it for granted that this equally applies to baptizo. Let baptize show as good evidence of a secondary meaning, as I have shown on the part of bapto, and I will without controversy admit the fact. But when Mr. B. has done this, he has not succeeded; even then I am perfectly able to prove that the word apphes to the ordinance of baptism in FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. 461 its primary meaning. A primary and a secondary meaning may co-exist, while each of them must be capable of being definitely ascer- tained. I deny a secondary meaning, not because it would disprove immersion in the ordinance of baptism, but because it wants the coiin- tenance of use. I give my opponents the whole range of Greek literature till the institution of the ordinance of baptism. I have never met an example which I cannot reduce to the one meaning. Section IX. — Mr. B.'s explanation of Acts xxii. 16, is not a little singular. On the strength of this single example, I would undertake to refute his meaning of the word in dispute. Let us hear his explana- tion of it. " Here," says he, " we have faith in Christ, the washing away or pardon of sins, and a purification intended to symbolise it. Baptisai, purify thyself, or be purified bodily, — apolousai tas amartias, wash away thy sins, as to the mind, by calling on the name of the Lord." On this I remark, 1. This makes the pardon of sins to be conferred at the time of baptism. It is the very error which he repro- bates, p. 42. If the distinction is, that purification is emblematic, and pardon of sins real, then the pardon of sins takes place in baptism. In fact, this is what he expressly says. He makes purify refer to the body, and wash away thy sins refer to the mind. Could Mr. B. more clearly avow the doctrine which he stigmatises ? 2. This makes the external rite of baptism purify the body from sin, while the mind is purified not by baptism, but by caUing on the name of the Lord. If the body is not purified from sin by the rite, it is not, according to IVIr. B., purified at all. It is the mind only, as disting-uished from the body, that is purified by caUing on the name of the Lord. 3. This represents the mind as purified at the time of baptism, by calling on the name of the Lord. Is it not by faith in the blood of Christ, that both soul and body are purified ? And does not this take place at the moment when the sinner believes in Christ ? 4. It is not said that he was to wash away his sins by caUing on the name of the Lord, but that he was to be baptized, having called on the name of the Lord. 5. Purify and wash are not indeed synonymous, but they are too nearly related to be both appHed together with reference to the same thing. The one is the genus, and the other is a species under it. J3e purified, and wash away thy sins, would be intolerable English. Is not washing contained in purifying ? What need is there for both the genus and the species ? 6. Mr. B. has felt this consequence; and to avoid it, he has invented a distinction, not suggested by the words, but inconsistent both with truth and with the passage. 7. The emblem in baptism refers to the soul as well as to the body, thoiigh the body only is washed ; and the thing sigrdfied by the emblem refers to the body as well as to the soul. The body is washed from sin as well as the mind. The distinction, then, is not between the baptism of the body and the washing of the soul. 8. ^^ Be baptized," evidently refers to the rite as designated from its 462 FIRST REPLY TO PRESIDENT BEECHER. mode; and " ivash away tJiy sins,'" to its emblematical meaning. Bap- tism is the name of the rite ; the ivashing away of sins is its emblematical import. Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, the moment a person believes on him. This is exhibited in emblem immediately after believing the truth, by being immersed in water. Sins are emblema- tically washed away in baptism, just as ceremonial sins were washed away by ceremonial purification. In like manner the Lord's supper repre- sents that which has already taken place, and not that which is done diu-ing the ordinance. The blood was previously shed, the atonement was made, and the sins of the worthy partakers were remitted. But in the ordinance of the supper all this is exhibited in emblem. 9. This phraseology shows that baptism is a ivashing or bathing: then it cannot be a purification by sprinkling a few drops of water. This is no washing; the whole person was bathed. 10. Yet though there is a Avashing in baptism, the word baptism cannot signify washmg, for this would be to say, " Be washed, and wash away thy sins." Two words with exactly the same meaning could not be thus conjoined. No criticism Avill ever be able to reconcile this passage with either washing or purifying as the meardng of the word baptism. It is suitable only to its modal meaning, immersion. Mr. B. thinks that 1 Pet. iii. 21, proves his view. The apostle, he tells us, " seems to think that, if he left the word baptisma unguarded, he might be taken to mean the external purification of the body." Is not this reason of caution as apphcable to immersion as to purification ? T\Taatever might have been the name or mode of the ordinance, it is an ordinance of emblematic piirification, and as such was hable to perver- sion. Have not Baptists as mtich need to caution ignorance against supposing that the external rite is salvation, as those who make the word signify purification .? The immersion is an emblematical washing, and it is necessary to guard against the universal proneness to superstition, in substituting rites for the things signified by them. Mr. B. seems to think that the word baptism in this passage does not at all refer to the Christian rite, but to purification or atonement by the blood of Christ. Tliis conceit is vm worthy of notice. 1. Immerse is the meaning of the word, whatever the immersion may represent. 2. It is the appropriated name of the ordinance, and to the ordinance it must refer here, whatever the word may signify. 3. That it refers to the ordinance of baptism is evident on the whole face of the dociunent. No man could deny tliis who had not a piu-pose to serve. 4. JVIr. B. does not, as he ought, show the consistency of the meaning alleged, Avith the phraseology of the passage. 5. The ordinance of baptism, and the salvation of Noah by water, have the most hvely resemblance. Noah and his family Avere saved by being buried in the Avater of the flood ; and after the flood they emerged as rising from the graA'e. There is no correspondence betAveen pzd. stiff covers. A BEAUTIFUL POETEAIT OF THE EEV. JOHN CLAEKE, Missionary to Africa, from a Painting by Room. Proofs, Is. (>d. or on India paper, 2s. NAEEATIVE OF A TOUE TO HAMBUEGH, COPENHAGEN, &c. &c., on a Visit of Fraternal Sympathy to the Persecuted Christians. By James Hoby, D.D. 18mo. cloth, price Is. &d. In one vol. 12mo. 5s. WESTEEN AFEICA, ITS CONDITION, AND CHRISTIANITY THE MEANS OF ITS RECOVERY. By the Rev. D. J. East. WORKS BY THE REV. ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D. UNITARIAN MYSTERY; or. Reply to Mr. Carmicliaers strictures on Mr. Carson's Views of Inspiration. 8vo. Gd. REPLY TO REMARKS ON MR. CARSON'S TREATISE ON BAPTISM, contained in a note in Mr. Bickersteth's late work on the same subject. 8vo. 9d. BAPTISM NOT PURIFICATION, in Reply to President Beecher. LETTER TO DR. MACLAY, on the reply of the British and Foreign Bible Society to the Memorial of the Committee of the Baptist Union. INCOMPETENCY OF DR. HENDERSON, as an Umpire on the Philology of the word Baptism, proved from the unsoundness and extravagance of the Principles of Interpretation implied in his letter to Mr. Brandram with refer- ence to that question. Critiral ^otitt^* Rev. John Fosteh, (Author of the Essay on Popular Ignorance, Decision of Character, &c.) " I am pleased that the work is to be reprinted with the proposed corrections and additions. No doubt, many of our ministers will make an effort to obtain subscriptions. I have mentioned it here to Dr. , who gives his name for a copy. I add my name of course." A. K. Miller, Esa. " It appears to me that the friends of evangelical religion at large, are deeply indebted to him, how tardy soever they may be in making the acknowledgment. Other men of far inferior calibre have had their honours heaped upon them ; but do I speak more than the words of truth and soberness, when I say that here is a man who has advanced every subject on which he has wTitten, and who in some respects is in advance of the age in which he lives — here is a man, a mere shred of whose capital has made some men of small means great, and some really great men, greater still — himself all the while more unassuming than bis fellows. Among his excellencies I have always rated high his impartiality and singleness of purpose. One is never in doubt that his object is truth, and that his determination is to follow evidence whithersoever it leads, untrammelled by system or sect. The freedom from bias and independent honesty in argument ever evinced by this writer, are qualities which we have greatly to desiderate in many controver- sialists of the present day. Though I am not a member of a Baptist church, yet I am anxious to encourage any work proceeding from the pen of Dr. Carson, distin- guished as he is by the highest talent, and exhibiting as he ever does, the most perfect candour. I am happy to learn that the subscribers are so numerous, and request you will put down my name for tive copies." Rev. E. Hall, A.M. " I refer to Carson, because his research has made this field liis own on the Baptist side of the question ; because he is undoubtedly a very learned and able man, — the chief, indeed, on the Baptist side in this part of the field of controversy." WORKS BY THE REV. ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D. Rev. B. H. Draper, LL.D. " Let those who think that the solemn immersion of believers in water is not baptism, answer, if they ca.n, fairly, and without evasion, the learned, candid, and decisive work of Mr. Carson." Congregational Magazine. " If what Mr. Carson terms axioms are indeed such, the matter is for ever set at rest; and except prejudice or an obstinate detei'- mination to reject the obvious dictates of the Spirit continues to operate, the whole Christian world must forthwith embrace the principles of anti-pcedohaptism." Presbyterian Review. " We have no fault to find with Mr. Carson's axioms.^' Eclectic Review. " It is quite evident that they," (referring to two of Dr. C.'s works,) " are the production of a writer long habituated to deep and searching thought, and possessing a great command of language." And while the Review states that Dr. Carson " touches unquestionably with a vigorous and masterly hand a great variety of topics ;" it also attests " the great simplicity, judiciousness, and piety," with which they are treated. Scotsman. " Dr. Carson has long been well known, not only in this country, but in Great Britain and America, as a first-rate scholar, a souiid philosopher, an irresist- ible reasoner, and a profound theologian. ***** jjig -works shall be his monument — a monument of diversified and transcendent genius, of imperishable greatness ; evincing to posterity, that with the strictest propriety, he has been designated one of the first biblical critics of the nineteenth century." Scottish Guardian. "As a profound and accurate thinker, an able meta- physician, a close reasoner, a deep theologian, Dr. Carson can stand the ground against any rivalship." Orthodox Presbyterian. " On matters of church order, it is well known we diff'er from him ; but as a scholar we honour him, as a Christian brother we embrace him. In knowledge of the philosophy of language he is far in advance of the present age ; and with respect to metaphysical acuteness and powers of reasoning, he has been called ' the Jonathan Edwards of the nineteenth century.' His character as a philosophic theologian and a profound original independent thinker, stands in the very highest rank ; and he was only justly designated, when called one of the most acute philosophic reasoners of the present age." Christian Freeman. " The Rev. Alexander Carson, one of the first biblical critics of the age. The great and almost singular excellences of this most extraor- dinary man are his clear philosophical conceptions, and his fearless philosophical spirit. Even the German exegetical writers are only scholars ; the true critic is made up of the scholar and philosopher combined." Dr. Carson is preparing for the press, ^ ^ih) (SiJttion of J)i£S TREATISE ON THE FIGURES OF SPEECH.