Q ^ PRINCETON. N. J. — DIFFERENCE BETWEEN Bxtttm AND BxTfTi^w. 1 HE word BxTTTa from which is formed B«?rT;^;," says he, " perhaps does not so necessa- rily 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 water, or the Mater comes over it." Now, were this observation just, every thing lying imder water might have this li- terally applied 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 Avater, but not actually dipped, the mode OF BAPTISM. 5 essentially denoted by it is as truly expressed as in any other instance of its occurrence. Indeed the whole beauty of such expressions con- sists in the exjjression of a mode not really belonging to the thing expressed. The imagination, for its own gratification, invests the object with a mode that does 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 understand 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 ex- pression 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 fi'om the works of Aristotle. " The Phenicians who inhabit Cadiz, relate, that sailing beyond Hercules's Pillars, in four days, with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and is not laid under water, /3«7rr/^s5«/, at ebb ; but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered and over- whelmed." Now, though the water comes over the land, and there is no actual exemplification of the mode expressed hj this word, yet it stiU expresses that mode ; and the word has been employed for the very purpose of expressing it. The peculiar beauty of the ex- pression consists in figuring the object, which is successively bare and buried under water, as being dipped when it is covered, and as emerging when it is bare. In the same style we might say, that at the flood, God immersed the mountains 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 little water on an object. The thing here supposed to be baptized, was wholly buried under water. The beach is said to be baptized when the tide comes over it. Can any child, then, be at a loss to learn from this, that baptism means to lay imder water ? Should we say that God baptized the earth at the flood, we would 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 with respect to the peculiar import of derivatives in ^oj. This was a large object, that 6 THE MODE was not supposed to be taken up and dipped, but to be caused to dip, as it were by sinking. The distinction which I have observed between the use of ^ctTrro) and /3<»7rT occurred. I said, ' Sir, you knoAV there ■^^ a controversy among Christians respecting the meaning of that word.' He smiled and replied, ' The Baptists have the advan- tage of us V He cited immediately the Avell-known passage in Pindar, and one or two of those in the gospels, mentioned in this letter ; I inquired, Avhether, in his opinion, /3x7rT(^&) must be consi- dered equal to /Sxtftco, which, he said, was to tinge, as dyers. He replied to this effect ; that if there be a diflference, he should take the former to be the strongest. He fiilly assured me, that it sig- nified a total immersioii. This conversation took place August 27, 1807.^' I should like to know in what respects this eminent scholar con- sidered /ixTTTn^io to be a stronger tenu to denote immersion, than its primitive liaTtiu. I Avish Ave had his opinion more in detail on this subject. As exjiressive of mode, the derivative cannot go be- 3'ond its primitive. As to totality of immersion, the one is per- fectly equivalent to the other. But, as I observed before, fixTtrta has tAVO senses, and ^xv-n^a but one ; and therefore, in this respect, the word used, Avith respect to the ordinance of baptism, is stronger in support of immersion as being univocal. Perhaps this Avas the meaning of the professor. The additional modifying meaning, AA'kich 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 primitiAe, in every in- stance, Avith 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 OF BAPTISM. 9 may wander far from its root, but if that root is known with cer- tainty, the connection may still be traced. The derivative, how- ever, may reject ideas contained in the primitive, or it may receive additional ideas, which can be learned only by being acquainted with its history. That fixTrrti^a) is formed fi'om /i*7s-Tu is a thing be- yond dispute. But as I have shewn that they are not perfectly coincident in their application, I shall examine them separately, contrary to the general practice of writers 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 own opi- nion of the import of his documents, accompanied with a few ex- amples as a specimen of proof, would be the same as if an advocate should present a judge and jury with his own views of evidence, instead of giving them all his facts and circumstances 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 collect evidence, the other should not grudge the toil of examining the evidence, seeing it is only by such an ex- amination 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 fourth is confident that all three are v/rong, what method can legitimately settle the controversy, but an actual appeal to the passages in which it is to be found ? These are the wit- nesses, whose testimony must decide this question ; and consequently the more numerous and definite the examples, the more authorita- tive will be the decision. And as it is possible to tamper with evidence, the witnesses must be questioned and cross questioned, that the truth may be ascertained \^dthout a doubt. Instead there- fore 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 occurs in the Greek language. Never was the meaning of a word so much disputed; no word was ever disputed with less real gi'ounds of difficulty. As it has been supposed b)^ some to be a generic word, signifying every application of ^vater without any respect to mode, I shall 10 THE MODE first give a specimen of examples, shewing 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 understood in its regimen. Near the end of the Sixth Idyl of Theocritus, the word is ap- plied to the dipping of a vessel in honey. " Instead of water, let my maid dip 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 sub- stance, with respect to which the verb in question is here applied. And that dipping is the mode, there can be no question. It would be absurd 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. Ka/ rov xo^tw uc, iitki jSa-Trrovrig, " Dipping hay into honey, they give it them to eat." Hist. Ani- mal. Lib. viii. 26. Though it would be possible to sprinkle hay with honey, yet it would be absurd to speak of sprinkling or pour- ing hay into honey. The preposition E/;, with which the verb is connected, forbids it to be translated by any other word but dip, even were it possessed of different significations. The same author, in his treatise on the soul, applies the word to wax. E/ sig -/.Ti^ov ^a-^in rig, f^xS' '''^''^'''''^ ixivyjSyi, lojg sCa-^s. " If one dip any thing into wax, it is moved as far as he dips." Lib. iii. 12, This surely is not an application of water. Nor can the mode be any other than dipping. Neither pouring nor sprinkling, washing nor wetting, can be imported here. In the last line of the first Idyl of Moschus, the word is applied to immersion in fire. Speaking of the gifts of Cupid, it is said, ra yag Tv^i Tavra ^iZa'Trrai. " For they are all dipped in fire." This is a baptism in fire, and beyond dispute dipping was the mode. iElian applies the word to ointment : cri(pavov ug /ivpov (3u-^ag, Lib. xiv. Cap. xxxix. " Having dipped a crown into ointment." The learned friend who writes the Appendix to ]Mr Ewing's Essay on Baptism, translates this example thus : " having tinged (imbued or impregnated) with precious ointment a croM'n (or gar- land),— the croAvn was woven of roses." This translation, however, is not made on sound principles of intei^pretation. It rests on no OF BAPTISM. 11 basis. The author has not produced one instance in which the word BccTTTii) incontestibly and confessedly must signify to imbue, except in the sense of dyeing. To ti7ige a cro^rn of flowers, is not to imbue it with additional fragrance, but to colour it. The author \dolates both the Greek and the English. When we speak of the tinge of a flower, we refer to its colour, not to its perfume. To tinge icith ointment to give a fragrant smell, is not an English ex- pression. The translation labours under another disease. E/s- f^vgav cannot be translated with ointment ; but must be rendered i7ito 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 cannot 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 in- duced the historian to mention it ? Had it been a common thing, it would not have had a place in Elian'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 the 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 Roman emperor, to as- sume 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 proceed on such principles of interpretation, would render the precise meaning of language utterly unattainable. It is absurd and chimerical in the highest degree. 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 literature ; but had he all the writings of the ancients in his memory, he cannot be a critic, so long as he multiplies the meanings of words in an arbitrary man- ner, according to his view of particular exigencies. In his very next example, he makes the word ^aTtru signify to purify, fi-om a different exigency. Jamblichus, in his life of Pythagoras, relates as one of the directions of the philosopher to his disciples, — ovh itg TTi^i^^xyryi^tov i^QuTrniv, which the writer of the Appendix translates, " not to purify in the perirranterion."" Here, again, he proceeds without fir&t principles. He has not alleged one instance in which 12 THE MODE the verb must signify to inirify. He has, then, no ground-work on which to rest this assumption. And the preposition g*?, occurring here both separately and in conjunction with the verb, determines that the action of the verb was directed into the perirranterion, or bason. Besides, as a matter of fact, they did not piu'ify in it, but out of it. Persons sprinkled at the door of a Roman Catholic 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 giv- ing a new and an unauthorized meaning to the word fixTrru. In the next direction mentioned by Jamblichus, we have a similar ellipsis : ovh ^xxxmu Mvsa-6xi. " Nor to bathe in a bath," that is, 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 perirrante- rion 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 imphilosophical 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 would resolutely refuse to adopt any mean- ing 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 Hiero- cle, induces this writer to translate /Sa-rrw, to icet. He might as well translate it, to dry. A person was scourged before the tribunal, ^lo/jjivog 8s ros) ai/j,ari (Sa-^ag xoiXrjv rriv %£'fa, T^off^ai]iii rr^y ^iKx^Xyif^ccv, " and flowing with blood, having wetted the hollow of his hand, he sprinkles it on the judgment seat." The word, how- ever, never signifies to ivet ; 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 wounds, or let- ting the pouring blood fill the hollow of his hand. To wet is far enough from representing such a process. There can be no doubt that the word &ci%Tu is here to be ti'anslated in its usual sense. OF BAPTISM. 13 " And having dipped the hollow of his hand, he sprinkles the tribu- nal." It may be difficult easily to conceive the process, but of the meaning of the expression there can be no doubt. If the blood wds flowing 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. What- ever was the way in which the operation was performed, the writer calls it a dipping of the hollow of his hand. There is, no doubt, something h}^erbolical in the expression. In the Nubes, Aristophanes represents Socrates as ludicrously dipping the feet of a flea into wax, as an ingenious expedient to measure its leap. EtiQct'i^iV Ui TOV Kn^OV etVT^S TO) TToai. " Having melted the wax, he took the flea and dipped its feet into the wax.'' Here the liquid 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 applied to fluids, it is often applied even to solids that are penetrated. Dio- nysius of Halicarnassus applies it to the thnisting of a spear, /Soi-^mi, between the ribs of a man. In like manner, we might say that a soldier plunged his sword into the bowels of his enemy. In Mat. xxvi. 23, the action of putting down the hand into a dish is expressed by this word, when the hand was not actually im- mersed in the fluid at the bottom. e^€«4'«4? tviv xH'^- " Who dip- ped his hand in the dish." Now, it is true that, according to an- cient 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 of plunging into a wood. Miners also speak of the dij) of a rock as being north or south, by referring to the direction of its sinking or slope. Lycophron represents Cassandra, foretelling the death of Cly- temnestra by the hand of her own son, as saying, " with his own hand he shall dip his sword into the viper's bowels." Here the Avord is applied to the penetrating of solids, in the sense 14 THE MODE of thrusting or piercing. In like manner, we speak of burying a weapon in the bowels. Pouring^ sprinklingy washmg, have no countenance here, but are entirely excluded. Ajax is represented by Sophocles as dipping his sword into the army of the Greeks, e^x-^ch iyx^? ''<' '^§•5 A^ysiuv c-r^xru. 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. Having proved the application of the word to mode, without re- spect to the nature of the fluid, I shall now at random produce ex- amples. 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 di*aw Avater for the supper of Hercules and Telamon. youth held the capacious urn over the water, hasting to dip it," &c. Can any thing be more definite than this ? Can any one be at a loss to know how a pitcher is filled with ^vater at a fountain ? Can an unprejudised reader demand a clearer example than this, to shew the modal meaning of iSa'ZTOj ? Even the unlearned reader may judge for himself in this matter. Indeed, from the connection in which the word is found, 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 Euripides. 2u 6' av XaCouca rroyoi a^yaia Xar^i, " 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 scholiasts, is, — iSaTTuv sgi to yjO-a-v n ug vdup, J) iig s-srov r; vyoov. " BuTrniv signifies to let doAvn any thing into M'ater, or any other liquid."" Can we \vish for better authority for the meaning of a Greek word ? Aristophanes, in the play entitled E/^jj^jj, affords us an example of the word. <1>£5£ dri TO 6adiov ro3' t/MQa-^u XaZuv. " Bring the torch, tliat I may take and dip it." OF BAPTISM. 15 Dr Gale observes that the Greek Scholiast and Florent. Chris- tianiis, preceptor to Henry IV. of France, refer this to the manner of purifying among the Greeks, by dipping a lighted torch in wa- ter, and so sprinkling the persons or things to be purified. This explains the Pythagorean precept, quoted in Mr Ewing's Ap- pendix. Dr Gale has given us some fragments of this author, preserved by Harpocratian, where the general meaning is more obscure, but in which the peculiar meaning of this word is not at all doubtftd. " When I have dipped, (Sa-^l^ag, I will cite the strangers before the judges." " This passage would have been very obscure," says he, " and I do not know whether any thing would have given light 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 dipped the oar,' &c. which helps us to the sense of the word /3«4'«f 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 will dip it, and make it a black." Athenseus has preserved two other fragments of the same author, in which the word occurs ; one is, " what a wretch am I, to be thus dipped over head and ears, aviZaf&rii in brine, like a pickled herring." We have, therefore, the authority of Suidas, that ^avntv applies to the dipping of an oar in the water. Aristotle, speaking of a kind of fish, says : Ka/ rag f/jiraZokaz S' ouk vmfj^rjvovTi rag icynj^ag, oiov %ai roig ^i^ovStv iav jSa'Trruciiv iig ■4^u%goi'. " They cannot bear great changes, as the immersion of them into cold water, even in summer." Can any thing be more decisive ? We could not speak of sprinkli^ig, 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 : oi» xai KsysTai a%og sivai Xidog rig, posed more specifically to express dipping, than /ix7rre-j, in these instances ? Homer employs the Avord in the Odyssey, in a situation whore the meaning cannot bo doubted. He compares the hissing of the OF BArTISM. 17 eye of Polyphemus, when bored by a red-hot stake, to the hissing of the water when a smith dips his iron in order to temper it. Q,g S" or avrjo 'daXxiug 'mXiTt.w (ityav, rjs cxewagfoi/, E/v v8ari ■\}/up^gw jSavrri /MsyaXa la^ovTa. " 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 application of water in this instance. The immersion of the newly formed shoe in water, in order to harden the metal, is expressed by the word /S^ttts/v. An instance of the same kind we have in the Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, where iron heated in the furnace, is said to be tempered, mZa^n, by immersion in water. The note of Didymus on the place is : to ^a-^ai -^vxi^ '''"' '^s'^J'^f w/asvov ffids^ov KSx^^ov ya^ avrov mm. " The dipping of red-hot iron in cold water hardens it." Anacreon, in his Ode on the Arrows of Cupid, represents them as forged by Vulcan, and dipped by Venus in honey, into which Cupid put a mixture of gall. hxibag 5' zZaTTTi KuTr^ig, MgX/ TO yXvKv XaCoutfa* O d' E^ug yoXriv i[XiiSyu The manner 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 (SaTm^siv, in the or- dinance of baptism. He applies it to a ceremonial or religious purification of the person and garments, by immersion in a river after defilement. Tv d' Atyuirnoi iiiagov rtyr^vTai '^tj^iov siv%i %at rouro fL^v^ riv Tig -^axxSri avTuv -Troc^iuv vog, auTOKSi tokSi ifju'/Tioig amuv fGa\J/£ savTov, ^aj gg Tov TTOTafMv. " Thc Eg}^ptians 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 religious baptism, for the purpose of cleansing from defilement; and it is by immersion, expressed by (ixTrruv. Can any one rer[uire a B 18 THE MODE more definite example ? The person dips himself ; therefore it is ^xTTTu, not fiaTTTt^u. All the occurrences of the word in the Septua- gint, are confirmatory of this view of its meaning, Ari-^iah ds dsg/XTjv vffffuvov, xai (Sa^^avTsg aao nu ai[iarog rov <7ra§a rriv 6wav. Ex. xii. 22. " And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dipping it in the blood which is at the door,"" &c. This surely is not wash- ing : it is smearing. It is not pouring or sprinkling, but dipping. Lev. iv. 6. Ka/ /3a-\]>£; o is^svg rov haxrvXov iig to ai/Moc, xai 'ff^off^avsi asro Tou ai/Marog. " And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and spritikle of the blood," &c. Here M'e have the action both of dip- ping and sprinkli7ig ; and /SaTrw applies to the former, while ^a/vw applies to the latter. Can any thing be more decisive than this .'' Lev. iv. 17- Ka/ f^U'^si 0 is^svg rov daxruXov a-ffo rov aifMarog rov (Lodyov, xai ^ami. " And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it," &c. Lev. ix. 9. Ka/ iZa-^i rov daxrvXov sig ro aipi,a. *' And he dipped his finger into the blood." He could not sprinkle or pour his finger into the blood. Lev. xi. 32. Eig vBm^ j3a(p-/iffirai. " It must be put into water." Literally, " It shall be dipped into water." This cannot admit even of plausible evasion. Lev. xiv. 6. Ka; (3a-^ii aura Kai ro o^vidiov ro ^wv sig ro aifioc. "And shall dip them and the living bird in the blood," &c. Dr Wall has asserted that the word jSa-^-s/ here, cannot be under- stood dipping all over; fo)' the blood of the bird in the bason could not be enough to receive tlie 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 re- ceived in a vessel of running water, in which mixture, as appears from verse 51, the things ^vere to be dipped. It may be added, that this makes the figure have a beautiful allusion to the double efiScacy of the blood of Jesus Christ. It washes as well as atones; and though this might be exhibited by separate dippings, yet the union is seen more clearly in the combination of blood and water. But that the word ^avre/v 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 Avord dip itself. Thus we speak of dipping a pen in ink, when only the point of the pen is dipped. What would we say of the foreigner who should allege that the English Mord dip, when applied in the expression, Thei/ dipped the man in the river, does not necessarily imply that they dipped him all over; because he finds OF BAPTISM. 19 from the expression, dip a pen in ink, it is applied sometimes when only a part is clipped ? Yet grave doctors, ^yl^en they criticize in a dead language, make themselves such fools ! and theu* folly is con- cealed only by the circumstance, that the language is dead with respect to which they make their silly observations. Every person at all accustomed to philosophize 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 all such expressions, both (SaTs-ru and dip have their proper and entire significations, and express mode, as fully as when there is no figure. The expression, dip a pen, determines mode as clearly as when the object is sunk to the bottom of the sea, never to arise. A writer must be perverse indeed, who indulges himself in such quibbles ; yet some of the gravest and most learned writers have urged this objection. It must be observed, that Dr Wall, 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 operations, when the part to be dipped is so well known 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 applied when only a part is dipped ; yet in theu* own practice, dipping neither in whole nor in part, but substituting pouring or sprinkling in its place. Lev. xiv. 16. Ka/ j3a-^si rov haxrvKov tov ds^iov arro rou ikaiou. " 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 be- fore the Lord." Here, also, we see the characteristic distinction be- tween dipping and sprinkling. The action of putting the oil on the finger, is expressed by jSaTrru ; that of applying it to the object, by §aim. The word occurs again in the 51st verse, with reference to the same process as that described in verse 6. Numb. xix. 18. Ka/ Xyj-^irai vseuTrov, -/.ai /Sa-vpe/ ng to vdo)^ avr}^ Kada^og, xai -TTi^i^^avii sTt TOV oixov. " And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the house." Deut. xxxiii. 24. 'Ba.-^u iv iXa/oi tov Troda auTou. " Let him dip his foot in oil." Here the great abundance of oil is expressed, by re- presenting 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 ow translators. 20 THE MODE 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 bore the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark, iZaj.svov i which makes this passage nothing to our purpose. However, I should not think this single authority of Origen sufficient to justify my altering the word ; but I have likewise observed that the Syriac and vEthiopic versions, which, for their antiquity, must be thought almost as valuable and authentic as the original itself, being made from pri- mitive copies, in or very near the times of the Apostles, and ren- dering the passage by words which signify to sprinkle, must gi*eatly confirm Origens reading of the place, and very strongly argue, that he has preserved the very same Avord \^diich was in the auto- graph." These reasons, however, do not in the least bring the common reading into suspicion in my mind, and I will never adopt a reading to serve a purpose. Misapprehension of the mean- ing of the passage, it is much more likely, has substituted s^rnvrieiiivoj for (iiZaiMiM'jov. The warrior is represented as going out, and not as . retm-uing, and the garment is emblematically dyed to represent his work before it was begun. Dr Cox's reply to Mr Ewing's obser- vations on this verse, is a triumphant refutation of the objection which misconception has founded on this passage, and must silence it for ever, " The following reference," says Dr Cox, " is very triumphantly adduced : ' And he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood,' — properly, it is alleged, ' a vesture bespattered, sprinkled. 22 THE MODE spotted, or stained with blood.'' ' In this case, evidently, the ves- ture was not pojjped into the blood, but the blood was jjopped upon the garment, and thus it was bespattered Math blood,' &c. " If any thing is evident here, it is that Mr Ewing has mistaken the sense, and unwillingly produced a quotation most imequivocally in our favour. The illustrious person described is the Word, or Son of God, under the image of a conqueror seated upon a white horse, going forth to a mighty conflict, followed by the armies of heaven ! It is not the representation of a conqueror returned from battle, with his garments supposed to be bespattered or stained with the blood of his vanquished foes ; but of one going forth to the war. A sharp sword issues out of his mouth, that Mdth it he should smite the nations ; im iv aurri Traraggy} to t^vn- But it may be demanded, is it not incongruous to represent his vesture as stained or bespattered, as dyed in the blood of his enemies before he has engaged in the conflict ? The answer is, it does not in reality, though it is so commonly understood, refer to the blood of foes splashed in mortal strife upon the garment of the conqueror ; it simply contains an emblematical representation of Christ, imder the figure of a general, commencing some great expedition, clothed in the splendid vest- ment which was usual on such occasions. The name given to it by the Roman writers^ is Paludamentum. It was the distinguish- ing robe of the general, and was usually of a purple, or scarlet colour. As the proeteocta, or white robe, worn by the chief magis- trate, constituted the usual domestic badge of honoiu* ; so the Palu- damentum distinguished the hero when he marched to battle. * Quibus erat,' says Pliny, ' moris pakidamento mutare praetextam.' A vesture dyed in blood, was, therefore, a vesture of a red or purple colour, to express the military character of the expedition ; as, even to the present day, a peculiar dress, of a vivid and sanguinary hue, is worn by those who are devoted to war. What then becomes of our author''s bepopped or besprinkled A'estui'e ? It is foimd only in his own imagination." Before I proceed farther, I shall advert to some examples in which /3a;rrw has been sujjposed to signify to wash ; but in all of which it retains its own peculiar meaning. Aristophanes applies the word 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 : rr^ura /Mriv yag r u^ia fSaTTTouff/ ^s^fico Kara rov a^-^am vo/mov- " First they dip the wool in warm water according to ancient custom." What is asserted, is OF BAPTISM. 23 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 would be to give the sense, not an exact ver- sion of the words. Had he used the word ttXuvo), then the tvashing would have been expressed, and the dijyping would have been ne- cessarily supposed. Both these Avords might be used for the same thing in many situations ; still each of them would have its peculiar meaning. Accordingly Suidas and Phavorinus interpret jSaTrrovffi here by vXvvovgi. It argues very shallow philosophy, however, to suppose, that on this account the words are perfectly synonymous. We could, even in our own language, 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 dip and wash synonymous in our language. Words may be so far equiva- lent, as in certain situations, to be equally fitted to fill the same place, when each continues even in such situations to have its cha- racteristic meaning. Ignorance of this important principle in the application of words, has led writers into the greatest absurdities, in determining the meaning of terms in a dead language. When- ever they find one word used in explanation of another, or where another would serve the pui*pose, they think the words are synony- mous. This is a false first principle, and all reasonings founded on it must be unsound. Yet this is the most plausible argument that Dr Wall and others can find to prove that /Sacrrw signifies to wash. Suidas and Phavorinus explain it by -ts-Xwu, therefore it must sig- nify to wash. To convince the unlearned reader of the fallacy of this principle, let him open an English dictionary, and try if all the words given in explanation are strictly synonymous with those which they are used to explain. Yet on this principle, it is sup- posed to be irresistibly evident, that ^avru signifies to wash, be- cause baptism is referred to in the expression, " having yoiu* bodies washed with pure water," Heb. x. 22. When a person is dipped in pure water, he is washed, still dipping and loashing are two different things. Baptism is a washing, not from the meaning of the word itself, for as far as that is concerned, it might be a defile- ment ; 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 doc- trine. If an Egyptian touches a swine, he runs immediately to the river and dips himself. That he dips himself, is the thing express- 24 THE MODE ed ; but as the purpose 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 jiccTma no more signifies to wash or purify here, than it does in the translation of the LXX. with respect to Job, when applied to plunging in filth. The word has here its own peculiar meaning, and makes not the smallest intrusion into the province of >.cvu. Mr Ewing's remark on this passage is truly surprising. The Egyptian, it seems, performed this operation on himself, but the Christian is baptized by another. And can Mr E^ying really think that this is any thing to the purpose "^ Was it ever supposed that it is from the verb ^et,77To> that Ave are to learn whether a be- liever 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 mean- ing of the word ; but from Scripture, we must learn A\'hether the operation is to be performed to the believer by himself, or by ano- ther. Was ever any thing so unreasonable, as to expect a perfect coincidence between an ordinance of Christ, and a superstitious custom of heathens .'* The meaning of the word is quite unaffected, whether the person dips himself or is dipped by another. Does Mr Ewing doubt whether ^a,Tr-va can apply when the operation re- spects a thing different from the agent ''f This cannot be his mean- ing, 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 ^xtttu, a human being is not to be found, except in the case of one performing the operation for him- self ? 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 (SaTrroi will apply to one thing as well as another. But, as Dr Cox has observed, there is an example in the case of the drown- ing 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 Avill 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 ^hich this word is misunderstood by some, is set in its proper light by Dr Gale. " My opinion," says he, " is confirmed also by Calli- machus, in his hymns, when he says : ' Ye Grecian Matermen, OF BAPTISM. 25 (they furuishetl private houses with water, as some do among us) dip not your vessels in the river Inachus to-day.' The liymn 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 little before day ; fi'om this river tlie inhabitants were usually supplied with water, whrdi makes the poet, in veneration to the goddess, charge the watermen 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 purpose of the watermen was to wash their pitch- ers by dipping them, or to fill them by dipping them, dipping is the only thing expressed by the word ^otTrrea. In Dan. iv. 39, and v. 21, this word is rendered by wet in our version, which may seem an insuperable objection to the uniformity of its signification of mode. This instance is thought to support their opinion, who assert that Bcfxro) is a generic word, denoting the bringing of any thing 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, would have found corresponding expressions in all languages. By employing a general word, our translators in this instance have lost the peculiar beauty of the original, without in the least adding to the perspi- cuity. The words of the Septuagint are, ctTro rm ^^oa-av rov ou^avov ro o-aft,x xvrov eS«^j). " His body was immersed in the dew." In the translation, " His body was wet with the dew," the general ef- fect is the same, but the eloquence of expression has evaporated. But a soul-less critic will reply, " there was here no literal immer- sion ; the word cannot then be used in that sense." Were we to pass through the poets, conforming their language to this observation, what havoc should we make of their beauties ! How didl and lifeless would become their animated expressions ! I have seen no explication of this passage that appears to develop the principle of this application, though the general sense of the passage is well enough understood. As the theory of generic meaning in Bc^Trra, including every application of water without reference to mode, has no other plausible foundation but the common version of this pas~ 26 THE MODE sage, it will be of importance to settle the question, though it should occupy 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 ana- lise the expression. His observations on the copiousness of the eastern dews are much to the purpose ; a part of Avhich I shall transcribe. *' Philosophically speaking," says he, " the hottest cli- mates and clearest skies naturally abound most Avith 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 sea- son of the year, when they have no rains for a considerable time together, the fruits of the earth would be burned up, were it not for the dews that fall plentifully in the night. That incomparable ma- thematician. Captain Halley, observed, when making some experi- ments in St Helena, that the dews fell in such abundance 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, whei'e part of Nebuchadnezzar's dominions lay, Pliny tells us, the nights were very dewy. Eg}^t has little or no rain ; but is fed by the over- flowing of the Nile, and by constant nocturnal dews ; and Nebu- chadnezzar 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 ex- pression ; but it does not in the least give a reason why a ivetting with a copious fall of dew is called an immersio7i. Had this mo- narch been wet even by a shower-bath, why is his wetting called a dipping 9 If all the water in the ocean had fallen on him, it would not have been a literal immersion. The Avords would still be want- ing. 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 analising the expression. " Hence it appears very clear,"" says he, " that both Daniel and Jiis translators designed to express the great dew Nebuchadnezzar should be exposed to, more emphatically, by saying, he should lie in dew, and be covered with it all over, as if he had been dipped ; for that is so much like 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 hi dew, and he covered with it all over. Had this been his ex-pression, it would have been quite literal. Dr Gale absurdly supposes that Bccwtu means to cover M'ith water without reference to OF BAPTISM. 27 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, with respect to the analysis of this expression, appears to me not quite satisfactory. " It was," says Mr Ewing, " popped upon, not even by effusion, but by the gen- tlest distillation that is known in nature." " To this it has been generally replied," saysDr 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 unaccounted for. Mr Ewing 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 essen- tial, or that it is not immersion. The most complete wetting by dew or rain is not dipping" literally. If we will fairly meet this passage, we must shew, not merely that Nebuchadnezzar was com- pletely wetted, but 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 oppo- nents cause, nor an apparent weakness in our own. Let Chris- tianity itself sink, rather than use one insuiBcient 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, implying con- sequently 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. In all voices, tenses, and moods, a verb must have its characteristic meaning. " It does not,"" continues Dr Cox, " imply the manner in which the effect was produced, but the effect itself; not the mode by which the body of the king was wetted, but its condition, as resulting from exposure to the dew of heaven." Without doubt, the verb ex- presses mode here as well as any where else. To suppose the con- trary gives up the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned. This in fact makes BaTiru 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," 28 THE MODE says he, " by way of illustration, we select another wovi, and put it into the same voice and tense ; as £oA«€>) vtc-o a-ov, " he was heard by you." It is obvious that this representation might refer to an injury done long ago, and would predicate nothing of the manner in which it was inflicted," &c. Very true. Nothing of maimer is here expressed, and for an obvious reason, nothincj of manner is expressed by the verb ba^s^ttw. But will Dr Cox grant that this is the case with the verb Ba^T» ? If he does, about what is he con- tending .'' 'QaTrra not only necessarily implies mode, but literally ex- presses nothing but mode. Instead of literally denoting wetting in any manner, it does not literal' y include ivetting at all. This is as true in this passage, as it is in any other. Mode is as much ex- pressed 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 >vord 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 shewn 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 vision- ary, 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 wet. Whatever, then, may be the principle on which this ivetting of Nebuchadnezzar is called immersiori, immer- sion 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 peculiar meaning .'' How can mode be excluded, if it is in both the ori- ginal and the translation ? On this point Dr Gale is quite satisfactory. " The word here used in the original," says he, " is i^2Z02i% which in the Chal- dee necessarily implies dipping, witness Buxtorf, Castell, &c. and above all, the constant use of the word. It is by this word the Jerusalem Targum renders the Hebrew 7213, Levit. iv. 6, — the only place where that imperfect version translates the HebreM' word; but had it been complete, we should probably have had more ex- amples. " In other places where the word is used, though not to tran- OF BArTISM. 29 slate ^J2t3, it Is always in the same sense, signifying to immerse or drown ; as Exod. xv. 4, in which place the Jerusalem Targum, Jonathan's Paraphrase, and that called Onkelos, the Syriac ver- sion, and the original of Moses, do all use ^21^ or yt^t^, to signify immerse, plunge, or drown, as our version renders it ; but I sup- pose it will not be questioned, otherwise I would attempt more largely to prove, this word does always signify to dip.''"' Let the philosophy of the application, then, be what it may, the word ^airroj' in this passage, must have its own peculiar meaning. 3. The Syriac version, as Dr Gale remarks, renders the original in the same manner as the LXX. " The authors of the ancient and valuable Syriac version," says he, " who were of the neigh- bourhood of Babylon, and well enough acquainted with the large dews in these parts, and endeavoured to give an exact literal trans- lation, have shunned this error." If, then, the Syriac translators have rendered the original by a term that signifies to dip, why should not /Sacrrw 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 lan- guage, 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 im- mersed in the sea. Do we not every day hear similar phraseology ? The man who has been exposed to a summer-plump, will say that he has got a complete dipping. This is the very expression of Da- niel. One mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination. The same figure meets us al- most 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 principle of Mr Ewing's criticism, we might, from this passage of Vii'gil, 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 tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was wet with the gentlest distillation in natiu-e ? The effect of that gentle operation may be so like that of another more violent operation, that the language of the imagi- nation may designate the more gentle by the characteristic denomi- 3(> THE MODE nation of the more violent. A wetting by dew, may, in the lan- guage of animation, be called a dipping. Language violates the laws of natural philosophy, as weU as of logic, without scruple ; or rather it does not at all own subjection to them. It owes allegiance only to the laws of mind. Things most absurd, if explained ac- cording to the laws of natural philosophy, and most untrue, accord- ing to the laws of logic, are true and beautiful when tried by their proper standard. Why 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 abundance. 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 Nebuchad- nezzar by the dew, to enliven the style. Every reader must observe that much of the beauty of this passage in Virgil is owing to the use of the word lavo in this figurative catachrestic sense. Literal accu- racy would have been comparatively tame. And had not the word (BxTrra been a term whose meaning affects religious practice, the above expression of Daniel and the Septuagint, instead of tormenting com- mentators and controversialists, would have been admired as a beauty 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 elegance in the classics, is a gi'ound of never-ending quibble 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 religion, and were rites and ceremonies to be determined by his writings, the above expression would have been as variously interpreted as that in Daniel. Many a time we would hear, that lavo, ir ova this example, does not signify to wash, but to wet, to moisten, to drench. Virgil affords us another example in the same word : Illi alternantes multa vi praelia miscent Vulneribus crebris : lavit ater coi-pora sanguis. In the encounter of the two bulls, the black blood ivashes their bodies. Here it might be said, in tlie spirit of Mr EAving's criti- cism, the black blood could not Masli ; nay, it would defile the bodies of the contending animals. Lavo, then, cannot signify to tcash, but to smear. But every one must see that the Avord lavo has here its peculiar signification, and that tlie >vhole beauty of the expres- OF BAPTISM. 31 sioii depends on this circumstance. 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 literally signifying to smear. That which was a real defilement is called a zvashing, to express figuratively the copiousness of the blood that flowed from the mutual wounds of the contending bulls. This gives a feast to the imagination, where literal expression would afford no food. Audire habenas, to hear the reins, signifjdng to obey the bridle, is an expression of the same kind. Indeed, it is impossible to open the poets without being pre- sented with examples of this phraseology. Having examined those examples in which this word has been supposed to signify to wash or to wet, 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 ex- pected, very frequently in the writings of Hippocrates. And as, in medical use, there is occasion to refer repeatedly to every mode of the application of liquids, in the voluminous writings of this great physician, there can be no doubt but we will find the characteristic meaning of /Sa^rrw. Accordingly, we do find it in numerous instances; and in all these, I do not recollect any but one, in which it has not the sense of dip. In that one, it signifies to dye, according to its secondary import. The first occurrence of it which I have observed in this author, is in his treatise De Superfoet. p. 50. edit. Basil. BaTrmv ds rag {irikag, sv evi ruv iJ.yXdazrri^iuv dniix,svu. " Dip the probes in some emol- lient." At the bottom of the next page, we have another example. /Sa-^/aCa 8s to ^azog sc/Augw Xsujcw aiyv^riu svudsi. " Dipping the rag in white sweet-smelling Egyptian ointment." In the treatise De Victus Ratione, p. 104, the following example occurs : syxgup/a/, Ssg/jta/ ig oivov av^ri^ov sfii^aTTo/j^svou " Let the food be cakes dipped hot in sour wine." In the treatise De Usu Humidorum, we have the following example : E/p/a Bs oga fisv -^u^iog smx.a, ri xara^sira/, >3 svisrai, jj evZaTrrrirai wg xjhu^ -^uX^cararov. " But for the sake of cooling the wound, wool is either sprinkled 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 succeed : oca h -^v^iog, oy^iXag oivog ^ai si^ia yMra^^vai, oiov. zai (pvXXa thj 32 THE MODE 7\im, fi o&ovta jSaTrnrai sm ra TrXuga. p. 113. " As a cooler, black wine is sprinkled on wool, whereas beet-leaves and linen are for the most part dipped.'''' In the treatise De Morbis, we have the following examples : xut TT^og TYjv }(.i]xa. " Having dipped a piece of fine linen into moist Eretrian earth, well pounded, and wann, co- ver the breast round with it." In the treatise De Internarum Partium AfFectibus, we have the following examples from the same author : — P. 193. iv udari -^v^^co /SaTrwi/ aurXa xai rco ffut/xari imriSug, fiaXtga. jfiyjx,sa, %ai ^a'nruv ig iKaov Xsukov. *' Mak^ ^n oval ball, and dip it into white oil." lb. P. 262. s'^ura gaxos 'jrspi^iivai "Kstttov iv ii^iu ^a-^aaa aXu(pa aiyj'xriov. " Then put a fine rag about it, in wool, dipping it into Eg}^ptian oil." eg Xivxov aXsi(pa aiyvTrriov ^u'jtmv. " Dipping (the thing pre- scribed) into white Eg}q)tian oil." lb. P. 263. "xakZavr^g oaov iXaiTjv svsXi^ag sg o&ovm mh^ivov i/i^a-^affa. " Hav- ing rolled a bit of galbanum the size of an olive into a piece of linen, and having dipped it into cedar-oil." P. 264. Having prescribed different kinds of flesh to his patient, he directs, fj^rjBsvt TriWigt 'tts'toii/mvov sg o^og i/iQcx.TTuv. " Cooked without pepper, dipping- it into vinegar." P. 269. Speaking of wool rolled round a quill : ^a-^ai, »] "ksvxu, &c. " Dip it either in white oil, or," &c. And within a few lines : vj iTTi^o'j o^v ^a-^ai. " Dip the feather in vinegar." P. 273. ''0 iMokyZhov aTToQa-^ai ig ubcfi^ '4''^/Cf'"'' " Dip the leaden in- strument into cold water." P. 279. fXa^ou ds anag T^driks&u rrixrov sfiCwTrruv fMa7Jay.ov n^iov. " Apply the fat of the deer, melted, dipping soft wool into it." P. 279. s'g'O" £5 /wuioi/ avoQa'XTovga. " Dipping' wool into ointment." P. 280. TOUTO if/jvXagai ng n^iov /jMXaxov Kada^ov, -/.at ifj^Qa-^aru iv Xsyxw ikaiu aiywrrioo. " Put this mixture into clean soft wool, and let her dij) it in white Egj-ptian oil." P. 284. ^aTTovsa di to mvuBig g/g/oi/ iv fisTuri. " Dipping the un- scoured wool in honey." P. 288. ^aXavov rroisiv, xai iiMZaimiv eg ri ruv vy^uv. " Form it into a ball, and dip it into some liquid." ^oXrjv Tav^ov rpitTi^v vs^i'TrXaassiv vrs^u xai eg aXsKpa, iiiZa-^ag ayurrrioVf TioffiTidsvai. " Roll around a quill, the gall of a bull, rubbed ; and dipping it into Egyptian oil, apply it." ri %u'/iKa[jj-;ov osov affpayaXov (fuv ^aXxou avdn, ?j avsfjuuvi^g KHfaXriv, r^i->\ia,g Sui aKrjTu, Tre^ca m^i'jrT'.aeffiiv sg Xbvmv sipiov s/xCaTrsc^a/. " Or cyclaminus, the size of a die, with the flower of brass ; or a head of anemone, bruising it with meal, and putting the mixtiu*e into M'hite wool, around a quill, dip it," as directed above. For ii^iov, some read iXaiov ; dip it into white oil : oleo alho intingito. P. 289- A/voLi TO ayjcrov auT?) t?; naXaiJ^r^ oaov B^ay^'j,r,v xc->^ag Xirrra, XUTuQ^s^at iv oivca) Xvjxoj ug rjdieroo rnv vuxra, i-nira ix'JT,Qrt6ag hayXanag n sv ,ii^iu ug fiaX6ax.o}7aru sfiCwTrriiv. " Ha^■ing poimded finely a drachm of the fibres of flax with the stalks, steep them thoroughly for tlie night m the sweetest white Aviue ; then, having strained and warmed OF baptism: 37 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. Cfiv^vriv %ai ^7]Ttvriv 0[mou /J'l'^ccg, xai Bistg sv oivu, odoviov e/O/CaTrwi/, 'Tr^odTidsvai : " Mixing myrrh and rosin together, and putting them in wine, dip a piece of linen in the mixtui-e, and apply it." De Steril. p. 292. (Sa'xrsiv de kui rriv /iri^rjv ev tm fiaXdaKTYi^iu : " Dip the probe in the unguent." P. 293. (pu^riffavra ^nXavwv si^iu xaTsiXi^ai ^rXriv rov axgou sturo Big aKufo ^a-^avTa u; ^biffrov, m-^oa&iivai : " Working them into a little ball, roll it in -vrool, except the top ; then having dipped it in the sweetest oil, apply it." P. 297- Speaking of a mixture the size of a nut-gall, he says : sg i^mv fiu^ov ^oc^affa: " Dipping it in the ointment of fleur-de-luce." P. 299. "MoXvCdov xai Xidov jj rov (fidrj^ov a^'TraZ^n, raura, r^i-^ag Xsia, sg gaxog WTroByjgov, xai sg yaXa yuvaixog Bfi^a-^ag, v^ockru •^^r\j x.oe,i licnTmroit '• " Does a patron affect to be younger than he is ? or does he even dye his hair ?" ^Eschylus, in the Choephorae, p. 85. uses the word in the same way : " This garment, dyed by the sword of ^gisthus, is a witness to me."" The garment must have been dyed by the blood running down over it. ; These examples are sufficient to prove, that the wordB^Trr^ signifies to dye in general, though originally and still usually applied 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 sub- ject of the mode of Baptism. In a controversialist 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 deceitful colouring to what cannot be denied, and cannot ultimately serve a good cause. Truth will be sooner made to appear, and will sooner be received, if on all sides there is open- liess and honest dealing, without any attempt to conceal, or to colour. To force through difficulties, employ insufficient evidence,^ refuse admissions that integrity cannot deny, and by rhetorical arti- fice cut down whatever opposes, is the part of a religious gladiator, not of a Christian contending earnestly for divine institutions. On the subject of this application of the word Bac7rTvith Dr Gale, OF BAPTISM. 49 " 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 qualities as in the opera- tion of dyeing. The figure can receive no illustration from the cir- cumstance that " persons given up to their pleasures and vices, are said to be immersed or swallowed up with pleasures." The last figure has a reference to the primary meaning of the word /Sa^rrcj, 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 liquid dye. The virtuous 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 ob- servation of the same writer, where he asserts that the thoughts, ^onrriTcci, are tinctured by the mind. We use the word imbue in the same way. He uses the same word also when the dye injures Avhat it colours. He cautions against bad example, lest (jiec^rti) you be infected. We see, then, that the use of this word in a figui'ative sense, is not only always consistent with my view of the meanings of this word, but that it frequently illustrates its primary import. That /SaTrw signifies to dip is strongly confirmed by the circum^ stance, that dyeings which it also imports, was usually perforaied, both among the Greeks and Romans, by immersion. If the word originally denoted to di-p, 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 sup- posed 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 doc- trine 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 vcommonly 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 with us ; and which carries the parallel still farther be- tween the ancient Greeks and us, as they used /SaTrrw, we use the r> 50 THE MODE 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 co- lours." " Besides it is observable, that the Grecians made a dif- ference between dye, and other colouring matter. Thus Plutarch distinguishes between ■x.iuijjju.rct and ^afii^ara ; and Pollux does the same ; ^aiifj^ara signifying only that sort of colouring-matter into which any thing 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 medicamentum an aquatius traxerit, ssepius mersa est, et excocta, an semel tincta. There is a difference also, how long it lies in- fused; whether the dye he thick and gross, or waterish and faint ; and whether dipped very often and boiled thoroiighly, or only once tinctured. And Phavorinus and Pollux use x-vra^xTrrav, which on all hands is allowed most emphatically to signify dipping, plunging, immersing, as a synonymous word for (Sa-Trruv and ^uvw?, in English a dyer. " This makes it necessary to suppose they dyed by dippiiig ; as well as another word used by them in these cases, viz. i-^uv, to boil ; they boiled it in kettles, says Aristotle ; and when thejlowers are boiled long enough together, at length all becomes of a pur- ple. 'E.-^udiv £v raii ^uf-ga/S — xai tots rsXsvraiov WTravra ymrai '7ro^(pv^osidri reav avkuv ixavug evvB-^sdivruv." A most decisive passage to the same purpose, he thus translates from Plato de Republica, lib. iv. p. 636. " The dyers, ivhen they are about to dip a quantity of wool, to make it of a jjurple colour, cull out the whitest of thejleece, and prepare and wash it with a world of trouble, that it may the better take the grain ; and then they dip it, ^aTTovici. The dye of things thus dipped is last- ing and unchangeable, and cafinot be fetched out or tarnished, either by fair water, or any preparations for the discharging of colours. But things which are not dyed after this manner, you know what they are ; no matter what dye they are dipped in, (Sutttj, they never look well ; ivithout this preparatioti they take but a nasty colour, and that is easily ic ashed out too. And thus in like manner our choosing soldiers, and ijistructing them in mu- sic, a7id those exercises which consist in agility of body, you must imagine' our design is only to make them the better receive the laws, ivhich are a kind of dye, — that their temper being formed by a proper discipline, may he fixed and unalterable by terror, c^-c. OF BAPTISM. 51 nnd(Bxpnv) their tmcture may not be washed out by a7iy medicaments of the most powerfully expelling nature ; as pleasure, 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 Romans dyeing was usually perforaied 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 applied in dyeing, but by dip- ping. The truth of this fact is not in the least affected by the observa- tion of Mr Ewing, that dyeing, staining, and painting, were originally similar operations, having been first suggested by the ac- cidental bruising 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 conducted in the way in which they were ori- ginally suggested. Whatever was the origin of dyeings dipping 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 which expresses it, in- volves 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 colour, but had the property of abstracting or absorbing colouring matters ; but these cloths were afterwards immersed in a diluted dyeing liquor, of an uniform co- lour, and yet when removed from it soon after, that they were found to be stained with indelible colours, differing from one ano- ther, according to the nature of the drugs which had been previous- ly applied to different parts of the stuff.' In this passage, we are favoured with an intelligible distinction between painting, immer- sing, (or the art of dyeing,) and staining ; yet we are required to admit that they were owe." Agreeably to the above view of the connection between the secon- dary meaning of this word and the primary, we have a great num- ber of the branches which have the same double import, from the same connection. jSa/i/^a, sauce into which food is dipped, — and a dye into which things are to be dipped. /Sapjj, dipping, and dyeing 52 THE MODE stuff, or the tincture received from dyeing. /3af /xoe, both dipping and dyeing, — and I3a(pixri, the dyer's art. ^wxrog, to be dipped, and to be dyed, Sec. &c. In all these, there is no other common idea but mode : this is the link that connects these two things that are altogether different. If the same word has the same double mean- ing 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 /Sax™, 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 '^a^a- Qavra, in Ezek. xxiii. 15. The Hebrew, to which this corresponds, is D'^l^tD? signifying dyed raiment. Here we see that ^21^, which, as Dr Gale observes, 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 performed by dipping. The same word, in the Chaldee also, as Dr Cox has observed, signifies both to dip and to dye. In the Eatin also, the same word, tingo, signifies to dip and to dye. To this Mr Ewing replies, that " Tingo is the Greek nyyu, which is very properly translated in the Lexicons, madefacio, hu- mido, mollio ; I moisten, wet, soften, or mollify.'''' That tingo is derived from nyyu is undoubted ; but 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. Tsyyw does not signify to dye ; tingo, its derivative, has this signification. Where did it find it '? nyyu 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. Sic. I grant, indeed, that the word may be used when washing, wettitig, vnoistening, softening, &c. is the consequence of the dipping. Still, however, this is not literally contained in the expression. Though any of these words might be given in certain situations as a translation, yet such a translation would not be literal. Tingo ex-presses appropriately dipping 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 OF BAPTISM. 53 discover a correspondence. It may be expected that the root will con- tain some idea ^yhicll has been a foundation to its use in the derived language. But a correspondence in all their meanings would often be looked for in vain. The derived word often drops every meaning of the root but one, and takes others that the root never possessed. Does Mr Ewing deny that tingo signifies to dip ? If he does, the classical use of that Avord Avill contradict him. The dipping of the sun, moon, and stars, in the ocean, as we would express it, is in the language of the Latin poets expressed by tingo. If he does not deny this, his 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 dip. It is well known that he believed that proper baptism consisted in three immersions ; and he translated the Greek verb by tingo. The same analogy is recognized by our own language; and though I would not say with 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 languages connects dipping and dyeing by expressing them by the same word, why should not the same thing be supposed in the Greek ? and jSa-Trru, 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 ^atru by tingo, in the sense of dipping. As the Greek poets apply (SccTTrw to the setting of a constellation, or its dipping in the ocean, the Latin poets express the same thing by mergo and tingo. Having viewed (3avTM in every light in which it can assist us on this subject, I shall now proceed to exhibit the examples of the occuiTence of /Sa-rr/^w itself, which, to the utter exclusion of the root, is applied to the Cliristian rite. BaTrrw, the root, I have shewn to possess two meanings, and two only, to dip and to dye. Baffr/^w, 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 writers on both sides of this controversy. It has been generally taken for granted, that the two words are equally applicable to baptism ; and that they both equally signify to dye. Both of them are supposed, in a secondary sense, to signify to wash or moisten. I do not admit this with respect to either. I have already pro^^ed 54 THE MODE this with respect to /Sa^rrw ; the proof is equally strong with respect to /Sacrr/^w. My position is, that it always signifies to dip ; NEVER expressing ANY THING BUT MODE. Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will he necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may he startled at the idea of refusing to suhmit to the unanimous authority of lexicons, as an instance of the holdest scepticism. Are lexicons, it may he said, of no authority ? Now, I admit that lexicons are an authority, hut they are not an ulthnate authority. Lexicographers have been guided by their own judg- ment in examining the various passages in which a word occurs ; and it is still competent for every man to have recourse to the same sources. The meaning of a word must ultimately be determined by an actual inspection of the passages in which it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judgment of the lexicographer. The use of a word, as it occurs in the writers of authority in the English 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, which is competent to revise the decisions of all dictionaries. But though it is always lawful to appeal from lexicons to the language 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 feature so marked, that any painter can catch, and faithfully represent. Indeed, I would consider it the most unreasonable scepticism, to deny that a word has a meaning, which all lexicons give as its primary 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 /Sacrr/^w and /Sa-rrw. 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, with the greatest confidence, to the lexicons even of Pfedo-Baptist writers. On the contrary, their opponents often take refuge in a supposed sacred or Scriptural use, that they may be screened from the fire of the lexicons. It is in giving secondary meanings, in which the lines are not so easily discovered, that the vision of the lexicogi-aphers is to be sus- pected. Nor is it with respect to real secondary meanings that they are likely to be mistaken. Their peculiar error is in giving as OF BAPTISM. 55 secondary meanings, what are not properly meanings at all. The same objection that I have to lexicons, with respect to this word, I have not with 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 with respect to words which they find in use in what they read, think that they have meanings which they have not. But a little consideration of the nature of the mis- take will explain this matter. I admit that the meaning which they take out of the word, is always implied in the passage where the word occiu's. But I deny that this meaning is expressed by the word. It is always made out by implication, 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 — let them deny it, if they can. My canon is, that in certain situations two words, ob even several words, may WITH equal propriety FILL THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH THEY ARE ALL ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS. The phy- sician, for instance, may, with equal propriety 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 own 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 princi- ple that lexicographers have given meanings to words which they do not possess ; and have thereby laid a foundation for evasive cri- ticism on controverted subj ects, with respect to almost all questions. In Greek it might be said with equal propriety hvaai sv mw, or jBa-^ai ev oivu, " moisten in wine, or dip in wine ;" and from this circum- stance it is rashly and unphilosophically concluded that one of the meanings of jSaTru is to moisten. Let it be remembered that my censure lies against the critical exactness 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 ha^^e falsely assigned such 56 THE MODE secondary meanings. The ideas which they affix to such words, are implied in the passage, thougli not the meaning of the words out of which they take them. But this, which 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 lexico- grapher, who, from finding the expressions Bivaai iv oivu and (3a-^ai bv oivu) employed for the same thing, asserts that here /Sa^/a; signifies to moisten. But it is of great importance when the error is brought to apply to an ordinance of Christ. Besides, it introduces confu- sion into language, and makes the acquisition of it much more dif- ficult to learners. The mind must be stored with a number of dif- ferent meanings in which there is no real difference. What an in- surmountable task would it be to master a language, if, in reality, words had as many different meanings as lexicons represent them ! Parkhurst gives six meanings to ^wjttiZu. I undertake to prove that it has but one ; yet he and I do not differ about the primary meaning of this word. I blame him as 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 appli- cation. The meaning of the word is always the same. Nor does any one need to have a figurative application explained in any other way, than by gi^'ing the proper meaning of the word. When this is known, it must be a bad figure tliat does not contain its own light. It is useless to load lexicons with figurative applications, except as a concordance. Polybius, vol. iii. p. 311. ult. applies the word to soldiers passing through water, immersed (paimZoiJ^mt) up to the breast. Here surely the word cannot mean pouring or sprinkling. The soldiers in passing through the water were dipped as far as the breast. Strabo also applies the word to Alexander's soldiers marching a whole day through the tide, between the mountain Climax and the sea, (Lib. xiv. p. 982.) ^ar:Ti^o[/.twvy baptized up to the middle. Surely this baptism was immersion. Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general, dying of his wounds, says, that haA'ing dipped {^wrrricag) his hand in blood, he wrote the inscription for a trophy. Here the mode of the action cannot be questioned. The instrument of writing is dipped in the colouring fluid. Diodonis Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals iu water, OF BAPTISM. 57 says, that when the water overflows, " many of the land animals, jSaTr/^o/Asva, immersed in the river, perish." This haptism also is immersion. The whole land was overwhelmed with water. This itself, upon a principle hefore explained, might he called a haptism or immersion, in perfect consistency with the modal meaning of the Avord. However, it is not the land, hut the land animals, that are here said to be baptized. These would at first swim, hut 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 haptism. What then is baptism but immersion ? Upon the principle of giving secondary meanings to words, which has been resisted by me, droivn might be given as an additional mean- ing to (SaTTi^oi, from the authority of this passage. As the animals were drowned by immersion, this immersion might be called drown- ing. Lucian uses the word in a like case, and with circumstances that explain the former example. Towards the end of the dialogue, he makes Timon, the man-hater, say, that if he saw a man carried down the stream, and crying for help, he would baptize him, %ai riv Ttva TO-j ^ii^JbMvog 0 'TorafMog -TTaoa^i^ri, 0 di, rag %2'ga$ o^sym, awikaZitS&ai hrirai, 'jikiv Tiai Tourov s^i ■Ki(pa\7iv fSxTrril^ovTa, ag firtdi ava-AU-^ai dwridsiri' " If in winter, the river should carry away any one with its stream, and the person with outstretched hands should beg to be taken out, that he would drive hi?n from the bank, and plicnge 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, re- quires a hardihood which I do not envy. Having such examples before my eyes, I cannot resist God, to please men. To attempt to throw doubt on the meaning of the word ^airnZu, is as vain as to question the signification of the word dip. The latter is not more definitely expressive of mode in the English, than the former is in Greek. The only circumstance that has enabled men to raise a cloud about /Sa^-r/^w is, that it belongs to a dead language. There never was a word in any language, the meaning of which is more definite, or which is capable of being more clearly ascertained. The sinner is represented by Porphyry, (p. 282.) as baptized up to his head, {jSa-rnl^sTa/ fji'^xi' ^^-^f^Mi) in Styx, a celebrated river in hell. Is there any question about the mode of this baptism f 58 THE MODE Dr Gale gives some striking examples from Strabo. " Strabo," says he, " is very plain in several instances : Speaking of the lake near Agrigentum, a town on the south shore of Sicily, now called Ger- genti, he says, things which otherwise will not swim, do not sink {jBa'TTTiZia&ai) in the water of the lake^ but Jloat like wood. And there is a rivulet in the south parts of Cappadocia, he tells us, whose waters are so buoyant, that if an arrow is thrown in, it will hardly sink or be dipped, ^a'TrnZiG&ai, into them." " In another place, ascribing the fabulous properties of the asphaltites to the lake Sirbon, he says, the bitumen jioats atop, because of the nature of the water, xohich admits no diving ; for if a man goes into it, he cannot sink, or be dipped, ^a'^nZis^ai, 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 obsti- nacy itself cannot find a plausible objection. Things that sink in other water, will not sink or be baptized in the lake near Agrigen- tum. This is mode, and nothing but mode. It is immersion, and nothing but immersion. Sprinkling, and pouring, and popping, and dropping, and wetting, and washing, and imbuing, and de~ dicati7ig, and devoting, and consecrating, with all the various meanings that have ever been forced on this word, are meanings in- vented merely to serve a purpose. And if the sinking of an arrow in water is called its baptism, what can baptism mean but immer- sion ? If, when the buoyancy of water will not suffer a person to sink, the idea is expressed by /3affr/^w, 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 wliich 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 with his heavy sword, and tlie xohole sword became warm with blood.'''' On this, Pseudo Didymus says, that the sword is represented as dipped in blood, sZavTicdri. And Dionysius says, "/w that phrase. Homer ex- presses himself with the greatest energy, signifying that the sword xcas so dipped, ^aiTTiskwog, in blood, that it was even heated by itr " Heraclides Ponticus," says Dr Gale, " a disciple of Aristotle, may help us, also, in fixing the sense of the word ; for, moralizing the fable of Mars being taken by Vulcan, he says, Neptune is in^ OF BAPTISM. 59 geniously supposed to deliver Mars from Vulcan, to signify, that when a piece of iron is taJcen red hot out of thejire, and put into water, jSa^Ti^irai, the heat is repelled and extinguished, by the contrary nature of waters Here we see that the immersion of hot iron in water, for the pm'pose of cooling it, is denominated 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, /Sa-Trr/cra/, sunk into the sea." Such a baptism, siu'ely, would be immersion. The word occiu-s in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our version. 2 Kings v. 14. Kai jianQri 'Naifiav xai iZa.ovu and ^a'zrit^M have their own peculiar meanings even here, as well as every where else, without the smallest confusion. To baptize is not to xaash ; but to baptize in a river or in any pu7'e water, implies washing, and may be used for it in certain situations. If Naaman dipped himself in Jordan, he was washed. It comes to the same thing, whether a physician 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 oiu* modal word dip, that the Greeks made of their /3a7rr/^w. No man who understands English, 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 batlie this morning ? 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 appli- cation of the mode. To dip in pure water, is to wash ; 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 exjiosed. It supposes that, if in any circumstances two words can be used in- terchangeably, they must signify the same thing ; and that contro- versialists are at liberty to reciprocate their meanings, as often as the necessity of their cause demands it. This is a source of error more fruitful in false criticism, than any other of its numerous re- sources. There is a speciousness in it that has imposed on lexico- graphers, critics, and commentators. They have universally, 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 in his Life of Theseus, most exactly determiues the mean- ing of /Sasrr/^w. OF BAPTISM. 61 Agy^og ^a-TTit^r] dvvai 8s rot ov ds/j,ig usi. *' Thou may est be dipped, O bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink." The remark of Vossius and Turretine upon this is : " Hence it appears that (Scc'tti^siv is more than I'jditoKaX^iiv, which is to swim lightly on the surface, and less than bumv, which is to go down to the bottom, so as to be destroyed." In the latter part of this dis- tinction, they are certainly mistaken, as to both verbs. Bacrr/^s/i/ may be applied to what goes to the bottom and perishes ; and hvstv very frequently applies to things that sinli without destruction. It is the usual word applied to the setting of the sun, or its apparent sinlcing 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 /SaTr/^w 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, but from the circumstances in which it is used. If ^a'TTTiZiiv is applied to a ship going to the bottom, its destruction is known without being expressed by this word : if ^vmv is applied to Neptune, Thetis, or a sea nymph, it is in the same way known that there is no destruction. The obvious and charac- teristic distinction between the words is, that hwuv is a neuter verb, signifying to sink, not to cause something else to sink. But a thing that sinks of itself, will doubtless si7ik to the bottom, if not prevented ; and if it is subject to destruction by such sinking, it will perish. It is therefore characteristically applied to things that sink to the bottom. But ^aimZiiv signifies merely to dij), without respect to depth or consequence, and is as proper to the immersion of an insect on the surface 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 applied to the same thing indifferently, but in their characteristic meaning, as in the above verse, they are ojmosed. The expression in this verse is allegorical, literally referring to a bladder or leathern bottle, which, when empty, swims on the sur- face : if sufficiently 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 suit- able to the ambiguity of an oracle. " You may youi'selves destroy " the state, otherwise it is imperishable." A leathern bottle might be so filled, as to force it to the bottom, though it would never sink of 62 THE MODE itself. Nothing can more decisively determine the exact character- istic import of /3aTr/^s/v 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 word denote to dip, Mathout going to the bottom : he makes it to dip, so as to continue under water. . " Our Anti-paedo-baptist friends," says he, " when they contend, that from the examples adduced by them, immersion is the only sense in which (3a7FriZ,u, in its literal acceptation, was employed, do not seem aware that almost all of these examples imply, not a mere dipping, or immer- sion 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 applies to an immersion, followed by an emersion, it is as good as a thou- sand to determine that it may apply to such immersions. I observe in the second place, that not one of the examples imply a continu- ance under water. When the word is applied to a disowning man or a sinking ship, it no more implies the permanence of the immer- sion than when Plutarch uses it to signify the dipping of the hand in blood. The word has no reference to what follows the immer- sion ; and whether the thing immersed lies at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot be learned from the word, but from the connection and circumstances. It is a childish error to suppose, that we must have a model for Christian Baptism in the meaning of the word that de- signates 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 siu'ely very perverse. When it cannot be denied that the word denotes to dip, they endeavour to make it more than dipping. 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 Eupolis, that being thrown into the sea, iQaTnt^iro, he was baptized. This baptism surely was immersion. This example shews us also that the word may be applied when the object is de- stroyed, as well as when 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, ^aTTiaov a iig ^oKacdav : Baptize yourself into the sea. The expression quoted by Hedericus from Heliod, b. v. is OF BAPTISM. 63 equally decisive. ISu'Tti^uv ng rriv "kiiivnh to baptize into the lake. And that fi'om ^Esop, rjjg vtui xiv8vvsvovult Dr Gale, p. 125. Here he Avill find a triimiphant answer to every quibble from Dr Wall. OF BAPTISM. 69 But as the text itself is perfectly sufficient for my purpose, I shall not swell my volume Avlth quotations from that learned writer. In our version, Luke xi. 38, iZot^itTisk is translated wash. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed be- fore dinner." The objection is, does not ^oc^rit^oj, then, sometimes denote to wash ? Nay, farther, as the Jews washed the hands by having water poui'ed on them, and as this passage respects the washing of the hands, is there not here evidence that the word in question sometimes signifies to wash 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 zvash. Dipping" is the thing ex- pressed ; 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 pouring water on them by a servant ; and I care not that ten thousand such examples were brought forward. Though this might be the usual mode of washing the hands, it might not be the only mode, which is abun- dantly sufficient for my purpose. The possibility of this is enough for me ; but Dr Gale has proved from Dr Pocoke, that the Jews sometimes washed their hands by dipping. People of distinction might have water poured on their hands by servants, but it is not likely that this was the common practice of the body of the people, in any nation. The examples from Homer cannot inform us with respect to the practice of the common people. ' But I say this without 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 without its regimen expressed, it applies to the whole bod)\ When a part only is dipped, the part is men- tioned, or some part is excepted, as is the case with Xouw. The passage, then, ought to have been translated, — " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he was not baptized, or dipped, before dinner." The Pharisees themselves, on some occasions, would not eat till they had used the bath, and this Pharisee might expect still more eminent devotion from Jesus. Indeed, to use the bath before dinner, was a very common practice in eastern countries ; and the practice would still be more in vogue with those who con- sidered it a religious purification. But there is no need to refer to the practice of the time, nor to ransack the writings of the Rabbins, 70 THE MODE for the practice of the Jews. We have here the authority of the Holy Spirit for the Jewish custom. He uses the word /3aTr/^w, and that word signifies to dip, and only to dip. If I have established the acceptation of this word by the consent of use, even an inex- plicable difficulty in this case would not affect the certainty of my conclusions. But the difficulty is not inexplicable. What should hinder the word to have here its usual import ? Mark vii. 4. our translators render, " except they wash, they eat" not." Now, my opponents may say, does not /Sacrr/^w here signify to wash ? I answer, no. Dipping is the thing expressed ; but it is used in such circumstances as to imply washing. The washing is a consequence from the dipping. It ought to have been trans- lated, " except they dip themselves, they eat not." In the pre- ceding context, we are told that in ordinaiy they do not eat with- out washing their hands. Here we are told that when they come from market, they eat not till they are dipped or baptized. Dr CampbelFs notion, that vivru and /Sa-ffr/^w 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. Eor, though ^a'TrnZoi 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 ex- cepted, the whole body is always meant. His view of the matter I consider nothing but an ingenious conceit, without any authority from the practice of the language. N/crrw cannot denote a peculiar mode of washing, in distinction from another mode. Besides, to wash any thing by mere dipping, is not so thorough a washing as may be expressed by vtTc-ra. Now, if the words both refer to the washing of the hands, the first will be the best washing, which i& contrary to Dr Campbell's supposition. Dr Campbell, indeed, with Pearce and Weitstein, understands rruyfin of a handful of wa- ter. But they produce no example in which tu/zajj has this signifi- cation, and therefore the opinion has no authority. Indeed, there is a self-contradiction in the opinion of these learned writers on this point. uvyfMri, 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 holloAv 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 little reason can it be supposed to signify, as Dr Campbell suggests, that vvy/irt denotes the manner of washing, with reference to the form of the hands when they wash each other. In such circumstances, neither OF BAPTISM. 71 of them is a fist, but still less the >yashing hand. In this operation the hands infold one another, and if there is any thing like a fist, it is the two hands united. Dr Campbell quotes, with approba- tion, the remark of Wetstein : " (SavTi^sadai, est modus aquae im- mergere, vmrsffdai, manibus afFundere." But the former does not signify to dip t?ie 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 bason. Parkhurst, indeed, trans- lates the phrase, " to xvash the hands with the Jist, that is, by rubbing water on the palm 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 believe 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 with the Jist, is not an expresssion which would be likely to be chosen to express the ope- ration of washing the hands. The palm of one hand is applied to the palm of the other ; and when the palm of one hand is applied to the back of the other, the intention is to cleanse the latter, and not by the latter to cleanse the foraier. 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 Tuyfiri, and to the Jewish traditions. He understands it as denoting the hand as Jar as the fist extended. This is agreeable to the defini- tion of the word by Pollux : " If you shut your hand, the outside is called tu/^jj C and it is agreeable to the Jewish traditions, one of which, he shews, enjoins such a washing. The contrast, then, here, is between the washing of the hands up to the wrist, and the immersion of the whole body. Dr Campbell, indeed, remarks, that '' it ought to be observed, that ^a^nmwai is not in the passive voice, but the middle, and is contrasted with vi-^uvrai, also in the middle, so that, by every rule, the latter must be understood actively as well as the former." But, though I understand ^a'TTTieuvrai in the middle voice, I do not acknowledge that this is necessarily required from a contrast with vi-^oivrai. Let the meaning of this passage be what it will, the active, passive, and middle voices, might be so associated. I know no rule that requires such a conformity as Dr Campbell here demands. It might be said of Christians, xv^iaxov Sii'irvov (payovgi, nat ^aimZfivTui. They eat the Lord's Supper, and they are baptized. The contrast between vi-^uvrai and ^%'^Tiffuvrai in the passage referred to, does not require the same voice. Nz-vl/wov, the active itself, might have been used, and ^avrtcunai in the pas. 72 THE MODE sive. I understand it in the middle, not because vj-4/wvra/ is middle, but because in the baptism referred to, every one baptized himself. Had it been as in Christian baptism, I would understand it in the passive, Mr Ewing translates the passage thus : " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And even when they have come from a market, unless they baptize, they eat not," &c. But the word oft, as a translation of '^rvy/j^ri, is liable to the objections of Dr Campbell, which I need not here repeat. Mr Ewing surely should have ob- viated them. Besides, neither Mr Ewing, nor any other, so far as I know, has produced one example, in which vvy/xy] confessedly sig- nifies oft. Without this the translation has no authority. Mr Ewing translates xai 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 true meaning. Defilement certainly was understood to be increased by the market. Mr Ewing indeed endeavovirs to give a turn to this, but it is a complete failure. " And in order to shew how strictly 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 from the ordinary intercourse of life." But where did Mr Ewing find their more solemn occasions ? This is apocryphal, and like the Apocrypha, it contradicts the ge- nuine Scriptures. The Evangelist declares, that except they wash their hands, they eat not. This implies, that they never sat down to table, even at their ordinary meals, without washing. The bap- tism after market, then, must have been a greater or more ex- tensive purification. Mr Ewing supposes that the word baptize is used here to shew that the washing was not for cleanliness, but was a religious custom. But this is shewn sufficiently, if baptize were not used. It is directly stated, that this washing was obedience to the tradition of the elders, I observe farther, that if the Avashinsr was not by other circumstances known to be a religious custom, this would not have been knoM'n by the ^^^ord /3affr/^w more than by vi'Ttru, Besides ^aTneuvrai does not here ex-plain or limit vi-^uivrai. If the latter could not, \\\i\v the words construed Avith it, be known to designate a religious observance, it can receive no assistance from the former. Mr Ewing understands both Avords as referring to the same thing, washing the hands by water poured on them. Why OF BAPTISM. 73 then is wffrw changed for (SavTi^u ? Surely the change of the word intimates a cliange of the meaning in such circumstances. " They eat not, except they wash theu* hands. And after market, they eat not, except they baptize.'''' Surely no person, who has not a purpose to serve, would suppose that baptize here meant the very same thing with tvash the hands. But if it is insisted that baptize here is distinguished from vittoj as a religious washing, then how will it determine that vittu) here refers to a religious washing ? If it is here so distinguished from wrrw, then the washing denoted by vivtu cannot be a religious washing. This would import, that the wash- ing of the hands first spoken of by w^rw was not a religious wash- ing ; 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 fSa'TTTiffuvrai 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 passage, the proof that it has such a meaning always lies upon him who uses it in that meaning as an argument or objec- tion ; for this obvious reason, 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 mean- ing. 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 anta- gonist is bound to prove his view of it as a ground of his objection, and my cause requires no more of me than to shew 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 cannot be certain that it has not that signification. Many a passage may contain the disputed word in such cu-cumstances as to afford no de- finite 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 will 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 re- quired to prove. It Avill also assist the inquirer to arrive at truth. Now in the present case, except Mr Ewing proves that ^avriguvrai 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 74 THE MODE nothing. I bring passages without number, to prove that the word must have the meaning for which I contend. No objection then could be valid against my conclusion, except a passage in which it cannot have that signification. These observations I state as self- evident truth : The man who does not perceive their justness, can- not be worth reasoning with. But why should it be thought incredible, that the Pharisees im- mersed themselves after market .'' If an Egyptian, on touching a swine, would run to the river and plunge in with his clothes, is it strange that the superstitious Pharisees should immerse themselves after the pollution of the market ? Dr Gale, however, on the authority of the Syriac, Arabic, Ethi- opic, and Persic versions, is inclined to understand 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 serves a temporary purpose, at the expense of setting loose the meaning of God's word. I do not wish to force a favourite mode of baptism on the Scriptures, but I will implicitly 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, Sec. the original calls jSavrifffiovg, 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 washing; yet dipping- and washing are not the same thing. The washing is not expressed, but is a mere consequence of the dippiyig. The passage, then, ought to be translated dippings, or immersions, or baptisms, if the last term is adopted as an English word. The purification of all the things specified, except the last, was appoint- ed by the law, Levit. xi. 32. to be affected by being put under water. But with respect to the xXimt, or beds, Mr Ewing a^sserts that the translation dippings would be manifestly absurd. Now what is manifestly absurd cannot be tiiie. If this assertion then is well founded, Mr Ewing has opposed a barrier Avhich the boldest cannot pass. But why is this absurd .'' Let us hear his own Avords. " The articles specified in ver. 4. are all utensils and accommodations of the Jewish mode of eating, about which the Evangelist was speaking ; from the " cups, pots, and brazen vessels" of the cook and the butler, to the " beds" of the triclinium, or dining room, for the use of the family and their guests. There Mere thi'ee only 1 OF BAPTISM. 75 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 disciples at the last supper. They must 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 will admit this account 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 .f^ It would be a foolish thing ; but who would expect any thing but 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 using such language. If the Holy Spirit has asserted that the Pharisees baptized their couches, and if this word signifies to im- merse, Mr Ewing has asserted that the Holy Spii-it has asserted an absurdity. This is no light matter. It is an awful charge on the Spirit of Inspiration. Dr Wardlaw is equally rash on this point. He supposes that it is incredible that they immersed their beds. How is it incredi- ble .'' Is the thing impossible ? If not, its credibility depends on the testimony. But whether or not the Holy Spirit gives the tes- timony, depends on the meaning of the word. If from other pas- sages we learn that it has this meaning, this passage cannot teach the contrary, if the thing is possible. Upon the principle of inter- pretation here recognized by Mr Ewing and Dr Wardlaw, we might reject every thing in history not suited to our own concep- tions ; 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 kill- ing such a multitude with the jaw-bone of an ass incredible, and he takes away the incredibility of the Scriptural account, by explain- ing 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 dare reject it, rejects the testimony of God. This is a most im- 76 THE MODE proper way to speak on the subject. If immersion Is the meaning of the word, it is not optional to receive or reject it. Whether or not this is its meaning, must be learned from its history, not from the abstract probability or improbability of the immersion of beds. If the history of the word declares its meaning to be immersion, the mere difficulty of immersing beds, in conformity to a religious tradition, cannot itnply 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 objec- tion Jrom difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they in- volve an impossibility. 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 them- selves 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 against 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 con- trary 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 will see how much of the op- position to his claims were founded on the principle which my canon reprobates. When he said that he was the bread that came down from heaven, the Jews murmured, 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 that they thought insuperable. " We are sure he was born among us — he could not therefore have come from heaven." But there was a solution to this difficulty, had their pre- judices permitted them to find it. It was possible, that though born on earth, as a man, he might come from heaven, as he Mas God. But they were glad to catch at the apparent inconsistency ; and their prejudices would not allow them to attempt to \indicute them- selves. This in fact is the very substance of one common objection to the Deity of Christ. The Arians still collect all the passages OF BAPTISM. 77 that assert the human nature of Christ, and takes it for granted that this is a proof that he is not God. Let our hrethren take care that it is not on the same principle they allege this objection to im- mersion 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 superstitious Pharisees immersed even their couches ? — Another striking instance of objecting on this principle we have, John vii. 41, 42. " Shall Christ come out of Galilee.'^ Hath not the Scrip- ture 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 difficulty that he could not solve. The Scriptures assert, that the Christ will come out of Bethlehem, but 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 aj)parent contradictions was not impossible. The knowledge of his real history would have given the solution. But it was not a solu- tion they wanted. In reading the history of Jesus also, it is not uninstructive to remark, that many things which appeared to his ene- mies decisiA'^e evidence against him, had no weight at all with his friends. This discrepancy shews how much our sentiments are under the influence of our feelings, and consequently the guilt of unbelief, with respect to any part of the divine counsel which we re- ject. 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 observa- tion 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 without prejudice to inquire under the influence of an impression of great accountable- ness. I will state farther, that in proving that a thing is not impossi- ble, there is no obligation to prove, that any of the possible ways of solution 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 con- stantly calling on us to prove, that there were in such and such places things necessary for dipping. Mr Ewing gauges the reser- voirs and wells of Jerusalem, to shew their insufficiency for immer- sion. He may then call on me to find a place sufficient to immerse 78 THE MODE a couch. But I will go on no such errand. If I have proved the meaning of the word, I will believe the Spirit of God, who tells me that the Pharisees baptized their beds, and leave the super- stition and industry of the devotees to find or make such a place. Let the demand which our opponents in this instance make on us, be conceded to the infidel, the Bible must be given up. In reply- ing to difficulties started by the deist, the defender of Christianity thinks he has amply done his duty, when he shews that the solution is possible, without proving that the possible way of solution did ac- tually exist. Indeed, many of the defenders of Christianity under- take too much, and lay too much stress on actual proof, with re- spect to the way in which difficulties may be removed. When such proof can be got, it is ah^^ays 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 re- markably successful in this way, they are not disinclined to magni- fy the importance of their discoveries, and are willing to rest a part of the evidence on their own success. This discovers 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 de- mand, which their opponents have voluntarily rendered themselves liable to answer. If I could prove that there was at Jerusalem a pond that could immerse the High Church of Glasgow, I would certainly bring forward my proof; but I would as certainly disclaim the ne- cessity. To give an example. In opposition to Dr CampbelPs opinion, that in Mark vii. 4. /Sacrr/tfwira/ refers to the dipping of the hands, Mr Ewing, as his proof, alleges, that " as far as he has ob- served, there is only one way of washing either the hands or the feet in Scripture, and that is, by poimng 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 E\i'ing all this, yet abide by my position. It is very possible that all the other instances of washing the hands that are mentioned in Scripture may be such, yet a diff'erent way have been in existence on some occasions. And if the exi>ression were ^avneugi rag %£'|ac, this I would suppose not only possible, but undoubtedly true. No number of examples of one mode of washing the hands, can prove that no other mode ^vas ever practised, when the thing does not respect a divine ordinance, but OF BAPTISM. 79 either the ordhiary M'ashing-, or the superstitious washing enjoined by the commandments of men. It is of vast importance in every controversy to know what we are obliged 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 ^avri- ffujvTai refers to the dipping of the hands. . Yet I would not use Mr ET\'ing''s arguments to disprove this. Indeed, were Dr Campbell alive, 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 opi-- nion on Tertullian among the ancients, and Weitstein among the moderns. Nothing can be more unfair. He merely refers to Tertullian, to shew the sense in which the word (SaTrnZ^u was un- derstood by the Latin fathers, and quotes the opinion of Weitstein, with a general approbation of him as a critic, certainly beyond his deserts, and with respect to a criticism which I believe to be false. But Dr Campbell was not a man to found his views on such autho- rity. 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 earliest, and for many centuries the most general practice in haptizing,'''' does he not found on his own knowledge of etymology and iise — on his own knowledge of antiquity f Will Mr Ewing venture to say that Doctor Campbell was not well acquainted with the etymology and use of the word in question ? From what modern must he receive instruction with respect to the antiquities of church history ? It may be true, 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 would expect that in his situation he could have done more ? Nor is his candour in con- fessing a mode of baptism primitive, which he did not adopt, to be ascribed to a vanity of patronizing 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 Scriptures, while even on the rack they will not make the confession. Such persons are obliged to give a false turn to a great part of Scriptui'e, 80 THE MODE totally unconcerned in the controversy. Nay, they are obliged 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 Scripture ordinances, and, therefore, on this point can confess the truth without injury to its system. I am led to the defence of Doctor 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 hav- ing 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 Campbell as universally successful in his criti- cisms. Many of them I am convinced are wrong ; and those who have in all things made our version of the Gospels conforai to his, have done no service to the cause of Christ. His judgment is al- ways to be respected, but often to be rejected. On some points of Christian doctrine, he was evidently but 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 lan- guage, he is immeasurably before all our scripture 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 can- dour unknown to most theologians. Mr Ewing'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 Eiu-ope, while they practised sprinkling or pouring, have confessed immersion to be the primitive mode. But with respect to Mark vii. 4, though 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 xX/i/a/, or beds, were the couches at table. The word, in- deed, both in Scripture and in Greek writers, has this signification : But in both, it also signifies the beds on Avhich 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 purified in this manner, we are at liberty to suppose that it was only for particular kinds of OF BAPTISM. 81 uncleanness, and on occasions tliat 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 piu'ification 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 purification usual at a wedding : But this does not indicate all Jewish piu-ifications. The hands and the feet of the guests were washed, and very likely 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 purified at a feast, should have been purified out of these water-pots. It is enough that they were suitable for the pui'ification of some things. If there was any thing to be purified, which could not be purified in them, it may have been purified elsewhere. It is not said that all things were purified in these water-pots. Besides, it is not said that these water-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 all necessary, with Mr Ewing, to gauge these water-pots, in order to settle this question. Mr Bruce informs us, that in Abyssinia, the sect called Kem- mont, " wash themselves from head to foot^ after coming from the market, or any public place, where they may have touched any one of a different sect from their own, esteeming all such unclean." Is it strange, then, -to find the Pharisees, the superstitious Phari- sees, immersing their couches for purification, or themselves after market ? I may add, that the couches might have been so con- structed, 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 believe God without a voucher. For myself, it is perfectly sufiicient 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 difficulty can avail against demonstration ; and with me it is an axiom, that no diffi- culty entitles us to give the lie to the Spirit of inspiration. In Heb. ix. 10, the word ^avriff/Mig is translated washings. Is not this proof that the word signifies to wash ? The reply to this has already been given, in shewing the difference between dip and wash. The translation ought to be " different baptisms," not " different washings." Dipping is the thing expressed, ivashing is F 82 THE MODE a consequence. But Dr Wardlaw observes, " that amongst the ' divers washings"* (/3aTr/o/iara, baptisms) of the old dispensation re- ferred to, Heb. ix, 10, must surely be included all the various modes of Jewish purification ; and consequently the ^avnciMara, or sprinklings, which were the most numerous," p. I72. But how is this certain ? Why should it be supposed that the baptisms under the law contained all the purifications required by the law ? This is not said here, nor any where 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 sprinklings 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 sprinkliyigs ; there- fore baptism must signify sprinkling, as one of its meanings. But we deny that the " divers baptisms" include the sprinklings. 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 like that of Nathanael with respect to Chi'ist : " Can any good thing come out of Nazareth .?" If it is granted that no good thing could come out of Nazareth, the proof was undoubted, 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 (Brtair^oj sometimes signifies to wash ; but from what has fre- quently been observed on the like use of the word, T^'ith how little reason, will appear in a moment : " And she went out in the night, and baptized herself in the camp at a fountain," y-ai iZarr- 7i^iro TT] rrafifiQoXr] iti tyjc 'rrriyrig rov vdarog. ECa^T-z^sro ought here to have been translated she dipped herself. Washing was the conse- quence of dipping in pure water. Homer speaks of stars washed in the sea, (II. E. 6.) ; and Virgil, exj^ressing 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 OF BAPTISM. 83 their dipping, \vith reference to the danger or dlsagreeableness of the operation. We may say either Jill the pitcher, or dip the pitcher ; but this does not imply that dip signifies to Jill. In like manner, the M'ord /Sa^-r/^w is used when persons sink in water, and perish. Whiston, in his version of Josephus, sometimes translates it drown. But does this imply that (3a7rn(^oj signifies to drown, or to perish 9 The perishing or the droivning, 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 ah-eady pointed out the fallacy of that posi- tion, which is a first principle with most critics ; namely, the sup- position, that words are equivalent, which in any circumstances are interchangeable. It is an error plausible, but mischievous. Yet, on no better foundation does Dr Wall, and innumerable others after him, argue that /SctTr/^w must signify to wash in general. The verb Xouw is applied to baptism ; therefore jSa^rr/^w, it is thought, must signif}^ to wash as well as Xoyw. 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 impossibility is this ? Was it utterly impossible to have a conveniency for bathing, near a fountain ? On the contrar}^, is it not very probable that stone troughs, or other vessels, were usually provided at fountains, for bathing, and washing clothes ? We find such a provision at two fountains near Troy, mentioned by Homer, lib. xxii. l53. KaXoi, Xamoi, oSi nfMaroc, &c. " 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 scooj^'d, in which the wives of Troy, And all 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 Phasacia, in the Odys- sey, lib. vi. 86. Ev5' 75 Toi tfXvvoi riaav STrjiratoi) ttoXv 3' vdu^ KaXov v-Tre'/iT^o^isi, &c. 84 THE MODE " At the delightful rivulet arrived, Where those perennial cisterns were prepared, With purest crystal of the fountain fed Profuse," &c. Cowpek. 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 M'here 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 \vork of super- erogation. Nothing more can be required of me, than to shew that the thing is not impossible. Even were it certain, that at this foun- tain there was no such provision, might not some person have sup- plied 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 an easy thing to disprove every thing. I shall now try what evidence can be found to determine the lite- ral meaning of the word /Sajrry^w, from its figurative applications. When a word is used figuratively, the figure is founded on the literal meaning ; and therefore, by examining the figure, Ave may discover additional evidence with respect to the literal meaning. And here I would first obsen^e, that some instances of figurative use may not be decisive, as well as some instances of literal iise. It is enough that every instance of both literal and figiu'ative use, will explain fairly on the supposition of the meaning for Avhich we contend, when other instances irresistibly and confessedly imply it. Our opponents contend, that in some of its figurative occurrences the allusion is to pouring. " In this sense of pouring upon, and pouring into^'' says Mr Ewing, " till mind and body are over- whelmed, impregnated, intoxicated, and the circumstances are op- pressive, or even destructive, the ^Yord is verj'^ frequently used in profane writers." In opposition to this, I assert that not one of all Mr Ewing's examples necessarily refer to po?iring upon, or pouring into. In many of them, the translation may be over- whelm ; but in this term, the reference is not to water poured upon, or poured into, but to water coming over in a current, like the tide overwhelming the beach. This is strictly and characteristi- cally expressed by xXy^w. To this, some of the figurative occurrences OF BAPTISM. 85 of (SaTTT/^o) 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 sup- posed 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 Ewing. 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 Ewing to pour or sprinkle the water in baptism, till the person baptized should be entirely drenched, it would afford no relief from immersion. Not one, then, of the examples of figurative use adduced by Mr Ewing, countenances his own favourite mode of baptism. Let us now take a look at Mr Ewing"'s examples, in which the word is used figuratively : fSsQavrisdai n ru an^aru. " 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 figm-e, if the point of resemblance in the objects is not obvious. Now, let it be observed, that there is no likeness between the action of drinking, and either the pouring of fluids, or immersion in them. Were this the point of resemblance, the drinking of one small glass might be designated 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 wine or water, would be a baptism. Mr Ewing, indeed, supposes that there is an excessive pouring, but as this cannot be included in mere mode, it cannot be included in the word that designates this, but must be expressed by some additional word. Besides, if the word ^a'TtTiljM signifies excessive pouring, it must do so in baptism, which condemns Mr Ewing''s popping a little water on the face. If it is supposed that there is pouring in the drinking of a drunkard, which is not 86 THE MODE in (b'inking moderately ; and that the design of this application of the word (SairTit^u is to designate this ; I reply, that the mode of drinking a small glass is as much pouring, as the drinking of the cup of Hercules. Indeed, there may he something of pouring in the action of putting a small quantity of liquid into the mouth, which is not in drinking a large goblet. But if the word jSa'Trri^w^ in expressing drunkenness, refers to the mode of drinking, there is then no figure 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 /Sa-rr/^w was taken in them lite- rally. He supposes that there is a ^' pouring upon, or a. pouring into, till mind and body are overwhelmed," &c. The wine then is poured 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 with wine, which on this suppo- sition is the literal meaning ? But when ^aim^oi is applied to drunkenness, it is taken flgiu'a- tively ; and the point of resemblance is between a man so com- pletely under the influence of wine, and an object completely sub- jected to a liquid in which it is wholly immersed. This is not only obvious from the figure itself, but from the ch'cumstances with which the figure is sometimes conjoined. Clemens Alexandi'inus employing the same figure, says, jSa'mZ^ofisvoi ug vTrm, hapti::ed into sleep, through drunkenness. Now, baptized into sleep, is exactly our figure buried in sleep, which is an immersion ; and bimal is the thing rej^resented by Christian baptism. Is there any likeness between pouring and sleeping ? Is not the likeness between com- plete subjection to the influence of sleep, and the complete subjec- tion of an object to the influence of a liquid when immersed in it ? The same father applies the Avord ^aTrnZpuai 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 lan- guages. All figui'es that are founded on nature, and obvious to the observation of all nations, will be in all languages the same. Fi- gurative language is a universal language. Now, when we exa- mine this figure in tlie Latin language, our view of it is put be- yond all doubt. Virgil says of the Greeks taking Troy, Invaduut lU'bem somno vinoque sepultam. " They iuAade the city buried in sleep and wine." OF BAPTISM. '87 Here burial is applied both to sleep and wine. Baptized there- fore into sleep and wine, as used in the Greek language, must be the same as buried in sleep and wine in the Latin. Surely if the expression in the Greek needed a commentary, this must be an authoritative one. There can be no pretence for taking youring out of burial. This must be immersion. Lactantius, as Gale remarks, employs the phrase vitiis immersi^ immersed or plunged in vice ; and Origen, in his commentary on John, uses the same figure. The expression of the former, there- fore, must be the best commentary on that of the latter. Vices are not supposed to be poured upon the vicious person, but he sinTiS in them. We ourselves speak in this manner. We speak of a man who sinlis in vice. MartiaFs figui'e — Lana sanguine conchae ebria — " wool drunk with the blood of the shell-fish" — also affords a commentary on the Greek figiu'e. Here wool dipped in a li- quid, is said to be drunk with that liquid from being completely soaked with it. Schwarzius, indeed, supposes that Shakespeare's figure, — " then let the earth be drunken with our blood," coun- tenances the supposition that /3a;rr/^w, though it primarily signifies to dip, sometimes signifies pouring or sprinkling. But what is the gi'ound of this opinion ? Why, it is this. BaTrn^o) sometimes is figura- tively applied to drunkenness, and drunkenness is sometimes figu- ratively applied to the earth drenched with blood. Therefore since the earth is drenched with blood by pouring or sprinkling, /3a;rr/^w must sometimes signify pouring or sprinkling. This states the evidence as fau'ly as any can desire. But there is a multitude of errors here. If one word may figuratively be applied to an object literally denoted by another word, does it folloM' that they mark the same mode "? Is there any likeness between 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 with blood, without any reference to the manner in which it received the blood. Indeed, as there is no likeness between the falling of blood on the earth, and the mode of drinking, the above expression is the clearest proof that the ex- pression baptized with wine does not refer to the same mode. It might as well be said, that the expression, Deut. xxxii. 42. " I will make mine arrows dnink with blood," implies a proof that ^avriZa signifies to dip ; because arrows are besmeared with blood by being dipped in the body. But this vi^ould be false criticism. 88 THE MODE God's arrows are supposed to be drunk with blood — not from the manner in which arrows are usually covered with blood, but from the abundance of the blood shed by them. These observations will apply to all the examples in which this word is applied to drunkenness. I need not, therefore, examine them particularly. But I must refer to one or two, to shew how ill Mr Ewing's explication will apply to them. Oivcj ^s yroXku AXsg- avd^ov ^aitTimca, " having made Alexander drunk with much wine. This, according to Mr Ewing's explication, would be, " having poiu-ed Alexander with much wine," — not " having poured much wine into Alexander." This would be pouring the man into the wine, instead of pouring the wine into the man. B££a7rr/ops upon him." And pray, Mr Ewing, who pojjs this iniquity upon the baptized person ? Is iniquity itself the popper ? Is not iniquity the thing with which he is popped f 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 popping or dipping, either by pouring or sprinkling ; but that his sin, which originated in himself, and never was put on him iti any mode, sunk him in misery. Oiu* iniquities cause us to sink in deep waters. This example is, with all others in which the word occiu's, either in its literal or figvu*ative use, completely in our fa- vour. Iniquity is the baptizer, and instead oi popping the subjects of its baptism, would sink them eternally in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, were they not delivered by that which is represented in the baptism of Christians. 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 literal meaning Avhich we attach to it, while many of them can bear no other meaning. So far from all explaining with an allusion to OF BAPTISM. 95 pouring', there is not one of them, taking all circumstances toge- ther, will fau'ly explain in that meaning. There is not one instance in which Mr Ewing can shew, that the reference must necessarily be to pouring. All languages employ corresponding Avords in the same figm'ative meaning for which we contend in the above ex- amples. No evidence can be more enth'ely satisfactory. The figurative baptism of our Lord, is quite in accordance with those examples in which the word is used for afflictions. Mat. xx. 22, Mark x. 37- In accordance with this view, also, he is represent- ed in the prophetical 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 is no standing ; I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." Ps. Ixix. 1, 2, 14. In like manner, the afflictions of the church are represented by this figure. " Then the waters had overwhelmed us, the stream had gone over our soul : then the proud waters had gone over our soul,'' Ps. 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 their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God." Ezek. xxxii. 14. The baptism of the Spirit, is a figure that has its foundation in immersion, by which the abundance 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 shell- fish. So the sanctification of the believer by the Holy Spirit, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, is figuratively called an immersion or a baptism. But this and the preceding figure I will meet again, in the examination of the theory of Mr Ewing. Examination or Mr Ewing's System. Having considered the evidence for the meaning of this word from its occiu'rences in Greek writers, I shall now examine the new theory proposed by Mr Ewing. This writer pretends to have discover- ed the signification of /SaTrw, by reducing it to its radical letters ; and by interchanging labials and vowels, he forms the word pop from the sound. For an admirable exposure of this fancy, I refer the reader to Dr Cox. But the very attempt is absurd and ludi- crous. It could not succeed on any subject, or with respect to any 96 THE MODE word. It is entitled to no more consideration, than an attempt to decide by an appeal to the cry of birds. The thought of settling a religious controversy about the meaning of a word in a particular language, by speculations with respect to its radical letters, as ap- plying 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 applies etymology utterly beyond its province. Etymology, as a foundation for argument, can never proceed beyond the root ewlsting as a word in the lang-uaffe, whose meaning can be learned fi-om its use. To trace a word to a more remote ancestry, is to relate fable for history. 2. When etymologists go farther, they do not pretend to give a meaning to a word which it is not found to have by use, nor to reject any meaning which use has assigned. They do not pretend to regulate 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 settling controversies about the meanings that use has actually assigned to the words ■v^^hich they analize, but from the light which they reflect on the philosophy of language, and the science of mind. So far from having authority in theological controversy, their re- searches have no authority in criticism, with resj)ect to the use of words in classical writers. Classical writers are an authority to the etymologist, but the etymologist cannot 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 conjecture 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 determine the primaiy meaning. But without 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 desig- nate 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 laM'fully be ascertained from the radical letters \vhich they contain, instead of the tedious process of reading the classics, and acquiring the meaning of words from their use, we may at once proceed to reduce them to their radical sounds, and determine their import bj- this philological chemistry. Mr E\ving not only fails in this instance of analysis. OF BAPTISM 97 but utterly mistakes the true object of etymological researches. His attempt is not calculated to throw light on the philosophy of language, nor illustrate the processes and relations of human thought, but converts etymology into a sort of philological alchemy. 3. Were the origin of /SaTrw to be traced, even with the vitmost certainty, to some other word or words in the language, its meaning in the language must be determined by its use in the language, and not by its origin. Words often depart widely in their use from the meaning of their root. They may drop some idea that was at first essential, or they may embrace ideas not ori- ginally implied. 4. In analizing any word, the etymologist must be guided not merely by the consideration that the letters that compose it have the appearance of indicating a certain origin, but, especially as a ground-work, that such an origin corresponds to its known and ackno^vledged meaning. And when we have found such an origin to a word, it is of no authority in argument, as it takes the mean- ing of the word for granted. I£ pop were the ascertained and ac- knowledged meaning of /3a7rruj, the etymologist might employ his art to reduce the one word to the other. But even then, the evi- dence that the one was 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 ram comes from ^aivc/j, to sprinkle, and plunge from ttXuvw, &c. depends on the fact that the meaning of the one M^ord is known by use to correspond to the meaning of the other. Were there no such correspondence in known signification, the correspondence in sound would be no foundation for derivation. Many words correspond as nearly in sound, which have no relation. In deriving a word, therefore, by reducing it to its radical letters, the etymologist, if he acts agreeably to the sound 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 his process must be taken for granted. But if the meanings of a word are taken for granted in this process, the object of the process cannot be to ascertain a doubtfiil meaning. If the word ^avru has not from use all the meanings which Mr Ewing assigns to it, no etymological process can give any of these meanings to it, for they must be all taken for granted as a founda- tion for his deductions. 5. This theory assigns to jSaTrru as its primarj^ meaning, a signi- fication which use has not given it in a single instance. Indeed, a 98 THE MODE thougli the author endeavours to conform the examples to this pri- mary acceptation, he does not pretend to have derived it from the examples. He concludes that the primary meaning of this word is pop, from the sound, and from its correspondence to the other mean- ings. That /3a^r« has such a primary meaning, there is no evi- dence. If pop really embraced all the significations assigned by Mr Ewing to (SaTrru, he might allege, that it is probable that the word once signified to pop ; but this would not be proof that it had any such signification during the period to which the writings now extant in the Greek language belong. This could be proved only by examples from these authors. Whatever is the origin of the word /Sa^rw, it never signifies pop. 6. To prove that any meaning is sanctioned by use, it is not sufficient that there are examples of its occurrence, which will ex- plain on this meaning. There is no word of frequent occurrence, which in some situations might not bear a false translation, or ex- plain 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 Scriptural 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 M^hich the word tmist have the meaning assigned. This is self-evident. I state it therefore as a canon, or first principle of criticism, that in controversy/ a word occurring frequently in the language is never to he talcen arbitrarily in a sense zvhich it cannot he shexmi incon- testihly to have in some other passage. An acknowledged sense is necessary as a foundation on M^hich to rest the supposition, that in the contested passage it may have the signification assigned. There is no ground to allege that the word has a signification in the con- tested passage, which 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 con- troversy. I have limited the canon to controversy, but, in fact, it extends in some measure to matters in which men do not find an inducement to dispute. Many of the beasts and fishes and fowls and plants mentioned in the Old Testament, cannot be now exactly and confidently ascertained by us, for want of this criterion ; and although there is no warm controversy about these things, it is because there is no temptation from the subject. If a word occurs so sel- dom in what remains of any language, and in such circumstances as cannot definitely determine its meaning, nothing can be legiti- OF BAPTISM. 99 mately rested on it in controversy. Now this canon sweeps away not only Mr E wing's theory, but all other systems that give a meaning to (3a'rril,u, 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. Our opponents have not an acknow- ledged foundation on ^rhich to rest the opinion, that with respect to the ordinance of baptism, the word <^a^riC, but from a meaning acquired by pro- cess ? Can any thing be more absiu'd, than to pretend to determine the different meanings of a Greek word, by the mutations of mean- ing in the English word deri^^ed from it ? 9. If jjo^j originally denoted " a small smart quick sound,*" as is very likely, then there is no reason to extract pop out of ^a-xru, for j3a<7rTu never denotes such a sound, — nor any sound. Mr Ewing himself, does not pretend to allege one example in which ^wxru has the meaning which pop 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 connection with jSacrru, in many of its occurrences, contradicts this theory. Mr Ewing says, " a person or thing may be either popped into water, or may have water jjopped vpon or into him.'''' Very true, but the same syntax will not pop him into water, that will pop >vater upon or itito him. According to Mr Ewing, to pop into water, is to dip. If so, the examples of dipping, as denoted by this i)hrase, are innumerable. Let any person examine the number Avhich I hnve produced. But can Mr Ewing produce out of all Greek literature, a single example of the phrase j^opping U'ater npon a persmi or thing, M'hen the verb is /SacrT-w } Baptizing water upo7i a person or thing, is a phrase that never occurs. This would be the baptism of the water, not of the person. To pop ivater npon a ma7i, in Greek would OF BAPTISM. 105 be (SaTTs/v u5w^ et' avL^^O'-rov, if jSavrsiv 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 /SaTr/^w is applied to great, serious, and terrific objects, contradicts this theory. Mr Ewing, indeed, has foreseen this storm ; and to prevent his theory from being overwhelmed by it, has invented a groundless distinction be- tween what he calls the proper and lax sense of the word. " 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 applied to the vast and the terrible." But can it apply to the vast and the terrible, if it does not either include the vast and the terrible in its primary meaning ; or by forsaking its primary mean- ing, has, by philosophical procedure, advanced to new territories ? Words often advance to meanings very distant from their roots ; but when they do so, they give up their first acceptation, and take the new meaning as their proper acceptation. Candlestick, for in- stance, at first denoted a utensil 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 when it is made of wood ; of gold, as when 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 Ewing point out any phi- losophical principle that would lead ^airnZoi from such a primary sense as he contends for, to the secondary sense which he here as- signs. 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 pop. To employ pop in this way, would be ludicrous. The same must be the case with ^airru, if it signifies to pop. But if there were any principle to lead to this process, when it had taken place, the first meaning must be given up ; for they are utterly irreconcileable. Let Mr Ewing point out any principle in the human mind that would natiu'ally 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 mean- ings. Can any thing 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 106 THE MODE has the one meaning, it cannot have the other. There is no philo- sophy in this distinction. What a wild thought, that the noise of a pop-gun, and destruction by the overwhelming torrents of boiling 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 English to say, " he popped upon me with an overwhelm- ing flood." But he might have added, that this could not be said in any language, employing a word corresponding to pop. This word cannot apply to such things, from the inconsistency between them and the ideas which it denotes. And there must be the same inconsistency with respect to the words that correspond to pop in all languages. Mr Ewing calls this secondary sense, " a figurative., an exag- gerated, rather than a proper and natural sense." But if it is a se- condary sense, it is not ^figurative sense, for a secondary sense is a proper sense ; and ^figurative acceptation of a word is no sense of the ^vord at all. When a word is used hyperbolically, it still retains its proper sense, and from this circumstance the figure has its beauty. When the Psalmist represents the mountains as leap- ing, the word leaping still retains its proper meaning, but the motion of a mountain in an earthquake is elegantly figiu'ed as leaping. The word leap does not here come by exaggeration to denote the motion of a mountain in an earthquake. In like manner, when a wild Irishman says, that he was killed when he had received a se- vere beating, the word kill is not diminished in its meaning, but what is not killing is by a lively imagination so called for the sake of energy. It is absiu*d to speak of the exaggerated or diminished meaning of a word. The exaggeration or the diminutimi is not in the words at all. I have already pointed out the true distinction between ^xvrea and ^avTiZu. The former signifies to dip, the latter to cause to dip. Now, these significations equally apply to small objects and to great. But while the latter may be applied to the smallest ob- ject, it is peculiarly fitted to denote the immersion of objects greater than can be lifted in the hand. Accordingly we find that /3acT-;^&», while it is sometimes applied to the smallest objects, is much more usually than /Sacrrw applied to large objects. It more exactly ap- plies 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 5aTr/i^«vord 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 in\oluntary immersion prove to me tlie meaning of the word. From Chrii-jt and his apostles I learn that OF BAPTISM. 115 Christian immertjion is neither invohmtary nor fatal. It is a griev- ous thing to be obliged to notice such reasoning. Mr Ewing exclaims, " Is this the pattern of baptizers and bap- t'lzed f No indeed, Mr Ewing, this is not the pattern, and I never heard of any who made this a model. But these examples are authority to shew the meaning of the word. Had Mr Ewing pro- duced one instance in which the disputed word signifies to sprhikle or pour, and that instance referred to bespattering with filth, what would he say were we to exclaim, " Is this the pattern of baptism by sprinkling T"* Would he not pounce upon us with the reply : " This determines the meaning of the word, which is all any exam- ples from heathen writers can do. That pure water is to be used in baptism, we learn from the Scriptures." 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 Ewing, " by the work of providential destruction, or that of murderers .?" We shall deter- mine the meaning of the word by such examples. Nothing more can be done by any examples from antiquity. Nothing more do M^e want. I put it to every candid reader, — I put it to Mr Ewing himself, whether he would make such an objection, if the examples were in his favour. Nay, we have the answer virtually expressed in the authority which he gives to the example of heathen and Jewish purifications. While he complains on us for establishing the meaning of the word by documents that apply the word to in- voluntary and fatal immersion, his mode of reasoning in other places gives an authority to heathen models of purification that they do not possess. *' These examples imply," says Mr Ewing, " not a mere dipping, and up again, an immersion immediately followed by an emersion; but a continued and permanent immersion, a remaining under water." Now, is not this mode of reasoning perverse and unjust ? If some examples are found, in which this word is applied to the dipping of things taken immediately up, is not this sufficient to establish the propriety of its application to the ordinance of baptism ? Can it be necessary that all the examples refer to things taken up "^ Will Mr Ewing never learn 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, applies 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 116 THE MODE neither taking up nor lyeing at the bottom. One instance in which the word applies when the thing is taken up after dipping, is as good as ten thousand. But though some examples of the occurrence of this word imply a permanent immersion or destruction, the word /SaTr/^w never expresses this. Whether the thing is taken up, or is allowed to remain, is not expressed hy the word, but is implied by the circumstances. The word, without one exception, signifies simply to dip. In the following 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 Ewing, *' it was not necessary to use a word directly to express the emer- sio7i, because if immersion really was enjoined, the emersion must be understood to follow of course, from the necessity of the case. This is a perfectly natural thought, but it cannot help the cause of Anti-paedo-baptists. According to their views, baptism is a two- fold symbol, representing two things of distinct and equal impor- tance. The immersioti and the emersioji are both of them parts of this symbol ; the first representing the deaths and the second the resurrection of Christ. Now, if this be the case, the word (3a7rTiZ,u 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, therefore, this word pops them down, it certainly cannot give any warrant, or suggest any literal or figurative meaning, for their popping up again!''' Now, how can we deliver ourselves out of this tremendous gulph .'* Nothing can be more easy. Distinguish the things that are different, and place every thing on its proper evidence, and all difficulty vanishes. The word /SaTr/^w, even ap- plied to baptism, expresses immersion only. Yet I contend, that in baptism there is a two-fold symbol. How is this ? I learn the meaning of the word from its use ; and I learn the meaning of the ordinance, not from the word, but from the Scripture ex-jjlanation of the import of the ordinance. If there was nothing said in Scrip- ture about the import of baptism, I would learn nothing on the subject from the >vord that designates it. I would learn as little of its being a symbol of the death of Christ, as of his resurrec- tion. I learn neither from the word ; for it is possible that this word might have been used, M'ithout teaching any thing on the subject. I learn both from the Scripture explanations of Christ's institution. OF BAPTISM. 117 But it may be said, if the word signifies immersion, it may be a symbol of Chrisfs burial ; but it is not fitted to be such a symbol, unless it also signifies to emerge. — Now, as far as depends on what is actually expressed by the word, I grant that this is the case. But as in the ordinance of baptism, the emersion is as necessary as the immersio7i, there is nothing to prevent the institutor to make the emersion symbolical as well as the immersion. If the institutor had not made it symbolical, if it was not explained as pointing to Clirisfs 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 bap- tism expresses the latter only. The symbol consists in the thing, not m the name. There is no necessity that the name should de- signate 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 persuade him to have himself popped into the water, it is not likely that he shall be so obstinate as to reject the half of the edification of the ordi- nance. Mr Ewing says, " Now, if this be the case, the word /Sa^rr/^w 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 Scripture ordinances at all recognize the au- thority 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 liable to the like objection .f* It is called the hreaki7ig 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. Now, Mr Ewing, is not this battery silenced for ever ? On the Baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spu'it is a figurative expression, explicable on the principle of a reference to immersion. This represents the abun- dance of the gifts and influences of the Spirit of God in the enligh- tening and sanctification of believers. That which is immersed in a liquid, is completely subjected to its influence, and imbued with its 118 THE MODE virtues ; so to he immersed in the Spirit^ represents the subjection of soul, body, and spirit, to his influence. The whole man is sanc- tified. It is objected that the Holy Spii'it is said to be poured out, and therefore to represent the poiu'ing of the Spirit, baptism must be by pouring. This is the grand resource of our opponents, and is more specious to the illiterate, than any thing that has been said. A very considerable part of the language of Scripture, in the repre- sentation of the gifts of the Spirit, is founded on the figure oi pour- ing ; and readers who have no discrimination, or who are under the influence of bias, at once conclude that this pouring is the bap- tism of the Spirit. This argument is drawn out in formidable array by Mr Ewing ; and is relied on Avith the utmost confidence by Dr Wardlaw. But it is nothing but a careless confusion of things en- tirely distinct, and is founded on an egregious blunder. If I do not blow it out of the seas, I will consent to be broiled on Cobbefs grid-iron. First y The word, in its literal sense, must guide all its figura- tive applications. The explanation of the figui'e must conform to the literal meaning, but the literal meaning can never bend to the figurative. The latter, indeed, may assist us in ascertaining the former ; but when the former is ascertained, the latter must be ex- plained in accordance with it. But the literal meaning of this word is ascertained to be that of immersion, by a strength of evidence, and a multitude 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 literal sense never signifies any thing else. When we come to the examination of this figure, or any other of the same word, we must ground on this ascertained fact. As there is not one instance in the literal use of the word, in which it must signify pouring, or any thing but dipping, the pre- tensions of pouring, as the figurative baptism, do not deserve even a hearing. They cannot legitimately 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. Pour- ing caniwt he the figurative baptism, because baptism never lite- rally denotes pouritig. Secondly, This opinion is foinided on the egregious and blasphem- ous en'or which teaches that God is material, and that thexe is a OF BAPTISM. 119 literal pouring out of his Spirit, which may be represented by the pouring of crater. Our opponents understand tlie 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 literal baptism of the Spirit. Let the reference in the baptism of the Spii'it be what it may, it cannot be a literal baptism, because God is not material. We cannot be literally either dipped into God, or have him poured on us. Pouring-, then, in baptism, even if baptism were pouring, could not represent the pouring of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not literally poured. Baptism, what- ever 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 a Spirit, nor to the mode of his operations. It is blasphemy to attempt a repre- sentation. It would be as easy to make a likeness of God creating the world, and attempt to represent by a picture the divine opera- tions in the formation of matter, as to represent by symbols the manner of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and his opera- tions on the soul. If Christians were not infatuated with the de- sii'e of establishing a favourite system, so gross conceptions of God could not have so long escaped detection. This error is as disho- nourable to God, as that of the Anthropomorphites. It degrades the Godhead, by representing it as a material substance. When the Spirit is said to be poured, it is a figurative expres- sion, to which there is nothing resemblant in the manner of the divine operations. What then, it may be asked, is the resemblance ? Why is the Spirit said to be poured, if the pouring of water does not resemble it ? The foundation of the figure is the very reverse lof what is supposed. The Spirit is said to be poured out, not be- cause there is any actual pouring-, which is represented by pouring out water in baptism, but from the resemblance between the effects of the injluences of the Spirit and those of water. Between the Spu'it itself and water there is no resemblance, more than between an eye or a circle and the divine nature. Nor is there any resem- blance between the mode of the operations of the Spirit, and that of the influences of water. The Holy Spirit 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 tp have 120 THE MODE 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 represent any likeness in him to water, just as God is figured as a man. If the Anthropomorphites blas- phemously perverted this language to degrade God, as supposing that it teaches that he has actually the human form, it is no less a blasphemous 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 xvell, 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 represented as a river whose streams make glad the city of God. Is there also a likeness between his operations and the running of water ? In all these figures, the Spirit is re- presented in accommodation to natural things, and natural things are not accommodated to it. The effects of the one resemble the effects of the other, but as to manner, there is no likeness. A par- ticular 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 ascribed to it all the various modes mentioned above. The Spirit, in every figure, takes the manner of the re- sembling object ; but the resembling object never takes the manner of the Spirit, because nothing is known of his manner, ^f this there must not be — cannot be any likeness. If the manner of the com- munication of the Spirit could be represented, one only of these modes must be employed. If his manner is pouring, it cannot be like dew, nor like rain, nor like a river, nor like a spring-well. But if the likeness be merely between the effects of the Spirit and the effects of water, then the Spirit may be represented as dew, or rain, or a river, or a spring-well, just as the water is supposed to be applied. It is absurd to suppose an ordinance to be appointed to represent the mode of the Spirit's communication ; and as it is spoken of under all these modes, each of them might claim an ordi- nance as well as pouring. Baptism might as well represent water rising out of the earth, distilling in dew, running in a stream, or falling in rain, as pouring out of a cup. Each of these repre- sents the blessings of the Spirit, by conforming the language about the operations of the Spirit to a particular state of the water ; none OF BAPTISM. 121 of them represents the mode of these operations. The Holy Spirit is said to fall ; why then should not baptism represent falling ? The , Holy Spirit is represented as wind ; why then is there no blowing- in- baptism ? The Holy Spirit is represented hyjire ; why is there no fire used in this ordinance ? The gift of the Spirit was repre- sented by the breathing of Jesus on the Apostles ; why is there no breathing in baptism ? The influences of the Spirit are represented by oil ; why is not oil used in baptism ? The reception of the Holy Spirit is represented by drinking water ; why is there no drinking in this ordinance ? In like manner, curses are represented as 'poured out by God on his enemies, or put into their hands as a cup to be drunk. Drink- ing 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 man- ner of the divine operations. Why, then, should such a likeness be supposed when pouring respects blessings ? Baptism, then, can- not be either pouring or dipping, for the sake of representing the manner of the conveyance of the Holy Spirit ; for there is no such likeness. Pouring of the Spirit is a phrase which is itself a figure, 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 likeness, 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 application, a true likeness, and the most important use. Of the immersion of the Spirit, I will say the same as of the pouring of the Spirit, that it cannot re- present the operations of the Spirit, or the mode of his conveyance. Believers are said to be immersed into the Spirit, not because there is any thing like immersion in the manner of the reception of the Spirit, but from the resemblance between an object soaked in a fluid, and the sanctification of all the members of the body, and fa- culties of the soul. The common way in which the pouring 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 figurative Bap- tism, to which there cannot be a likeness in literal Baptism ; yet as respects the transaction on the day of Pentecost, there was a real Baptism in the emblems of the Spirit. The disciples were im- mersed into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts ; but they were literally covered with wind and fire. The place where 122 THE MODE they met was filled with a rushing mighty ivind, and cloven tongues as of fire sat over them. They were then completely covered by the emblems of the Spirit. Now, though there was no dipping of them, yet as they were completely surrounded by the wdnd and fire, by the catachrestic mode of speech which I before ex- plained, they are said to be immersed. This is a process exem- plified with respect to innumerable words, and the principle is quite obvious, as well as of daily application. The shepherd, when his sheep are covered with snow in a glen, says that they are buried in the snow. When a house falls upon the inhabitants, we say that they are buried in its ruins. A general will threaten to bury the inhabitants in the ruins of their city. The word bury with us strictly conveys the notion of digging into the earth, as well as of covering over the dead. Yet here it is extended to a case in which the former does not take place. Burial usually is performed by both operations, but here the thing is performed by one ; and there- fore the word that designates both is elegantly assigned to that which serves the purpose of both. Just so with respect to being covered with a fluid. Immersion denotes that the tiling im- rnersed is put into the imtnersing substance ; yet when the same ef- fect is produced without the manner of the operation, the usual name of the operation is catachrestically given to the result. Vir- gil's expression, Pocula sunt fontes liquidi, Georg. III. p. 529? is an exact parallel. " The liquid fountains are their cups," &c. Now, fountains are not cups^ more than the thing referred to is im- mersion, yet they are called cups, because in the instance referred to they serve the purpose of cups. This poet supplies innumerable examples of the operation of the principle here illustrated. Let it not be supposed that the principle W'hich I have now il- lustrated is at all akin to that unfounded fancy of Mr Ewing, with respect to the supposed exaggerated meaning of j3a'}rri^u. Mr Ewing in this gives two meanings to a word, at variance with each other, and while he calls it figurative he makes it literal ; and agreeably to his doctrine it must, in the hyperbolical meaning, hold directly, and immediately, and independently, of the primary mean- ing. The principle which I have explained is not of tliis paradoxi- cal kind. I give but the one meaning to the "s^'ord, and cAen when there is no literal immersion, I maintain that the word ncAcr drops its characteristic meaning. Indeed, the beauty of the figiu'e is that the word suggests its oAvn peculiar meaning, even when it does not literally apj)ly. It professedly calls a thing by a name, Avhich lite- OF BAPTISM. 123 rally does not In all respects belong to it, to gratify the imagination. Why does Vii'gil call fountains by the name of cups? Not be- cause they were really cups, nor because cup signifies fountain li- terally, 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 with- out number. Mr Ewing has not attempted to illustrate his figure, nor is it in his power to sheAV its fomidation in the human mind, or to sanction it by corresponding examples. Mr Booth, with a truly critical judgment and correct taste, il- lustrates this mode of speech by alluding to the electrical bath, " so called," says the writer whom he quotes, " because it smTounds the patient with an atmosphere of electrical fluid, in which he is plwiged.'''' Here the writer to whom he refers, scruples not to say that the patient is plunged into the fluid which is brought aroimd him. Indeed, the very term electrical bath is an exemplifi- cation of the operation of the same principle. Bath properly refers to a vessel of water in which persons are bathed. But by a cata- chresis this term is given to a vessel filled with a fluid, which is not for the purpose of bathing. Thirdly, There is another grand fallacy in this argument. It confounds things that are differe7it. Water is poured out into a vessel in order to have things put into it. But the poui'ing out of the water, and the application of the water so poured out, are dif- ferent 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 things. Because the Spirit is said to be poured out in order to the Baptism of the Spirit, they groundlessly conclude that the pouring is the Baptism. A foreigner might as well contend that, when it is said in the English language, " Water was poured into a bath, and they immersed themselves," it is implied 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 pouring out of the Spirit is as different a figure from th^ 124 THE MODE baptism of the Spirit, as the infusion of the \vater 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 Ewing''s reasoning. Dissection is not a pleasant work, either to the operator or the specta- tors ; but it is impossible to make an anatomist without it. General observations must be applied to the subject in detail, that all may thoroughly understand theu* 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 baptism of the day of Pentecost there was no water at all. They who were baptized on that day in wind 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 would prove that after the baptism of water, there ought to be another baptism into wind and fire. " And in this connexion," continues Mr Ewing, " these ele- ments are uniformly represented as poured, inspired, and made to fall from above.'''' Very true, but is tins pouring, iyispiring, fall- ing from above, called Baptism ? Never — never. Mr Ewing asserts, that these emblems of the work of the Spirit, are an allusion to the creation of man. But how does he find the fire in that work '^ Why, was there not " the fire of life T^ But the^re of life is no element. This is only a figurative expression. It is mere fanaticism to take such mysteries out of the Scriptures. Is it not strange that Mr Ewing Avill allow himself to indulge so wild a fancy in deriving emblematical instruction from his own creations, and that he so obstinately refuses to take that edifica- tion from the import of Baptism, which is obviously contained in the apostolical explanations of the ordinance ? He says that baptism " consists in a representation of all tlie ele- ments employed in oiu* first creation." I have remarked that there was no fire employed in our first creation ; and Christian baptism has no representation either of fire or air. Nor has the water of baptism any allusion to the vc^ater that moistened the clay in the creation of man. These mysteries are akin to those that the Ko- OF BAPTISM. 125 mish church so piously finds in the oil and spittle used in bap- tism. 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 was peculiar to the day of Pente- cost. This promise cannot be supposed as literally applying to all disciples. He says, " it belongs to them, both as it regards gra- cious influence, and as it regards miraculous inspii'ation." But the baptism of the day of Pentecost could not respect the spiritual birth, else there would be two baptisms representing the same thing. The persons baptized on the day of Pentecost, T^^ere previously bap- tized into water as being born again. It could not respect their progressive sanctifi cation, else it might be repeated as often as the Lord"'s Supper, and every disciple would equally need the wind and jire literally. Nor have all disciples the promise of miraculous gifts. This intei*pretation might suit Miss Mary Campbell; but I have not heard that Mr Ewing has adopted the Row heresy. Mr Ewing, however, is contented with a diminished sense of the promise. Miraculous inspiration he understands as applying to all believers only in the sense of their being " built on the founda- tion of the apostles and prophets, that is, their faith is founded 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 miraculously inspired because he believes the doctrine of an inspired person ! ! ! It would be charitable in Mr Ewing to send this canon to his neighbour Mr Campbell ; it might help to skreen him, if ever he comes to trial before the General Assembly. The Row heresy would turn out a very innocent thing, if the claim of mira- culous gifts imports no more than faith in the doctrine of Christ. Now, were I to propagate in Ireland that Mr Ewing believes that every Christian has a promise of miraculous inspiration, would he not allege that I had injured him ? And why does he misrepresent the language of the Holy Spirit, in a manner that he would judge calumny with respect to himself.'* Mr Ewing derives another argument for pouring, from the ex- pression, " born from above,'''' John ill. ^nt Jrom 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, refei'red to as its emblem. Born j^ow above, is perfectly synony- mous with born of God. 126 THE MODR As little can be built on the emblem, John xx. 22. The hreafh- ing on the disciples ^yas not a bajytism, nor is it called a baptism. Mr Evving says, that " the mode of the baptism, Acts i. 5, is explained, v. 8." But ver. 8. says nothing of the mode of that bap- tism : " 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 bap- tism. The author obsei'ves, with respect to Acts ii. 2, " that * the sound' of the wind 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 with the wind, the disciples might be baptized in it. Their baptism consisted in being totally surrounded with the wind, 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 Ewing says, that " distributed flames of fire appeared like tongues, and sat down upon every one of them." Though this translation is warranted by the learned Bishop Pearce, it is by no means justifiable. The common version is perfectly exact. It is not fire cloven, or distributed into tongues, but cloven tongues. There were not only many tongues, to denote many languages ; but the tongues were cloven, to denote that the same individual could speak different languages. The fire sat down upon each of them. The baptism did not consist, as Mr Ewing supposes, in the sitting down, or the mode of the coming of thejlame, but in their being under it. They were siu-rounded by the wind, and covered by the fire above. They were therefore buried in wind and fire. It is quite obvious, indeed, that even the mode in w^hich the house is said to have been filled with the wind on the day of Pente- cost, is no more pouring than it is dipping. The wind is not said to be jyoured into the house, but to come rushing with a mighty noise ; or the sound that filled the house, was like the sound 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 baptism, then baptism is neither pouring nor immersion, but rushing. But even if the Pentecost baptism were, for arguments sake, allowed to be j)Ouring, this would not relieve Mr Ewing. The whole house was filled with the sound of the wind — the emblem of OF BAPTISM. 127 . the Spirit. This was not popping a little water with the hand on the turned up face. When Mr Ewing pours water on the baptized person, till the latter is covered completely with it, he will give as much trouble as if he were to immerse at once. In whatever way 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 administra- tion, confinned the tnith that the Holy Spirit was about to be given." But how did the meaning and mode of Christ's baptism confirm this truth .'' Does not this take for granted that Mr Swing'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 will 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 descend- ing from on high, and abiding upon him.'''' The influence of the Holy Spirit did not visibly descend. It was the emblem of the Spirit that descended visibly. The appearance of a dove descended visibly, and abode upon him. But Was this Christ's baptism? 'The baptism was over before the emblem descended. Besides, the descending of the Spirit, could not be the baptism of the Spii'it. Jesus is not here said to be baptized with the Spirit. This baptism was literal baptism. This extraordinary communication might in- deed have been called a baptism, just as in the case of the disciples, but it is not so called here. And if it were so called, it would not be the descent of the Spirit that is the baptism, but the communica- tion of it after its descent. If the baptism consisted in the descent, the baptism was over when the dove reached Jesus. Is it possible that there is any one who has so little of the powers of discrimina- tion, as not to be able to distinguish between bringing water from a fountain, and the use of that water when it is brought — between pouring water into a bath, and bathing in the bath ? Yet every one who concludes from the pouring of the Spirit that baptism must be pouring, either wants this discrimination, or is unwilling to use it. -_ Another, passage alleged by Mr Ewing on this subject, is Psal. xlv. 2, " Grace i& poured into thy lips," &c. What has this to do with baptism ? The Spirit, indeed, is here said to be poured, but ^o^^xvn " in Jordan." How does Mr E wing vindicate them from inconsistency.'* Why ! by alleging that the former refers to the act and elements of baptism, and the latter to the place. Now, this might vindicate Mr Ewing, but it does not vindicate our translators. Mr Ewing forgets that the conceit that lo^'^xvvi is not the river, but the district in the neighbourhood of the river, is of his own invention. Oiu* translators evidently understood it of the river itself, as every sober reader must do. Our translators, then, remain under Doctor CampbelFs censure, for any thing that Mr Ewing has done to re- lieve thera. But let us see if he can justify himself in this business. I admit that " a difference of connection" will justify us in " understanding the same word in a different sense." But I see no difference of connection here. On the contrary, the word Jordan, in the sixth verse, as evidently means the river Jordan, as water in the eleventh Averse means water. The Jordan never signifies, as Mr Ewing supposes, 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 corresponding ex- ample, 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, would we understand 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 hardihood that every heretic does not possess. An Arian or a Socinian does not require more. No Neological gloss is more extravagant. The Spirit of God tells us that oiu* Lord did many miracles ; the Neologist forces him to say that there was nothing miraculous in the Saviour's works. The Spirit of God tells us that the people of Israel were baptized by John in the Jordan ; Mr Ewing forces him to say that it was not in Jordan, but in Jordandale. What 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 Avith horror. :. But Mr Ewing says that an Evangelist explains the thing in his * 1.M THE MODE sense. This is high authority indeed. I will ask no better. If this is made good, I will how with submission. " That it was not the water of the river, but the country on its banks, is evident from the fiiller and more particular account of the apostle John. What Matthew calls £» lo§5a;v», in Jordan^ John calls ev Bs^^Sasg*, and ex- pressly says, it was ^rsgcsi/ T«y u^avov^ beyond Jordan." I admit the premises ; I deny the conclusion. Let the two Evangelists refer to the same thing, 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 particular as to the part of the river in which the Baptist was baptizing ; it -was in the town of Bethabara. Matthew 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 writer might say, " he was bap- tizing in the Clyde ;" another, " he was baptizing in Glasgow." Mr Ewing himself, in asserting that John's account of this matter is more particular than that of Matthew, virtually admits that it is not necessary that Jordan should be perfectly equivalent to Beth- abara ; for if one account 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 signifies Jordan-dale, so Bethabara 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 corres- pond. He makes the one to denote the whole coimtiy, the other, one town situated in the country. 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 further." This is hard enough. I will try to advance a little into the river. This I am enabled to do with the sanction of the usual phraseology in similar cases. The limits of a town, in speaking in a general way, are not confined to the gi'ound 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 OF BAPTISM. 145 on that day in the town of Belfast. Opposite counsel 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.? SurelyhewasinBelfastwhenhe was in the port of Belfast. And is it not the same thing with the town and port of Bethabara ? When Mr Ewing changes his views on this sub- ject, 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 will be, " He is in Belfast, baptizing the In- dependent Church of that town." This reply will be made with- out any reference to the situation of the water. Might it not also be said, that the people of Glasgow go down to Gourock or Helens- burgh to bathe ? Yet the place of bathing is in the sea. Might it not also be said, that such a person was drowned in Port-Glasgow while he was bathing in the Clyde ? In like manner, it might have been added to John's account, that the Baptist was baptizing in Jordan. John was baptizing in Bethabara in the Jordan. Now, Mr Ewing, say candidly, am I not now entitled to step a little dis- tance from the margin into the river ? Have I not demolished this stronghold ? \ But I have many other resources, had it been necessary to em- ploy them on this point. A small bend in the river, or hollow 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 ob- viate a difficulty. But sober criticism could never dwell 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 town 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 town as the quay. But there is another awkward situation in which our 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, standing in the water of the river, then he must have been in that situation when he bore his testimony to the priests and Levites. Now, it is a hard thing to keep the poor man in the wa- ter during this discourse. I will endeavour, then, to put him on dry ground. The argument is, that in John i. 23, all the things previously mentioned, are said to have been done in Bethabara, K 146 THE MODE when John was baptizing. Therefore, if he was standing in the water when he spoke to the priests, all the things are said to be done in the same place. The answer is, all the things were indeed done in the same place, that is, in Bethabara, but this does not im- ply that they were done in the same part of Bethabara. When Mr Ewing comes to baptize his brethren in Belfast, it is likely he may have a fierce encounter with the Arians. The Glasgow News- papers will say, " these things happened in Belfast, where Mr Ewing was baptizing." Will the people of Glasgow understand that the engagement with the Arians was when Mr Ewing was actually baptizing ? Ah ! 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 implicitly believe it. The thing is not impossible. There is not, however, the smallest appearance of such an assertion. That Jordan denotes the river, and not the country in the neigh- bourhood 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 river is joined to it. " And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, andthey of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Nothing can limit the word more clearly than this, iv ru u^a-t/i ■Kotu^u, 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 'KorafA.u is added to it by Mark. Mr Ewing, indeed, says, that if John i. 28. Matth. iii. 6 — 13. John x. 40, are considered, they will explain Mark i. 5, in his sense. But I hope I have shewn that these passages have no bearing on the point. It would be a strange explanation that woidd explain the river Jordan not to be the river Jordan, but something else. This would be a Neo- logical explanation. There is in the passage under consideration, other evidence that baptism was performed by immersion. It is said that Jesus, when he was baptized, went ?^jt9 straightway /rom the water. I admit the proper translation of xtto is from and not out of; and that the argument from the fonner is not of the same na- ture with that which is foimded on ik out of. I perfectly agree with Mr Ewing, that xtto would have its meaning fully verified, if they had only gone doAvn 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 tlien can I deduce dippiiig from OF BAPTISM. 147 the phrases going down, and coming up from ? My argument is this. If baptism had not been by immersion, there can be no ade- quate cause alleged for going to the river. Can sober judgment, can candoiu" 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 those who make them. I am much mistaken if they are not perplexed with 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 handful of water. Even in a besieged town, with a scarcity of water, what would sprinkle the whole inhabitants, would not be felt as a sensible loss. Mr Ewing attempts to account for the above phraseology, 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, why did they go to it, when a handful of water would have sufficed ? Mr Ewing himself says, " I believe, indeed, that John frequented the banks of the Jordan, as the most convenient place of the wilderness, not only for multitudes to attend him, but also for having water at hand with which to baptize them." But was there any place in Judea in which he could not find a supply of water for popping or sprinkling ? The greatest crowd that ever assembled might be popped at a small fountain. Besides, however many the persons were who went to his baptism, there is no foundation to suppose that immense crowds were always with him. The account 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 with him at once, or even in crowds at any one time. Why should they be supposed to have staid with him any considerable time ? But our argument from this passage is not only that they fre- quented the banks of Jordan ; but that, being there for the perfor- mance of baptism, they went down to the water. Now, if an army encamped on Glasgow Green in a time of war, were all to be bap- tized by popping, would they bring the water from the river, or would they all go to the very edge of the water ? Why did Jesus 148 THE MODE go down to the water, when the water might as ^X^eW have been brought up to him ? Does Mr Ewing take the infants to the edge of the Clyde when he is popping them ? This answer, then, is but an evasion. No reason has ever been given, or ever will be given, to account for this fact, on the hypothesis of baptizing with a hand- ful of water. Mr Ewing observes that this phraseology is confined to baptisms out of doors. Very true, but in Mr Ewing's baptism, M'hy were there any baptisms out of doors ? If they are popped upon with a handful of water, any number might successively be popped in the same house with equal convenience as out of doors. When a con- veniency for baptism was found Mdthin doors, there was no recourse to a river ; and then there could be no going dotvn nor coming up. When a person was baptized in a bath, the baptizer was not in the water at all. Mr Ewing says, " Rebekah went down to the well — and came up." " Does this imply that she immersed herself.? No. She went down 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 which it is essential for Mr Ewing''s argument that they should agree .? This illustration favours us, and refutes Mr Ewing himself. If Rebekah went down to the well, she had a good er- rand to the well — an errand that is not left to be supplied by con- jectui'e, but is expressly specified, namely, to fill her pitcher. Can Mr Ewing shew such an errand in going to the edge of the river for popping ? Even the idiot that followed the Armagh coach to Dublin, to see if the great wheels would overtake the little ones, had an errand. But if popping is baptism, there could be no errand to the river for the performance of the ordinance. " Gideon," says INIr Ewing, " brought down the people unto the water." " Was it to immerse them. No ; it was to give them an oppor- tunity of drinking." And could there be a better refutation of Mr Ewing than what he gives himself ? Gideon did not lead the peo- ple to the river for no purpose. The object is expressed. Let us have such a reason for John's baptizing at Jordan, and it Mill suf- fice us. Mr Ewing entirely mistakes the jet of this argument. I observe also, that Mat. iii. 6. Mark i. 5, cannot admit pouring as the sense of /3»7rTil^u. E^xTTTKrettro iy ru Ieg5«yn Cannot be rendered they were poured in Jordan, nor tvith Jordan, nor in Jordan- dale. The water is poured, not the people. If the clumsy ex])res- sion poured upon could be admitted, it is not to be foimd. The OF BAPTISM. 149 upon Is wanting. The people were poured upon iii Jordan-dale, would be a very awk\yard expression. Yet shabby as such an auxiliary would be, even that is not to be found. Let us next examine the baptism of the eunuch, Acts viii. 36. *' And as they went on their way, they came to a certain wa- ter : and the eunuch said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe 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 Philip and the eimuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip," &c. This is as correct and as literal a translation of the words as can possibly be made ; and sui'ely it is so plain that the most illite- rate 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 ordinance, yet to a mind thirsting to know the will of God, and iminfluenced by prejudice, this passage without comment, is in my view amply sufficient. The man who can read it, and not see immersion in it, must have something 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 docu- ment. Nay, had I no more conscience than Satan himself, I could not as a scholar attempt to expel immersion from this account. All the ingenuity of all the critics in Europe could not silence the evi- dence of this passage. Amidst the most violent perversion that it can sustain on the rack, it will still cry out, immersion, immersion ! Philip, in preaching, had shewn that believers were to be bap- tized immediately, yet the eunuch never speaks of being baptized till he came to water. Now, this implies immersion. Had a hand- ful of water been sufficient, this might have been found any place. Had it been even a desert without water, there can be no doubt that the eunuch would 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 little water, they went down to the water. Mr Ewing supposes that our argument is founded on the vixevQ 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 con- veniently brought to them ? But they not only went down to the water ; they went into the 150 THE MODE 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, *' thei/ went into the water ;" our attention is fixed on the fact that they both went into the water. This, we might think, would suf- fice. Yet the Holy Spirit marks the circumstance still more pre- cisely. He adds, both Philip and the eunuch. Can any one ima- gine that such a precision, such an apparent redundancy of expres- sion, is not designed to teach something that the Spirit of Inspira- tion 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 wa- ter. Now, this detennines that the preposition s'j must be render- ed 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 saying that they went both down. Could it be necessary to inform us that Philip, the baptizer, went to the place of baptism as well as the person to be baptized H What M'ould take the one down without the other .? There is good reason, how- ever, to inform us that they both went into 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 re- turn is called a coming up 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 w^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 try what they can think of to darken this evidence. Mr Ewing, I engage, will go beyond them. His ingenuity is unparalleled. He destroys our doctrine even by demonstration. Demonstration ? Aye, demonstration. Jesus is said, Matth. iii. 16, to have gone xv^from the water, not out o/'the water, as our version renders it. " Now," says Mr Ewing, " it surely will not be said that Philip had any occasion to go farther with the Ethiopian nobleman than John did \^'ith our Saviour, in order to the administration of bap- tism. It is reasonable, then, to understand the «? and the tx. of Acts viii. 38, 39, as signifying precisely what is indicated by the OF BAPTISM. 161 «5r« of Matth. iii. 16." Now, is not this demonstration ? I may as well think to pierce the divine shield of Achilles as this argument. But I will strike. Trutli is stronger than sophistry. The helmit of Goliah 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 cctto 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. Atto 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 departure 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, flying across, alights on a hill, we say, itjiew from the river ^ just the same as if it had commenced its flight on this side. This is the distinction between a-Tva and ik. The former denotes the point of departure, 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, »%<> cannot serve us in Matth. iii. 16, but as little can it injure us. It is in- definite as to the situation 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 Savioiu*. Though a.%o 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 perfonned at the edge ; in others, it may be necessary to advance to the centre. But if «5ro could not reach one inch into the water, I would 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, tins friend has come from Edinburgh, all I assert is, that the point of his departure was Edinburgh. It 152 . THE MODE 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 hourjrom Prince's Street, and at such an hour we arrived in Glasgow. Now, this point of departiu'e cannot be extended an inch, yet it is quite con- sistent that we might have had a previous point of departure from Duke Street. Though I have thus proved, that for any thing to be found in «5r«, our Lord might have been baptized in the middle of Jordan, yet since ctvo necessarily implies no more than the edge as the point of departure ; since we are not otherwise informed that John and he went into the 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 immersion of the person baptized, while the baptizer remained on the margin. The place of baptizing the eunuch did not admit this, — most providentially, indeed, because it affords an example that cannot be plausibly per- veirted. If the above distinction is well founded, there is no ground for the jest, that John the Baptist was an amphibious animal. There is no necessity at all to suppose that m and ex are limited in Acts viii. 38, 39, by «^<. in Matth. iii. 16. " I am far from saying," says Mr Ewing, " that £een created by his own fancy ; but I am much mistaken, if it is not always M'ith some difficulty. That the Mater \ras for the purpose of bap- OF BAPTISM. 167 tism, is to my mind the very testimony of the Holy Spirit. When I say, that in such a district, there are many hleach-greens^ 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 would 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 accommodation 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 interference, while separately engaged in making the same religious use of water." Here Mr Ewing 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 imagina- tions, is clear fi-om the fact, that Jesus went everywhere, and everywhere 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 Ewing 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 all the land of Judah, it would be no loss to us. But it is as plain as language can be, that the many waters spoken of were in ^non only. Mr Ewing informs us that Dr R. understands the Ttoxxx v^xrx. as not applying to small streams, while he himself contends that in thi^ 168 THE MODE place it must be small streams. I agree with Mr Ewing, that the phrase may signify small streams, or small collections of water ; and that it refers to separate collections, and not to one v^ast collection. But I maintain that he fails in proving that it here denotes sprmgs or fountains : v^n^ may apply to any collection of water, from a well to a lake, or the greatest river. The phrase yraAA* v^xtx, is not a Hebraism ; for it is found, times innumerable, in the Greek writers. The phrase, in the singular, ttoAv u5, the word here used, signifies to bury one thing or person with another, — never to em- balm one thing with another. The opinion, then, does not deserve even a hearing. Secondly, Ga-rrw applies to all kinds of burial. No doubt, origi- nally, in all countries, bui'ial 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 exempli- fied in a thousand words. The idea that is common to all bullying, is that of covering the dead, or surrounding them with something to keep them from violation. It is quite a waste of time, then, for Mr Ewing to discuss the situation and peculiarities of our Lord's sepulchre. He was biu'ied as many others are buried, and to this burial there is a likeness in our baptism, when we are buried in water. Thirdly, Burial and embalming are often distinguished as quite different things. Josephus, speaking of the magnificent manner in M 178 THE MODE wliicli Herod burled Aristobuliis, says, " And as for his funeral, that he took care should be very magnificent, by making great pre- paration of a sepulchre 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 {hy-oii) 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, (x.xm) ; yet the person is said to be buried. If Christ was not truly buried, Aristobulus was not truly buried. We have here, also, not only c-vvSuTnu, but (TvyKotrxixTTTu. The ornaments that were buried toge- ther with Aristobulus, were deposited in the tomb with him, — not washed along with him by preparatory rites. These ornaments were buried doiv?i with him, although he was laid, like Christ, in a se- pulchre above ground. Yet this is as truly burying as the common way of burying ; though the sepulchre should have been on the top of the highest mountain in the world, the coi^pse is buried imder a covering, as truly as if it were deposited in the centre of the earth, Moschus, describing a funeral, represents the burial, x-anix-^xv, as taking place after all the rites were finished, Meg. 1. 35. Patroclus, notwithstanding all the embalming he received, ap- pears to his friend Achilles, and calls for burial. 0«5r« fn, " bury we." The dead body of Hector was washed regularly by the maids of Achilles, yet it was not buried till long after. The passage produced by Dr Cox from Herodotus, is most deci- sive. The embalming is designated by rxg^iy^ivu, the burying by ^xTTTu. But it is useless to be particular in disproving a thing that has not even the colour of plausibility to support it. No two things can be more distinct than washing or embalming the dead, and burying the dead. Indeed, in the burial of Jesus itself, these two things are distinguished. They first rolled him in spices, which was the embalming ; then they laid him in the sepulchre, which is the burying. What is laying in a sepulchre, but biuying ? But Mr Ewing says, tliat the body of Christ " was never finally deposited in the tomb ; but, after being wound up with about an hundred pounds weight of spices," Sec. No matter how short a time it was in the tomb ; in the tomb, it was buried like any other dead body. The disciples had no intention of ever removing it from the tomb. The women who came with more spices, had no intention to unbury it, or take it elsewhere. To give more spices, was not to complete OF BAPTISM. 179 the burying, but to complete the embalming. Were a person in Edinburgh to visit the grave of a friend every day, and even open both grave and coffin, to ascertain whether the body was removed, this would not affect the burying. Why should preparatory rites be called the bury'mg of Jesus, seeing he was actually laid in the sepulchre ? No fancy can be wilder than this. Fourthly, The representations of Scriptiu'e suppose Jesus to have been truly buried. " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whalers belly ; so shall the 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 re- moves all Mr E wing'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 bimed in a pit at the bottom of a valley. Again, Chrisfs 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 call in question the truth of the gos- pel. " 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 unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I declared unto you first of all, 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 Scriptiu'es."" Here, what was in the evangelist called 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 fi'om \^^hat ? The third day fi'om his being buried. He is here considered as being three days buried, for he rose on the third day from his being buried. His resurrec- tion here, is also opposed to his being bui'ied ; it must then be buiy- ing, 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 evi- dence that he was ^T^ashed at all ; and nothing can be deduced from a mere supposition. 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 would not have known that he was embalmed, had not the history given us the information. 180 THE MODE It is not necessaiy that the dead body of Jesus should receive all the usual rites, nor any of them, except thosethat prophecy foretold. The proof, then, that it vyas usual to wash the dead, is no proof that Jesus was washed. Indeed, I perfectly agree with Dr Cox, that it is probable Jesus was not washed at all. 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 implied 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 apocry- phal 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-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 con- trary, I would take part with Mr Ewing. The silence of history is not to be alleged against proof. To remove a difficulty, it is sufficient 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 lies 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 Avas to bury." No, Mr Ewing, we are not told this. Had this been said, it would settle the question ; for, undoubtedly, it was the manner of the Jews to wash the dead. But we are not told that, as far as the preliminary process went, all the usual rites were observed. It is the winding in the linen 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 any thing in Scripture, there is no doubt it Avould 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 unfuliilled. It was customary for all friends to escort the body to the grave ; it was customary to keep the corpse some time after OF BAPTISM. 181 death, yet Jesus was carried immediately to the grave without any funeral pomp. S'uithly^ Is it not above all 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 would 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. Why does he make such a supposition ? Was there not a word to signify embalming ? 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 wash ? If not, why does Mr Ewing make the arbitrary supposi- tion ? Again, the washing was no part of the embalming. It was a part of the rites of burying, and as such, when embalming was used, washing of course first took place. But it is evident, that the washing and the embalming were different things. Besides, many were washed who were not embalmed. If so, it was impos- sible to designate embalming by washing. This would have im- plied, that all who were washed were embalmed ; whereas multi- tudes were washed who 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 washing cannot stand for embalming, if many who were washed were not embalmed. Eighthly, This theory makes baptism an emblem of the embalm- ing of Christ. This is a new view of the import of baptism, that must be as unexpected to those who baptize by pouring, as to the friends of immersion. From the days of John the Baptist to the present hour, was ever such a thing heard of, but from Mr Ewing ? If this is true, there has not been one properly baptized till the time of the author. For this discovery, Mr Ewing is undoubtedly en- titled 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 fimeral. No popish ordinance can vie with this ordinance of Mr Ewing, in fertility of mysteries. 182 THE MODE The mystery of the five wounds 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 millions who practise it, there is not one in every thousand that understands it. The Roman Catholic church has done much better. She has a multitude of mysteries in bap- tism, 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 Ewing, by the management of one handful of water, contrives to couch the most discordant mean- ings. 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, that he may have some plausible foundation for getting rid of true burying, by substi- tuting 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. Wash- ing- is brought in only in the right of embalming; but whenever it pops its head into this situation, it takes care to displace its princi- pal. Accordingly, washing is the only thing that is made emble- matical. The oil and spices have no mystery. Is not this imjust 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 with. Even if they are not used, as they are the chief thing in embalming, they must be chiefly con- sidered in baptism, which is an emblem of embalming. The Church of Rome will thank jVIr Ewing 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 Ewing complains of the want of likeness between Christ''s funeral and immersion ; yet he makes a handful of water an emblem, not only of washing a corpse, but of the whole rites of OF BAPTISM. 183 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 Arant 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, however, 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 likeness of some- thing 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 burial, there is no need of a likeness in the laying down of the body of the person baptized. The emblem is in the actual state of the body as being covered with the water. The likeness to the resurrection consists not in the very manner of being taken up out of the water, but in the rising itself. Nothing could afford a resemblance of the way of the raising of the dead. There was no likeness between the way of kill- ing 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 ventured to question the likeness between the baptism of believers and the burial 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 under water, in my opinion they come under the same censure. Mr Ewing's whole dissertation on the Jewish manner of burying the distinguished dead, has no bearing on the subject. Between im- mersion and burying in any manner, there is a likeness. It is nothing to our purpose to make that likeness dramatic. Mr Ewing is of opinion, that ver. 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 might be a new figure, but the manner of introducing it, evi- dently shews that it, equally with bicrying, refers to baptism. " For 184 THE MODE if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." The conditional statement is here evidently founded on what precedes. " If we have been planted," &c. He does not pass on to a new argument, to shew that we are dead with Christ, leaving the subject of baptism. But hav- ing shewn the burial of the Christian in baptism, he goes on to shew that resurrection is equally important. If we have been buried with Christ, so shall we rise with him. Had he quitted the sub- ject of baptism, and introduced a new argument, which had no reference to baptism, he would not have stated it conditionally. When he says, " For if we have been planted," it is implied that he had been saying something expressing or implying that they had been planted. Whatever is the meaning of o-vf^tpvTot, it must have a reference to baptism. Mr Ewing thinks that a-vf^vasli- ing of water is by the word, which is figuratively done in baptism. In like manner, M'e are said to be saved " by the washing of rege- neration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5. We are OF BAPTISM. 199 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 oiu- hearts by the Holy Spirit. Brief Strictures on Mr Ewing's Miscellaneous Rejiarks on THE Hypothesis of Immersion. I have, in a great measure, anticipated any thing 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 dan- gerous. Immersion he considers as indecent and indelicate, and in several cases he attempts to prove its impracticability. " The im- mersion 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 which we owe to one another." Mr Ewing commences very properly, by saying, " I feel it incumbent on me to enforce my conviction on others, by every consideration which the examina- tion of the Scriptures on the subject has suggested to my mind." By all means, let us have every thing that the Scriptures suggest on this subject. Pray now, Mr Ewing, was it the Scriptures that suggested this objection ? This is an appeal to our pride against the law of Christ, — an appeal, however, that is likely to have more weight with some, than an appeal to the word of God. But is there more dignity and delicacy in pouring water into a person's face, out of the hand, so that some of the water must be swallowed ? Had Mr Ewing, however, established this from the Scriptures, he would 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 enlisting the corruption of the Christian's heart against the appointment of Jesus. Does not Mr Ewing see that the respect we owe to one another has no concern in the question ? If it suits the wisdom of Christ's ap- pointments, that one person should be immersed by another, even were it a real humiliation, it is to Christ we stoop. That God's institutions cannot foster any of the corruptions of our nature, is self-evident ; but that they should consult our sentiments of dignity and delicacy, is a thing that no one acquainted with the Scriptures ought to assert. Has Mr Ewing never read the Old Testament ? 200 THE MODE Did he never hear of such a thing as circumcision ? Has he for- gotten 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 Faithful, and the males of his house, than there is in immersion in water ? What shall we say of the transaction at the Hill of Foreskins ? What shall we say of many parts of the lavy of Moses ? What shall we say of many parts both of the Old Testament and the New ? Try them by Mr Ewing'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, with 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 Scriptures, that I have no language strong enough to express my feelings of abhorrence. " Shall you permit your wives and daughters,"*' say the enemies of the Scrip- tures, " to read the indelicate statements of the Bible.'*"* And shall the man of God blow the trumpet of Satan in the camp of Israel ? If immersion is an ordinance of Christ, 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 wisdom of this world should find indelicacy in his ordinances. Mr Ewing thinks himself very strong, with respect to the argu- ment from the scarcity of water ; and no doubt he will appear so to a numerous class of his readers. But the argument, instead of hav- ing weight, cannot be admitted to a hearing by any one who under- stands the nature of evidence. All the information that can be col- lected at this distance of time, cannot assure us that there were not other resources of water, of which we have no account. Mr Ewing 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 admit- ted a hundred to go down at once, and the bare possibility is enough to remove the objection. Neither of us can prove the dimensions of it. If, then, there had been no ^vater in Jerusalem but this pool, " It is said that there is no more usual argument to dissuade the higher classes in France from reading the 8cripturcs, than their indelicacy. They arc told that tlie Bible, on this account, is the very worst of books that can be put into the hands of youth. OF BAPTISM. 201 I am at liberty to suppose that it might have sufficed. The pool of Siloam may have been only sufficient to wash 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 where baptism was performed, no man who understands reasoning will object on this ground. Were I engaged with Mr Ewing, even in an historical contro- versy, with respect to the supply of water in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, I could easily shew that his conclusions are unwar- ranted. He depends on the accounts of modern travellers. I would admit their statements, and deny the consequence. Must the sup- ply of Avater be the same now as it was then ? Aqueducts and reser- voirs may have then existed, of which there are no remains. Herod, at great expense, brought water to the city by aqueducts, from a considerable distance ; and the pools, and fountains, and rivers, can- not now be estimated. The supply of water to the city of God, could not be inadequate to the wants of the inhabitants, and to the use of it in legal purifications, which required abundant resources. 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 ? How much depended at that time uj)on rain ? Is there reason to think that the supply is equal at present ? Earthquakes alter the course of rivers, and often seal up fountains. In the year 1182, as Goldsmith relates, most of the cities of Syria, and the kingdom of Jerusalem, were destroyed by an earthquake. * Must the brook Kedron have been as scanty as it is now .'' Mr Ewing tells us that, like other brooks in cities, it was contaminated. Did the filth ran 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 absiuxl. I woidd hold this, were the question merely an historical one. But if the Holy Spirit testifies that the disciples were baptized on believing the gospel, and if I have proved * Mr Gibbon makes a like objection to the Scripture account of the fertility of Judea. The present barrenness of that country, he considers as proof of the falsehood of the ac- counts of its ancient fertility. 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 walls of stone across their declivities, to keep up the mould which industry has brought to the nourishment of their vines. If these were 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. 202 THE MODE that this word signifies to immerse, then, though there were real difficulties 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 coui'se of his ministry," says Mr Ewing, " he drew his illus- trations, like his Master, who came after him, from the objects sur- rounding him at the time. But he says nothing of the stream, of its depth, of its rapidity, of its strength, of its overflowings, of its billows, of its qualities of purification."" Was ever any thing so childish put upon paper ? Can any mind suppose that there is argu- ment in this ? Did ever John the Baptist illustrate his subject by allusions to popping ? Is the absence of any such allusions, to be received as evidence that there was not immersion in baptism ? " As a teacher," says Mr Ewing, " 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 unsound, but absurd. Whenever they have any weight, there must be an indistinctness of vision, as to the nature of evidence. I will not go out of my way to look for water to immerse the disciples of Sychar in Samaria. If Mr Ewing knows that they were baptized, from the usual practice, I know they were immers- ed, from the meaning of the word. Had I no other resource, I would make Jacob's well supply me. But as it is not said where they M'ere baptized, I will make them conduct Christ and the Apostles on their way, till they come to water. I care not where the water is to be found ; if they were baptized, they were im- mersed. Mr Ewing, as well as Dr Wardlaw, learns from Peter's phrase- ology, " can any man forbid water ?''"' that the water was to be brought to the place. And if this were 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 the persons who have already 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 up from it. Is there any man so frantic as to suppose, that this phraseology must apply to every baptism ? Baptism in a bath, is as good as baptism in the Jordan. OF BAPTISM. 203 But Paul was baptized after a three days fast, before he had re- ceived 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 bap- tism is not a thing to be trifled with, but ought to be performed as soon as possible after the belief of the truth. It would give me great pleasure, if Mr Ewing would make this use of the cii'cum- stance. 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 always 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 Philippi ? 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 sup- pose that immersion was here impossible ; and if it was not impossi- ble, 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 house- hold were baptized, therefore they were immersed. What sober mind Mall go in quest of the water, in a foreign country, at the dis- tance of nearly two thousand years ! 204 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Having ascertained the mode and the meaning of this ordinance, I shall now inqiiire 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 commis- sion. " 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." Matth. 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 disciple, 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 salva- tion. 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 believeth 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 wan'anted to be bap- tized but disciples or believers. But our opponents affect to treat this passage as not at all to the pui*|)ose ; alleging, that though it commands believers 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 nui over this com- mission with the greatest apparent ease, and are amazed at the want of perspicacity in their opponents, who see in it any thing unfavoui'able to the baptism of infants. Now, this evidence strikes SUBJECTS OF Bx\PTISM. 205 me in so very different a light, that I am willing to hang the whole controversy on this passage. If I had not another passage in the word of God, I will engage to refute my opponents from the words of this commission alone. Dr Wardlaw thinks he has shewn 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 understanding, on my success in shewing that, according to this commission, be- lievers 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 unbelievers into the commis- sion that enjoins the baptism of believers. Even if I found an- other command, enjoining the baptism of the infants of believers, I would not move an inch fi-om my position. I would still say, this is not included in the apostolical commission. This is another commission, and cannot interfere with the former. This would establish the baptism of infants, indeed, but it would not be accord- ing to this commission, nor included in it. It would be another baptism, far more different from the baptism of this commission, than the baptism of John was from that of the Apostles. This command to baptize the infants of believers, would not be accord- ing to the command to baptize believers. There woiild then be two baptisms, on quite different grounds ; the one on the ground of faith, the other on the ground of descent. Talk not, then, of the Abrahamic covenant, and of ckcumcision ; if a baptism, or any other New Testament ordinance, must be found to correspond to these, it cannot be forced into the baptism comm.anded in this com- mission. I would gainsay an angel from heaven, who would say that this commission may extend to the baptism of any but believ- ers. His assertion would imply a contradiction. It would imply that the same persons may be, at the same time, both believers and unbelievers. Here, then, I stand entrenched, and I defy the inge- nuity of earth and hell to drive me fi'om my position. This com- mission to baptize believers, does not indeed imply that it is im- possible that another commission might have been given to bap- tize infants, but, by necessity, it excludes them for ever from, being included in this command. If infants are baptized, it is from another commission ; and it is another baptism, founded on an- other principle. But not only does this commission exclude infants from the bap- 206 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. tism 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, believe the gospel, they must be baptized according to the commission. Mat. xxviii. 19. without any regard to their baptism in infancy. The commission commands all men to be baptized on believing the gos- pel. Had there been even a divinely appointed baptism for them in infancy, it cannot interfere with this baptism, nor excuse from obedience to the command that enjoins believers to be baptized. The command of Jesus to every believer to be baptized stands en- graven in indelible characters in this commission. Till the trumpet sounds for judgment, it cannot be effaced. I call on all believers, on their allegiance to the Son of God, to submit to this ordinance of his kingdom. Heaven and earth will pass away, before it shall cease to be a duty for believers to be baptized. I maintain that it is impossible for any explanation, or any express command for an- other baptism, to excuse them from this. Is there any power on earth to abrogate this command ? Who can alter it, or substitute another baptism for it ? Till the end of the world, it will remain a duty for all believers to be baptized. Who is he that dares to sub- stitute infant baptism for the baptism of believers ? Whoever he is, he is the man who, 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 Phari- sees. God has commanded the children to support their parents if they need it ; but the Pharisees, by an invention of their own, eluded this command. Just so with infant baptism. It has usurped tlie place of believer baptism ; and, as far as it is received, sets the or- dinance of God aside altogether. So it happens, that this great law of the kingdom, that Jesus has connected so prominently with the truth itself ; this ordinance, that, in so lively a manner, exhi- bits that truth in a figure to be observed immediately after its re- ception, is now generally set aside. Believer baptism is -Nirtually abolished, and expressly explained as fit only for the first reception of Christianity in every country. Why, my brethren, do ye make void the law of God by your traditions .'' But Dr Wardlaw will say, " the reply to this is simple and sa- tisfactory." '' Suppose," says he, " the ordinance of circumcisum had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms : — SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 207 *^ Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father,' &c. Had snch language been used, we should have known that children were to be the subjects of the pre- scribed rite, as well as their parents : the previously existing prac- tice would have ascertained this." I deny it, Dr Wardlaw. I will not be driven from my position by circumcision more than by bap- tism. Had such a commission been given to circumcise, it would have excluded infants utterly. Could a command to circumcise be- lievers, include a command to circumcise any but believers ? This is impossible. No matter what was the former practice with respect to circumcision. If the apostles are commanded to circumcise be- lievers, they cannot, in virtue of that commission, circumcise any but believers. I will say, also, that if we met in another part of Scriptiu'e, a command to circumcise the infants of believers, it would not be included in the apostolical commission. A command to cir- cumcise believers, can extend to none but believers. But Dr Ward- law will say, we know that the Jews did circumcise infants. We do indeed know this ; but are we to do every thing that was en- joined on the Jews ? This commission to circumcise believers, would exclude the circumcision of infants ; because it extends to none but believers. The Jewish practice as to circumcision, could not shew 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 believer cir- cumcision. I stand then to my position as well if a Jewish ordinance is adopted, as if a new ordinance is introduced. A command to believers to observe any ordinance whatever, can never imply any but believers. This is as clear as the light of heaven. It is a first truth. The denial of it implies a contradiction. " Would they," (the apostles) says Dr Wardlaw, " certainly have inferred from it, that, although the same rite 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 believers, in such a supposed commission, 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 would 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 eat the passover, should eat it among Christians ? Suppose the government gives orders to the colonel of a regiment, 208 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 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 fulfilled their commission .? Did not the instructions that mention- ed six feet high as the standard, forbid all under that measure to be enlisted ? It is not possible to bring into the commission any who came short of that measure. What can justify those who have been guilty of such a neglect of orders ? What 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 recruit- ing sergeant, instructed by Dr Wardlaw, stands forward in his de- fence. " Stop a little. Colonel, I will prove to you that our con- duct is entirely justifiable. Nay, except you had positively for- bidden us to enlist any under six feet, we were Avarranted to con- clude that we were not limited. 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 enlisting, there have hitherto always been many men not more than five feet eight. Now, good colonel, were we not bound, in interpreting your instructions, to avail our- selves of our previous knowledge of the practice in the company ? I can assure you also, colonel, that we have the sanction of the In- dependent churches for this way of reasoning, thoiigh they profess the strictest adherence to the Scriptures. Mr Ewing and Dr Ward- law explain their Lord''s commission 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 >vay, 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 bound to what was specified in our 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 ^vould obey them or neglect them. Your conduct is unsoldicrly, and would subvert all disci- pline. Drop your swords, take up your muskets, and return to the ranks." And does Dr Wardlaw expect a " well done, good and faithful servant," for conduct that Mould degrade a recruiting ser- geant .'' Cease, Dr Wardla\^', to per\-ert the word of the Lord : cease to teach his children how to evade his injunctions : cease to SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 209 justify as an Institution of Christ, the inventions of men : cease to force a commission enjoining the baptism of believers, to sanction the baptism of infants : cease to loose the subjects of Jesus from the first law of his kingdom. With reference to Mark xvi. 16, Mr Ewing says, " From this text some infer, that a person must actually believe, else he cannot baptized. With as much reason they might infer, that a person must actually believe, else he cannot be saved." Certainly ; if there were no way of saving children but by the gospel, this con- clusion would be inevitable. The gospel saves none but by faith. But the gospel has nothing to do with infants, nor have gospel or- dinances 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 shall ever be saved by the gospel who do not believe it. Consequently, 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 unbelief. " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 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 heaven, but not through the truth as revealed to man. We know nothing of the means by which God receives saved infants : nor have we any business with it. The sal- vation that the gospel proclaims to the world, is a salvation through the belief of the truth, and none 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 believe it. To them it is neither a bene- fit, nor an injury. They will be judged, as we are assured in the Scriptures, according to the law written on the heart. I admit, then, that the salvation of the Apostolic commission, is as much confined to believers, as the baptism of that commission is con- fined to such. The man who would preach infant salvation out of the Apostolic commission, or attempt to prove, that the commission o 210 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. may be explained so as to include it, I would gainsay, on the same ground on which I resist the attempts to include in it infant bap- tism. None can be saved by the gospel, but such as believe the gospel : none can be baptized with the baptism of the gospel, but such as believe 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 : " Bap- tizing 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 Holy Ghost, that men are to be baptized. Surely none can be baptized into the faith and subjection of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but adults. Infants cannot believe, nor express sub- jection. About the glorious doctrine imported in these words, we have no dispute. On this all important point, we have one mind. And I joyfully profess that I embrace as brethren in Christ all who are united with me in that doctrine, and the truths import- ed in it. While, therefore, I use the surgical knife with an un- sparing 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. The agreement, as to the mode and subjects of this ordi- nance, that I have with the Arian Baptists, I esteem as nothing. My brethren love the thing imported by baptism, while I lament that they spend so much zeal in endeaA ouring to establish a bap- tism not instituted by Christ. In doing so, they injure thousands and thousands of their brethren, and cannot but injure themselves. It is impossible to fight against God on any point, without being wounded. I acknowledge I was long in the same transgression. Many infants have I sprinkled ; but if I kno\v my own heart, I would not now pour 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 requii'ed this at your hands ? You may explain, and reason, and suppose, but, till the trumpet sounds, you will never force this commission to include your baptism of infants. You may conjure up difficulties to perplex the weak : your ingenuity may invent sub- terfuges that may cover error. But you will never find an inch of solid ground on which to rest the sole of your foot. Your work will never be done. You are rolling the stone of Sisyphus, and the farther you push it up hill, with the greater force will it re- bound on your own heads. The labours of Hercules are but an SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 211 amusement compared with your task. Ingenuity may put a false system plausibly together. But no ingenuity can give it the soli- dity and life of the truth. It may satisfy as long as persons do not inquire deeply and earnestly into the question. But it will not sa- tisfy when the mind begins to say, " Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do .?" That believers only are included in the baptism of this commis- sion, is clear also from the command to teach the baptized : " Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have command- ed you." Here tlie persons baptized are supposed to be capable of being taught the other ordinances enjoined by Christ. Children then cannot be included. Never was a commission more definite. Never was a commission violated with less excuse of ambiguity. Yet the arrogance of hu- man wisdom has totally reversed the ordinance here enjoined. It has ordered infants to be baptized, who, by the very terais of this commission, are excluded from this baptism : and it leaves unbap- tized, believers whom only Jesus hath commanded to be baptized. Is not this the very Spirit of Antichrist ? Christians, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be deluded by the inventions of the mother of harlots ? How long will you observe the inventions of men as the institutions of God ? Will the antichristian leaven never be purged out of the churches of Christ ? Why will ye deprive your- selves of the edification and comfort to be derived from the true or- dinances of your Lord .'' Why will 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 your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. As long as ye remain ignorant of this ordinance, much of the treasures of divine knowledge are lock- ed up from you. The baptism of John was in two points essentially different from the baptism of the Apostolic commission. But in mode and sub- jects 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 subject, the two baptisms corresponded. Let us then examine the evidence to be de- rived from the baptism of John. " John did baptize in the wilder- ness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, 212 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 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 whose sins, when they die in infancy, are not remitted on repentance, arising fi-om the belief of the truth, but through the blood of Christ, applied in a way of which we can learn nothing from the Scriptures ; and with which we have no concern. Some, indeed, reply, that it is not impossible for God to give faith to infants. Dr Dwight himself says, that John the Baptist had faith from the womb. If John the Baptist was a man when he was 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 ! Where does their faith go, when they begin to speak ? Can they have faith without knowledge .'' And did any one ever hear of the knowledge 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 natiu-e, and not a necessity of divine appointment. They sup- pose that God himself cannot save infants, without giving them that faith that he requires of all who hear the gospel. Now, there is no such necessity. Faith is necessary to those who hear the gos- pel, 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 believers ; but it is not applied to them in the same way. John the Baptist is not said to have had faith Avhen an infant. He is said indeed to be sanctified from the womb, but this was not a sanctification through belief of the truth. Adults are sanctified by faith, but infants are not sanctified by faith. If infants believe, we would hear them, as soon as they begin to speak, talking of the things of God, without any teaching from the parents, or the Scrip- tures. Was ever any such thing heard ? Can there be any surer evidence, on the very face of the question, that the Scriptures know nothing of infant baptism, than that the wisest of its defenders should utter absurdities so monstrous in order to prove it ? But were we 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 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 213 not mentioned as a thing extraordinary, that John was sanctified from the womb ? Let them baptize none in infancy, but such as they have reason to believe are sanctified fi*om the womb. 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 believers 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 gos- pel, he shines into their heart to give them the light of the know- ledge 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 ; but 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 infants have faith as soon as they come into this world ; yea, and before they come into the world ? Can such nonsense be worthy of refutation ? No, were it not that the names under which such absurdities are ushered into the world, have a weight with the public, these arguments would be unworthy even of being men- tioned. 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 perception of this difficulty that first appointed sponsors, who believe, and repent, and confess for the infant. Unhappily our Independent brethren have not this resom'ce. The points in which John^s baptism differed from that of Christ, may be seen, Acts xix. 1. " And it c^me to pass, that, while A polios 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 Holy Ghost since ye believed ? 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 214 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 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 heard 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 baptized into the faith of the Messiah about to be manifested : Christ's baptism must confess that Jesus 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 baptism. Human wisdom will correct the Scriptures here, and because it cannot see why John's baptism M^ill not serve for Christ's, the words have been tortiu'ed to make them say, that they were baptized into Christ by being baptized by John. No ground, however, can be found in the passage for this conceit. No force can extract it from the words. It is man's scripture — not God's. John's baptism, then, did not serve for Christ's. If so, infant bap- tism, even if such a thing had been instituted by Christ, would not serve for the baptism in Christ's commission, which is believer bap- tism. 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 M'hate^'^er, 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 person- ally, he had no sins to confess ; yet still there was a propriety in his submitting to the baptism of repentance. " And Jesus answer- ing, said unto him. Suffer it to be so noM'^ : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It was necessary 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 immeaning ceremony. If he submits to the baptism of repentance, there must be a point of v'ww in M'hich it suits him. And what is that point of ^iew ? Evidently that, though he is himself holy, harmless, and undefiled ; yet, as one with us, he SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 215 is defiled. Just as, by our oneness with him, we can say, " who shall lay any thing to the charge of God''s elect .'*''"' by his being one with us, he can confess himself a sinner. The oneness of Christ and his people, then, is not a figiu'ative way of speaking. It is a solid and consoling truth. By it we die in Christ's death, and are acquitted as innocent ; by it Christ is made sin for us, who, in his own person, knew no sin. Christ"'s baptism, then, is no exception from what is implied in John's baptism. It has the same meaning, as well as the same figuie to him as to us. In Christ's being buried in the waters of Jordan, we have a figure of the way in which he was acquitted from the debt he took on him. It represented his death, burial, and resurrection. If we 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 what a different light the same evidence strikes different people. In the account of the baptism of John, I can see nothing but the immersing of persons professing repentance : Mr Ewing sees with equal clearness, that the business was done by pouring water on the turned up face ; and that infants were popped as well as their parents. Really it is strange, if the words of the Spirit are like an oracle of Delphi, that can be interpreted in two opposite senses. Upon what ground can Mr Ewing conclude, from this account, that John baptized infants ? Here is the proof, and surely it is de- monstration itself. " Consider," says Mr Ewing, " the very gene- ral and comprehensive terms in which the people are said to have come to be baptized. Matt. iii. 5,Q; ^ Then went out to him Jerusa- lem, 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 inhabi- tants 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 could not prove it. But what if it could be proved that children accompanied their parents ? Would this prove their baptism ? " The general and comprehen- sive terms.'''' How 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 216 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. of Paul." Who told you so, Mr Ewing ? This is apocryphal. Even this you cannot learn from the history. And if it were ex- pressly stated, it would not serve you. How easily is Mr Ewing satisfied with proof, when it is on a certain side of the question I The whole Greek language could not produce a phrase that his cri- ticism would admit as conclusive evidence of immersion. But that infants were present with their parents at John's baptism, and bap- tized along with them, he admits without evidence, with the doci- lity 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 disciples 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 all 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 any thing 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, " evidently im- ply that baptism was dispensed in the same extensive manner, by the disciples of Christ, as it was 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 hintr Wardlsiw, iti the fourth place, examines "the principles on which they endeavour to set aside the inference from the examples in question." He thinks that they have not proved that Lydia had no children. And does Dr Wardlaw think that this proof lies upon us .'' He is a man of war from his youth ; and has he yet to learn the laws of the combat ? The proof of the fact that Lydia had childi'en, lies on those who need the assistance of the infants. I maintain that it is not in evidence that she was ever married ; and you cannot found an argument on what is not in evidence. That she may not have had a child is consistent with all that is said here. This is sufficient for my pui*pose. Before you can deduce an argu- ment from this fact, you must prove not only that she had children, but infants. You must do more. I care not that she had infants, the form of the expression does not require that they M^ere baptized, and the commission makes it certain that they were not baptized. Dr Wardlaw has a very long, and certainly a very satisfactory discussion, shewing that the term brethreji, in verse 40, may not refer to Lydia's household, but all the believei's of the place. Now, if our argument required us to prove, that the brethren here must be only Lydia"'s household, we never could prove it. But our ar- gument requires no such thing. This term can be a proof on neither side, for it is consistent with both. " Equally futile," says Dr Wardlaw, " are the proofs adduced, that there were no infant children in the households of the jailor, and of Stephanas." Now, if there are any on my side of the ques- tion 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, with respect to the faith of the house- holds of the jailor and of Stephanas, is consistent with the supposi- tion that there might have been infants in them, equally prove that there might have been infants in them, without being baptized .'' When 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 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 225 miglit have been infants. And when it is said that a family were baptized, infants might have been in the house, without being in- cluded in the baptism. The commission as effectually excludes them from baptism, as their infancy excludes them from the number of those to whom the gospel is preached. Dr Wardlaw evidently does not understand the argument that we di'aw from the above source. We do not attempt to prove that such phraseology is inconsistent with the supposition, that infants were in the families. But we allege these facts, to shew that if there were baptized families, there were also believing families ; and that if, in a believing house, there may be unbelieving infants, so in a baptized house, there may be unbaptized infants. By the very same arguments that our opponents shew that there might have been un- believing infants in believing houses, we will shew 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 shews that it was possible that there might be believing houses, but it shews that there were such houses. Two of the three baptized households are expressly shewn to be believing households. If this is not said of the house of Lydia, it may have been the same; and the commission 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. When we are in- formed of the one, the other is necessarily understood. Why do our opponents speak pf their households at all ? If the jailor had a baptized house, had he not a believing house ? If Stephanas had a baptized house, had he not a believing house ? And why may not Lydia have had a believing house ? Oiu' cause requires no more than that the baptized houses may have been believing houses. We found here no argument ; we merely reply to an objection. But that two of the three baptized houses were believing houses, is ac- tually in evidence. There is here no cover for infant baptism. " I add," says Dr Wardlaw, " as a sixth observation, the ex- treme 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 children with themselves in the covenant of promise, should have taken place without the slightest recorded symptom of opposition or demurring."" This is a mode of reasoning utterly unwarrantable, and deserves no attention. We learn what God has enjoined from what is written. Even if the fact here p 226 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. stated could not at all be accounted 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 apostolic labours ? Their adult children in unbelief were admitted to all Jewish ordinances ; is there any recorded complaint of their exclu- sion from Christian ordinances ? Why should they not complain, 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 of it. Their prejudices were not at all concerned about the extent of Christian ordinances. What of- fended them, \vas 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 \t'hich they might have complained, but of which no complaint is record- ed. This takes for granted, also, that there was a spiritual con- nexion 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 disagreeable change must have been a cause of miu-muring ; and if there was murmuring, it must have been recorded. There might have been a disagreeable change, the principle of which might be so well understood, as to prevent murmuring ; and there might have been great murmiu'ing without any record, " Another remarkable circumstance," says Dr Wardlaw, " akin to the preceding, is, that when the Judaizing teachers insisted on the Gentile converts submitting to circumcision, — although there can be no doubt that this was done, in every case, in connexion with their children ; yet, when the doctrine and practice of these perverters of the gospel came to be discussed in the assembly of the apostles, and elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, no notice whatsoever is taken of the inconsistency with the spirituality of the new dispen- sation, of administering any sign to children, on the admit;sIon of their parents into the Christian commonwealth." This is egregious trifling. Are all things recorded that were said on that occasion ? Was there any need in that assembly to discuss every error con- nected with the circumcision of the Gentiles .'* By cutting off' the circumcision of the Gentiles, was not the circumcision of their in- fants, and every error connected with it, cut off also ? But sucli SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 227 observations, so far from deserving an answer, deserve no mention. Must the apostles give a whole body of divinity, when they denounce a particular error ? Dr Wardlaw, we are willing to listen to any thing you can allege from the Scripture in support of your opinion. But such arguments merit no consideration. This observation takes it for granted, that the apostles could not condemn one error, with- out expressly denouncing every other error connected ^y\i\\ it ; and that we have, in the records of the Acts, every thing that was said in the celebrated meeting at Jerusalem. " Let it be further considered," says Dr Wardlaw, " that we have no recorded instance of the baptism of any person, grown to manhood, that had been born of Jewish converts, or of Gentile pro- selytes to the faith of Christ." This would try the patience of Job. Is there any need of such an example, in order to shew that the childi'en of such persons should be baptized when they believe ? What difference is there between such and others ? Is not the law of the commission sufficient to reach them ? Is it not suffi^ciently clear ? " He that believeth and is baptized." " Nor have we," continues Dr Wardlaw, " in any of the apostolic epistles to the churches, the remotest allusion, in the form of direction, or of warn- ing, 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 all. 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 believe, they are received equally to every thing. " This supposition," says Dr Wardlaw, " let it be further no- ticed, 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 well pleasing unto 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 pui'pose. This will refute an objection. But that they must have been such, is beyond question, from the address itself. Their obe- dience to their parents, is to be " in the Lord^'' which applies to believers only. The reasons of their obedience, also, shew that they were such children as were capable of faith. " This is right.'''' — This is ivell pleasing unto the Lord.'''' These are motives quite (( 228 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. suitable to believers. As soon as children can evidence that they act from these principles, they ought to be baptized, and to walk in all 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 nurtiu-e and ad- monition of the Lord." — " Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." Now, as the duty of fathers ex- tends to all their children, Dr Wardlaw thinks that the children addressed, must be all the children capable of receiving instruction. But if he were not eager in the pursuit of something to defend his system, his powers of discrimination \yould discern, that in these injunctions, neither the children nor the fathers of the one injunc- tion, correspond to the children nor the fathers of the other. In fact, it might happen that not one of either might correspond. When the apostle addresses the children, he addresses all the mem- bers of the church vi'ho had fathers ; but not one of these fathers might be in the church. When he addresses fathers, he addresses all the members of the church who had children ; but not one of those children might be in the chui'ch. So far from being necessary to suppose, that all the children of the one address are the same as the children of the other address, it is not necessary to suppose that one of them was the same. When the children are commanded to obey their parents, their obedience is not to be confined to such fathers as were believers and members of the church; but to fathers, whatever they might be. And when fathers are commanded not to provoke their children, &c. the injunction extends to all their chil- dren. 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 Wardlaw must be in the habit of teaching according to this distinction. I would not be so much sur- prised to find this indistinctness of conception in those who make no distinction between the church and the world. In the church in which I labour, there are very many children whose parents do not belong to us ; and there are some parents whose children belong to other denominations. Yet these apostolical injunctions are con- stantly inculcated. Children ai*e to obey their parents in the Lord, even if these parents were infidels ; and parents are to train up their children in the nurture of the Lord, though they are not in the church. SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 229 *' Do our Baptist brethren," says Dr Wardlaw, " wait till their ■children are members of churches, before they venture to put their finger on the passages \ye have quoted, and say, ' This is address- ed to you ?"* " No man who speaks correctly, can say that Ephes. vi. 1, Col. iii. 20, are expressly directed to any but believers. But we can teach the most disobedient children their duty from these passages. Though we cannot tell unbelieving children that these exhortations were originally addressed to such as they are, but to believing children ; yet the duty inculcated is equally incumbent on all. The moral duties inculcated on believers, are equally the duty of unbelievers. The duty of obedience to parents is not a new duty, that results from connexion with a church, or with receiving the gospel. What, then, in this respect, is inculcated on believing children, equally shews the duty of unbelieving children. Dr Wardlaw will not say, that unbelieving fathers are directly address- ed in the above injunctions ; yet could he not apply the injunctions, so as to make them bear upon unbelieving fathers ? Could, he not lu-ge on unbelieving fathers, their guilt in not training up their childi-en in the nurture of the Lord ? Children, from the first dawn of reason, may be taught their duty from such passages, without falsely telling them that they were originally addressed to children as young as themselves. Now, Dr Wardlaw, of your eleven obser- vations, this is the only one that has even a show of argument ; yet I am sure your good sense will admit that it is answered. " X. The circumstances of the early history of the church, after the apostolic age, are unaccountable on Anti-psedo-baptist principles." So, Dr Wardlaw, you are retiu'ning to your old mode of reasoning from difficulties. 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 will not adopt an ordi- nance not founded by Christ, from any difficulty arising from Church History. My Bible, like that of Mr Ewing, ends with the Book of Revelation. 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 salvation, infant baptism would naturally follow. Dr Wardlaw, indeed, says, that we may as well suppose that the opinion arose from the practice, as that the practice arose from the opinion. It would be easy to shew that this is not the 230 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. case. But that the opinion may have given rise to the practice, is enough for my purpose. I am answering an objection, and any thing that will account for the difficulty, is sufficient. It may have been so, is quite enough for me. Even this 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 com- munion was grafted on infant baptism, still, as it was universally received so early without having been from the Apostles, infant baptism may have been grafted on some similar stock. It is im- possible to argue consistently for infant baptism from the argument of antiquity, and reject the same argument for infant communion. If infant communion was a thing not instituted by the Apostles, yet universally adopted so early, why may not any other practice have been adopted universally without apostolic institution ? The practice of the earliest 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 light, which the remains of anti- quity would afford to candour and industry. If God spares me life and leisure, I may yet endeavour to exhibit its testimony. But an ordinance of Christ I will never ground on any thing but the word of God. Many things true, may be wholly unaccountable. "XI. I have only one other particular," says Dr Wardlaw, " to add to this series. It is the remarkable fact, of the entire absence, so far as my recollection serves me, of any thing resem- bling the baptism of households or families, in the accounts of the propagation of the gospel by our Baptist brethren." Now, at first sight, this has an imposing appearance, but, on reflection, it va- nishes into air. There are not now any examples of the abundant success that the gospel had in the Apostles'" days. We do not find that men now believe by households, more than that they are bap- tized by households. I suppose that the Baptist missionaries have a haptlzed lionsehold, as often as they have a believing household. They will baptize Krishnoo and his family, if Krishnoo and his fa- mily believe. I have never seen three thousand baptized on one day, yet I have no doubt that three thousand believed on the day of Pentecost. In fact, I have never examined a series of arguments more flimsy than these. The whole chain is no better than a web of gossamer across the high-road. It cannot stop the passage of a SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 231 child. Josephiis, on one occasion, took a town, by presenting a fleet before it, in which each ship had only four mariners. If any man surrenders to Dr Wardlaw*'s fleet, it must be from want of knowing what is in the ships. The man who can satisfy himself with such argiunents as these, need never want proof of any thing which he wishes to be true. Let us now take a look at Mr Ewing's generalship, with respect to the households. " Family baptism," says Mr Ewing, " as mentioned in the New Testament, is the more remarkable, that no other ordinance, and no privilege of any kind, is mentioned in the New Testament, as given to families." The reason is obvious. Baptism belongs to individuals, and when a household believed, it was baptized on the same footing as an individual. The Lord's Supper belongs to Christians, not as individuals, but as a chui'ch. It might as well be asked, why is baptism given to an indi- vidual, seeing the other ordinances are observed socially ? Mr Ewing gives the answer to himself, in the next sentence. " Men- tion," says he, " is made of churches in the house of some ; but it is not said that these churches consisted of a believer and his house." - To this the reply is obvious. If a believer and his family were not a chm'ch, why is it strange that they had not the ordinances that belong to a church ? " Neither is a believer and his house," says Mr Ewing, " ever said to have received the Lord's Supper." I reply, If they were only a part of a church, why should they have the Lord's Supper ? If they were a church, they had the Lord's Supper, whether it is recorded or not. There i« no necessity for any such record. " I shall now be asked," says Mr Ewing, " if all or any of the families of believers, where the family baptism is said to have been practised, can be proved to have contained infants .'"' Yes, Mr Ewing, we will ask this question, and notwithstanding all you have said, we will continue to insist on this question. " I answer," says Mr Ewing, " that ' a house' or family is a term which includes, in its meaning, infants as properly as adult children ; and that, in not one of these families mentioned in connexion with baptism, is any exception made, for the purpose of excluding infants." This is granted fully. But it is more difficult to conceive how such argu- ments can impose on a sound understanding, than it is to answer them. House or family includes infants as well as adults — if in- fants are in them. But from the term itself, this cannot be learned. This is the point, Mr Ewing. A house may have infants, or it 232 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. may not have infants ; therefore from the term we can learn nothing on this subject. The eunuch, no doubt, had a house ; and if his house had been said to be baptized, Mr Ewing would not contend, that his infants were of necessity baptized. We would know, with- out any intimation, that the term house did not include his chil- dren. Just so from the commission, we know that infants are not included amojig those who were baptized in the households. The commission is as sure a commentary on the households of Lydia, Stephanas, and the jailor, as the state of the eunuch would have been in a like case. But Mr Ewing says, infants are not excepted in these households. Nor are they excepted in the supposed case of the eunuch. There is no need for the history to except them. They are excepted by that commission that must guide all practice. It is a matter of the highest astonishment to me, that Mr Ewing and Dr Wardlaw can see the necessity of an exception in so many other cases to such indefinite phrases, and yet not have the candour to admit the possibility of a like exception here. If the commission does not include infants, are they not of necessity excluded with respect to the households "^ Can any thing be more obvious to com- mon sense, than that as a house or family may or ntay not have in- fants, the baptism of a house is no proof that infants were baptized ? Can any thing be more obvious, than that as we every day use such phraseology with the supposed exceptions, there may be such exceptions as to the households ? Even if infants were proved to have been in those houses, it would signify nothing. The phraseo- logy admits the exception of them, and the commission demands it. The pertinacity with which our opponents continue to rest on the households, is a discredit to their good sense, as well as their can- dour. There is no axiom in mathematics more clear, than that the households are nothing to the purpose of infant baptism. If the term household does not necessarily imply infants, then there is no evidence from the term that there were infants in those households. Again, as such phraseology is, in daily conversation, used with exceptions ; so, though infants had been in those households, the known limitations of the commission would ex- cept them. This is as obvious as that two and two make four. It is useless to reason with any who are so perverse as to deny Avhat is self-evident. Their disease cannot be cured by argument. When Mr Ewing says, that in the narrative of the households there is no *' exception made for the purpose of excluding infonts," it is vir- tually admitted, that such phraseologj' admits exceptions. If so. SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 233 may not the exception in the commission be as valid as an excep- tion in the history ? Nay, the exception of the commission makes an exception in the history perfectly imnecessary. The commission enjoins the baptism of believers, and from that baptism all others are therefore for ever excluded. When a household were baptized according to this commission, they must have been believers. The commission cannot be extended farther. Nay, if a commission had afterwards been given to baptize infants, it could never be reduced to this commission. It could not have been explained as included in it, nor a part of it. It would be a perfectly distinct commission, containing a quite different ordinance. Till infants are believers, they can never be baptized according to a commission that enjoins the baptism of believers. If there is a commission to enlist recruits six feet high, when we afterwards read that a family were enlisted, without specifying their height, we know that none of them were under the standard. Were it not for the strength of prejudice, this form of expression could not for a moment embarrass the M^eakest of the children of God. " If a man and his family are degraded,"" says Mr Ewing, " does not the degradation include infants ? If a man and his fa- mily are ennobled, does not the nobility include infants ?''"' It does so, not from the necessity of the phraseology, but from what is known of the laws. Were it said that a man and his family were hanged for mui'der, his infants would be excluded. Were it said that after a rebellion a man and his family received the thanks of his Majesty for their loyalty, it would not be supposed that the infants had carried arms. " If a man and his family," says Mr Ewing, " are baptized, does not the language convey a similar meaning, namely, that the baptism includes infants .P" No, Mr Ewing, because it is known from the commission that infants lare not included : whereas in the other cases, it is known that infants are included. In neither case can we leam the extent of the appli- cation of the phrase from the phrase itself. It is indefinite, and may include all, or may admit exceptions. " In calculating," says Mr Ewing, " as some do, the probabi- lity of the case, many confine their attention to the four families mentioned in Acts x. Acts xv'i. and 1 Cor. i." Calculating probabi- lity ! Is a law of God to depend on a calculation of Tprobabilities ? I would as soon calculate nativities by the stars. " But these," he continues, " are only a specimen of the hundreds and thousands of families, which, in the propagation of the gospel, were treated in the 234 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. same way." Who told this to Mr Ewing ? Has he got it in a dream, or in a vision ? If Mr E\ying has not facts enough from which he may reason, he can make them. There may have been many other households of the same kind ; but that there were so, is not in evidence, and I will not admit it. But I reject it not for the sake of this question ; because, if there were a million of such families, for every one that is mentioned, they were all believing families. The commission leaves no doubt of this. Of the three fa- milies mentioned, two of them are expressly represented as believing families. Why might not the other be so ? I do not profess to have the gift of second sight. I do not know how many hundred families resembled these in their baptism. But I can judge of the evidence before me ; and what number of families soever were bap- tized, the same number believed. But it seems there is one baptized household at least, in which it is even certain that there M^ere no believers but the head of the family. " When Lydia was baptized with her house," says Mr Ewing, " we are made certain that they were none of them be- lievers excepting herself." Whence, reader, can come this certainty ? You will say, I suppose, that Mr Ewing has received some secret revelation on this point. No, no, I assure you, Mr Ewing pro- fesses to get this evidence out of the narrative itself. The evidence is this : " For she urged Christian character, as the argument for prevailing with Paul and Silas to accept her hospitality. Un- questionably she put her argument as strongly as she could ; yet as it was her heart only which the Lord opened, ver. 14. so she could not include so much as one in the family, along with herself, as a believer ; but was obliged to use the singular number, saying, *' If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into viy house and abide.' " Now, this is so shadowy an argument, that it is as difficult to get at it, as it was for Fingal to strike the Ghosts. It is as thin as vapour. Had she possessed a thousand servants all believers, would she have spoken in a different manner ? Had there been a thousand, the house \^'as hers, the hospitality Avas hers, and the ground of the Apostle"'s receiving it must be her faith- fulness. The household had nothing to do with this invitation. Their faithfulness had no concern in it. At what a loss must the cause of infant baptism be, when such a man as Mr Ewing is obliged to make such a defence ? Must Lydia have been schooled by Sir Roger de Coverley's old l>utler, that she must say, our house, our faithfulness ? &o. The man who can take this for evidence, ^vill SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 235 never want evidence for any thing to his taste. I never met any writer more intrepid than Mr Ewing, in cutting down opposing evi- dence ; nor more easily pleased with evidence on his own side. Alexander himself would not more rashly draw his sword to cut a Gordian knot ; and in other things popish credulity itself cannot be more easily satisfied with the proof of the obedience of the Chiu-ch. What Mr Ewing here considers certain evidence, I maintain is not even the shadow of evidence. If the Scriptures did not furnish me with better arguments for my sentiments, I would let them sink to the bottom of the ocean. Mr Ewing is right in not sui'rendering a battery, while it is capable of defence. But why will he keep liis flag flying, while it is evident, from his fire, that the ammunition is expended ? Mr Ewing is not at all startled at the consequence of this opinion, namely, that the unbelieving adults of Lydia were baptized on her faith. His boldness is not to be frightened. It requu'es a more than ordinaiy audacity to say, in the face of the commission of Jesus Christ, that unbelieving adults should be baptized, if they happen to be in the house of a believer. Jesus Christ has commanded believers to be baptized. Mr Ewing commands all the unbelievers in every believer'^s house to be baptized. Christians, whether will ye obey your Lord and Saviour, or Mr Ewing ? How long, Mr Ewing, how long will you make void the commandment of God by your inventions ? Hath not Jesus said, "he that breaketh the least of these my commandments, and teacheth men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven ?" The language of Lydia is consistent with the supposition that there was not an unbeliever in her house. So far is it from implying that her family were all unbelievers. " The house of Stephanas," says Mr Ewing, " addicted them- selves to the ministry of the saints,"" 1 Cor. xvi. 15. " Were this a proof that they had among them no infants, we might find a proof that the house of the Rechabites had among them no infants, be- cause, in Jer. xxxv. 2 — 11, they addicted themselves to perforai the commandment of their father." Now, this is true : and this is the very argument by which we prove, that, even if the households had contained infants, there is no necessity that they should be supposed to have been baptized. We do not argue, that, because the bap- tized households were believing households, there could not be any infants in the houses. But we argue, that if there were baptized households, these households were believing households ; and that ill the household of the jailor and of Stephanas we have direct evi- 236 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. dence. We coiikl have known this by the commission, had the narrative been silent. But when the naiTative itself shews that they had believing households, what difficulty is in the expression baptized households ? Is not the one commensurate with the other ? The importance of the fact of the believing households is, not to shew that there could be no infants in those houses, but to shew that it is an historical fact that there were in those houses be- lievers to be called a baptized household ; and to shew that if there were infants in those houses, they may not be included among the baptized, as they certainly are not included among the believing. The fact is very important, for in replying to it, our opponents are obliged to refiite themselves. If there may have been infants where a house is said to believe, without supposing that infants are be- lievers, so where a house is said to be baptized, there may have been in it infants, who were not baptized. If any man cannot understand the weight of this argument, it is not argument can convince him. Mr Ewing asks his opponents, " if they admit the general fact of family baptism, why they do not practice accordingly .^" And do they not practice according to the view in which they admit this fact ? Is there any inconsistency between their practice and their admission ? Are they inconsistent with themselves, because they practice according to their own views, and not according to the views of Mr Ewing .? Mr Ewing and Dr Wardlaw strangely take it for granted that the households were baptized, not on their own faith, but on that of the head of the family, which is not hinted in the narrative, and is contrary to the commission. " To say they baptize whole families, when whole families believe," says he, " ap- pears to me to be treating the historical Scriptiu*e as nugatory." But why, Mr Ewing, does this treat the historical Scripture as nu- gatory ? " Any view of this subject," says Mr Ewing, " would lead us to baptize whole families, or M'hole nations, if they all be- lieved." Doubtless. And may we not say the same thing of indi- vidual baptism ? Is the history of the baptism of the eunuch and that of Paul nugatory ; because, if neither of them had been record- ed, we would have known from the commission that belieAcrs ought to be baptized ; and that faith is necessary to baptism .'* There may be much use in recording these facts, though tliey do not bear Mr Ewing's inference. It is not warrantable to say, that a por- tion of Scripture must have a certain meaning, because we can see no use in it, if it has not that meaning. " It ^vould not have made the slightest difference in the practice," continues Mr Ewing, " had SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 237 no mention been made of family baptism at all." Not the slightest diiFerence. Nor would it have made the slightest difference "vvith respect to the baptizing of individuals, had no example of baptism been recorded. Yet none of the examples is nugatory. The per- verseness of Christians requires them all. The family baptisms re- corded, can warrant no family baptisms but such as are recorded ; and two of these are expressly stated as believers, and the remain- ing third must be according to the commission, " Unless, there- fore," says Mr Ewing, "we admit some peculiar connexion be- tween the extent of a family, and the extent of the administration of baptism, I apprehend that family baptism is a Scripture fact which we do not yet understand." Does not Mr Ewing perceive that the same thing might be said with as good reason with respect to the house of the Rechabites, and all the examples quoted by Dr Wardlaw of similar phraseology ? On Mr Ewing's principles, might I not say, unless every infant of the house of the Rechabites was brought into the house of the Lord, and a command given to him to drink wine, the statement of Jer. xxxv. 2 — 11, is absurd ? Suppose the government issues a commission to raise a number of regiments, and to enlist all men fit for service. In the course of the execution of this commission, we read that they enlisted A and his family, B and his family, C and his family. Would we not know, without a word on the subject, that the enlisted families were men fit for service ? There might be infants in the houses, but they were no part of the enlisted families. We would not require to be informed that two of these families were active and brave, in order to con- vince us that they were not infants or women, but men. It is only the perverseness of Christians in the things of God that requires such illustrations. What shall we say of the person who would observe, that, unless it is admitted, that whenever the head of a family is enlisted, every member of his family, man, woman, and child, are enlisted also ; he can see no meaning in the statement of the enlist- ment of the three families ? The fact that three families are enlist- ed with the heads of the families, does not imply that all families are enlisted with the heads, nor that men, women, and children are enlisted. It is strange that our acute opponents cannot see so obvious a truth. It is only in the things of God that men are children. Mr Ewing here takes it for granted, that it is an admitted fact, that all families were baptized with the head, and on the faith of the head, without any faith of their own ; nay, except they contradict- 238 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. ed and blasphemed. This is not in evidence. The three examples of baptized households state nothing of the baptism of the household on the faith of the head, and the commission forbids the thought. There might be many such families, but how many is not known ; nor can the number at all influence the question. How many so- ever they might be, they must all have been believing households. To justify Mr Ewing's observation, the commission must liaA^e been, baptize believers and their households. " I wished,"" says Mr Ewing, " to induce my friends, who have no experience on the subject, to compare their feelings with the feelings of those who have such experience."" Feelings have nothing to do with this question, more than with a demonstration in Euclid. This consulting of our feelings is the ground of a great part of our opposition to the word of God. Peter consulted his feelings, and when God said, " Rise, Peter, kill and eat ;"" he arrogantly replied, " Not so. Lord, for I have never eaten any thing common or un- clean."" Shame, Peter, is there any thing unclean that God com- mands to be eaten ? What made certain meats unclean to Israel but God"'s command ? " You keep aloof," says Mr Ewing, " from this practice, from yoiu' apprehension of difficulty with the case of infants."'"' Not so, Mr Ewing ; had the command been to baptize the households of believers on the faith of their heads, we would find no difficulty with infants. We would baptize them, if the command included them, as soon as we would baptize the Apostles. " Now, I frankly confess,"*"" says Mr Ewing, " that were any thing, after getting a divine warrant, to deter me from the practice, it would be rather the case of adults."'"' Strange language, indeed ! This sounds harshly in my ears. Deter from a practice for which there is a divine warrant ! He must have a scrupulous conscience indeed, who will speak of being deterred from executing a divine warrant. I would baptize Satan himself, without the smallest scruple, had I a divine warrant. Give us a divine warrant, and we have no ob- jection, from our feelings, to baptize infants. But it appears that Mr Ewing finds some difficulty in the case of baptizing unbelieving adults on the faith of the head of a family. I am glad of it. He may yet be led to see that it is an awful thing to allege a Avarrant from Jesus to baptize unbelievers, when the apostolical commission includes believers only. " But the truth is,"" says INIr Ewing, " infants and adults are precisely on a footing, in regard to the re- generating M ork of the Holy Spirit, of ^hich baptism is a figure."'"' SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 239 But are adult unbelievers to have the figiu'e of regeneration ^yhich they have not yet experienced ? This contradicts every thing ex- hibited in the figure of baptism, which always supposes that the person baptized is already regenerated. Mr Ewing says, that " in the original propagation of the gospel, when the head of a family believes, ' salvation is come to his house,' Luke xix. 9 ; and con- sequently the whole house may be, nay, ought to be, baptized along with him, (with no exception because some of them may be young, but) except they have grown so old, and so rebellious against both their Father in heaven and their parents on earth, as to refuse the ordinance, and to contradict and blaspheme the ti-uth which it accompanies." This is a most astonishing avowal. Mr Ewing saw where his doctrine would lead, and he has boldly avowed the consequences. Every unbeliever in the house may be baptized, on the faith of the head, except he refuses. I do not envy the con- science that can receive this without qualms. I think it will be swallowed with difficulty by many of the Independents. But when Mr Ewing has avowed this monstrous doctrine, where will he find a warrant ? Not in Luke xix. 9. This cannot imply that the moment the head of a family believes, all the members of the family also believe, or are actually made partakers of salvation. If not, it is no warrant to baptize them. But if it does imply that they all actually believe with the heart, then it is believer baptism. Nor does this passage imply that all the members of a believer's house will at last believe, — though even this would be no warrant for their baptism, which implies faith at the time of baptism. Is it a fact that all the slaves, and servants, and children of a believer, will certainly be saved .? Let us hear the passage itself. "And Jesus entered and passed though Jericho. And, behold, there was a man named Zaccheus, which was the chief among the publi- cans, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus, who he was ; and coidd not for the press, because he was little of stature. And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zaccheus, make haste and come down, for to-day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying. That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. And Zaccheus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor : and if I have taken any thing from any man by false 240 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. accusation, I restore him four-fold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Now, the salvation that came to his house, ap- pears to me to be evidently his own salvation. Zaccheus had been a man notoriously a sinner. The people all murmured, even when Jesus proposed to be his guest. The Lord touched the heart of Zaccheus, and enabled him to give in his confession — the clearest evidence of his conversion. The Lord, therefore, recognises him publicly before the people, who murmm-ed, and declared that Zaccheus wasj^not only worthy of being his host, but that he who was among the chief of sinners, was now a member of his kingdom : Salvation was now come to that house, which the crowd looked upon as so unworthy to receive the Messiah. It was now the house of a saved sinner. Jesus next gave the reason for saying that sal- vation was come to that house : " He also is a son of Abraham." That he was a natural descendant of Abraham, there was no ques- tion. But now he is a son of Abraham's faith. The Lord Jesus closes with a reason that confirms this view : " For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost." As if he had said, " Think it not strange that Zaccheus is saved, and that I have called him a son of Abraham. He was a notorious smner, in- deed, but I have come to save such." Many suppose that the phrase, " Salvation is come to this house," means that others in the house had believed ; or that it was an in- timation that they would believe. As far as concerns the question of baptism, I have not the smallest objection to either of these views. My objection is, that they are not the import of the pas- sage. I am quite willing to admit, I am joyful in believing, that when the gospel comes to a house, it generally spreads. But this is no foundation for baptizing an unbelieving family, and does not seem to be contained in this passage. If salvation comes to a house, let the house be baptized as far as the salvation is known to reach. But by what authority does Mr Ewing make the exception, M'ith respect to those who refuse the ordinance and blaspheme .'' Children have no right to refuse ; and slaves may be forced to submit. Those must all be baptized M'ith the household. Ah ! IVIr Ewing, is such a household as you represent to be entitled to baptism, at all like the house of the jailor, and the house of Stephanas ? How unlike to yoiu* commission to baptize, is the commission of Christ ! Chi'ist says, " believe and be baptized :" INIr EM'ing says, " bap- SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 241 tize all the unbelievers of a believer's house, except they refuse." Is it not a fearful thing to have on record before heaven and earth, a document at such variance with the commission of Christ ? I know Christ will forgive the ignorance of his people ; l)ut to teach his childi'en to err from his commandments, is not the way to gain ten cities in the day of judgment. Was there ever any thing so absurd as to stretch the commission to baptize, by the use of an indefinite word in the history of the execution of the commission ? Must not the commission limit this indefinite word ? Does not Mr Ewing, does not Dr Wardlaw, shew examples that justify such limitation of indefinite or general language .? Why do they contend, that there may be infants in a believing house, though they do not believe, when they will not allow that there may have been infants in a baptized house, without being baptized ? None can be baptized, according to the commission, but believers : the phraseology about the households is perfectly consis- tent with this, according to daily use in all nations : why then con- jure up a difiiculty, wh&n not a shadow of difficulty exists ? An in- fidel, who should read the Scriptures, just to learn what was ac- tually the practice on the subject, in the Apostles'" days, would not find a moment's delay from these households. He would at once see that the word household may extend to every inhabitant of the family, or admit of certain exceptions, according to known limi- tations. The limitation of the households he would find in the commission. He would never dream that the Apostles would bap- tize any but such as are commanded to be baptized. Let it be recollected, that we stand on the defensive in this mat- ter ; and that it is perfectly sufficient for our purpose, if the term household will admit the limitation for which we contend. To serve our opponents, it must be proved, that infants were in the families. Even this will not serve them. They might have been in the households, yet not have been baptized. But was it even proved that infants were baptized, it would be a baptism diffiirent from that of the commission, and could not stand in its room. Even in such a case, I would call on all who believe to be baptized with the baptism of the commission. " The case of the little children," says Mr Ewing, " brought to Jesus, as narrated, Matth. xix. 13 — 15, entirely agrees with this view," namely, that the disciples of our Lord baptized infants. There must truly be a great scarcity of proof when it is sought in such a passage as this. No view of which this transaction is ca- Q 242 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. pable, has any bearing on the subject. We might as well seek a 'warrant for infant baptism in Magna Charta, or the Bill of Rights. Infant salvation does not imply infant baptism. Baptism is an ex- hibition of the faith of the gospel ; and of course cannot belong to any but those who apjjear to believe the gospel. But infants are saved without the gospel. These infants are not brought to Jesus for baptism, nor for any ordinance of the gospel, but to be blessed by him. Can they not be blessed by Jesus without baptism ? This passage, then, can have no concern with the subject.* " True,"" says Mr Ewing, " baptism is not mentioned in the passage, but our Saviour''s condescension, which the passage does mention, and which he so beautifully displays both to children and to parents, is by no means exclusive of the baptism of the former, but apparent- ly in addition to it." Oiir Saviou7'''s condescension, here men- tioned, not exclusive of the baptism of infants ! What an argu- ment ! Does our Saviour's condescension to children, suppose that they must have been baptized ? It is a shame for human under- standing to urge such arguments as these. The children taken up into the arms of Christ could speak nothing more childish. Divine truths we must receive like children, but if we receive infant bap- tism on the authority of such arguments, we must receive it as sim- pletons. Christ commands us to be like little childi'en, but he never commands us to be idiots. " In malice be ye children, but in un- derstanding be men." The gospel itself must have evidence ; and we are required to believe nothing without evidence. Is our Sa- viour's condescension in blessing children any evidence that they ought to be baptized ? This passage does not, indeed, exclude children from baptism. And many a thousand passages might be quoted, that do not exclude infants from baptism. But is every passage that does not forbid infant baptism, a proof that infants ought to be baptized ? It seems, hoAvever, that this passage does more than not exclude infants from baptism, though, in such a lack of evidence, that itself is a great deal. The blessing is apparently in ADDITION to the baptism. Now, how this is apparent, is what I cannot see ; and though I should wear out my eyes in the search, I am afraid I can never discover it here. The man who can see infant baptism here, may descry the inhabitants of the moon with his naked eye. Mr Ewing quotes a passage in his note, tliat is subtile without * To tliis day, Jewish children are brought to the Rabbi, who lays his liand on them, and prays. SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 243 11 penetration. Of such is the kingdom of heaven, " that is to say- says ]\Ir Hallet, " the kingdom of God belongs to, or comprehends such infants as these." No, Mr Hallet, to say this is to say what the passage does not say. It is not said, that the kingdom of God belongs to such, or comprehejids such ; but that the kingdom of God is of such, that is, such persons constitute this kingdom. If we are not pleased with this paraphrase, Mr Hallet gives us an- other, which must he abundantly edifying ; " or," sayshe, " if any one would have the words so stiffly rendered, Such''s is the kingdom of God, like. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven, Matth. v. 3." But the latter passage ought to be translated, " of them is the kingdom of heaven." The kingdom of heaven consists of the poor in spirit, and of the poor in spirit only. There is not another in the kmg- dom. The meaning is not that the poor in spirit will obtain hea- ven as their inheritance ; but that there is none in the kingdom of heaven but the poor in spirit. Neither of these passages import, that the kingdom of heaven is the property of such persons, but that such persons constitute the whole kingdom. There is not one in hea- ven but the poor in spirit ; nor is there one in heaven who is not such as the children. However, were it even supposed that the expression was, " the kingdom of heaA^en belongs to such," the import of the term such is not altered. Even such''s is the kingdom, makes no difference. Every way in which the words can be understood, im- ports that the heirs of the kingdom are such as children — not that they are children. Observe the difference between the expression, Mat. V. 3, from the expression in this place. In the former it is uvrm " of them," in the latter it is rotovrm " of such." The kingdom of heaven is of the poor in spirit, and of them only : but it is not of children only, but of those who are such as children. They re- semble children in their character. Had asur^v been here used in- stead of Toiovr eay, it would have imported, that none but children are members of Christ's kingdom. It would have said, that all children are members of Christ's kingdom ; and that none but child- ren were included in that kingdom. Mr Hallet says, that if we understand the term sicch to refer not to the infants, but to persons resembling them, it will be impossible to make out the force of our Saviour's argument. But let what will be the consequence, this is actually what our Saviour has said ; and nothing else can the words import. " The kingdom of hea- ven is of such,''"' cannot possibly mean that the kingdom of heaven is of them. The term such does not signify identity — cannot sig- 244 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. nify identity, but likeness. Besides, to understand it so, would im- ply, that none but children could be saved. For if the kingdom of God is of children, by consequence none but children are of the kingdom. I am not bound, then, to satisfy Mr Hallet with a view of the passage that will make out the force of our Saviour''s argu- ment. I will shew him what concerns this argument, and I will in- sist that so far the meaning must be what I contend for. After as- certaining what can be definitely and certainly ascertained, let us then endeavour to see the force of the argument. But to see this is not necessary to know the other with the utmost assurance. " According to these men," says Mr Hallet, " our Saviour would have said the same thing, if men had brought him lambs or doves.'''' But if Mr Hallet would exercise a little discrimination, he would see a difference. The things in which the disciples of Christ are here supposed to resemble children, are not to be found in lambs or doves. Lambs and doves are, to a certain extent, fit emblems of the people of God. But for the purpose of our Lord on this occasion, they were totally unsuitable. Children are of the human race, and therefore it is important to know whether they are capable of being blessed by Christ. Now, that they are capable of being brought to Christ, and of being blessed by him, is known from Christ's conduct towards them ; though it is not expressed, nor necessarily implied in the term such. That term implies only that there is a likeness between his disciples and children. But this likeness is a likeness in rational and moral properties. It is a like- ness of temper, disposition, or character of mind. This could not be found in lambs or doves. In mere harmlessness doves may af- ford a likeness. Therefore it is said, " Be ye harmless as doves." But the moral qualities here referred to, are not to be found in lambs or doves. These are teachableness, humility, &c. That this is the reference, is clear from the fact as recorded by Mark X. 15. " And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them : and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was displeased, and said unto them. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you. Who- soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." Is it not evident, that the point of likeness be- tween children and the disciples of Christ, is in their teachableness ? Here also it is evident, that the term such refers to likeness — not identity. They who receive the kingdom of God must receive SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 245 it as children, but they are not all children. So, then, Mr Hallet, your lambs and your doves will not suit this passage. I will re- ceive as a little child any thing the Lord teaches ; but your expla^- nation of the term stick, even a child cannot receive. I must re- nounce my understanding altogether, before I can admit such to import identity, instead of likeness. The same thing is evident from Matt, xviii. 1. — " At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying. Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them : And said. Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Here we see that the disciples must be like children in humility. In this sense, the disciples are children. But in humility, lambs and doves could be no figures. That they were capable of being blessed, depends on their being human persons. " The meaning seems to be," says Mr Hallet, " of such kind of infants as these is the kingdom of God, that is, of such infants as have been partakers of the seal of the covenant, of such infants as have been baptized, or, at least, circumcised like these." No, Mr Hallet, this is a forgery. This is a vile and a wicked forgery. Thousands have been hanged for forgery, who have not made such alterations on writings as this makes on the book of God. There is nothing either expressed or implied with respect to the baptism or the circumcision of the infants brought to Jesus. Nor does what our Lord says apply to those children more than any other children. It is not. Suffer these little baptized or circumcised children to come, but suffer little children, any little children, to come to me. Does not the parallel passage, Mark x. 15. apply to children in general ? It is the temper of children to which our Lord gives his approbation, and the things referred to are found in all children. Does not the illustration shew this? Does not Matt, xviii. 1. confirm this ? Why does Mr Hallet look for a reason of approba- tion, not only not mentioned by Jesus himself, but different from that which Jesus has mentioned ? All children possess what Jesus 246 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. here approves. But while these dispositions of children are such as to afford a proper figiu'e to represent the teachableness, humility, &c. of the disciples of Jesus, there is no reason to suppose that they are such as are entirely conformable to the law of God. There may be something in them that will need the atonement of the blood of Christ, while they afford a likeness to the character of the dis- ciples. Indeed, the dispositions of children are not considered here in reference to God, but in reference to men. Children believe their parents implicitly ; and they are comparatively unambitious. But they are no more ready to believe God than adults are. The approbation therefore of infants contained in our Lord's words, does not imply that they are teachable and humble in the things of God. Our Lord may approve of children here, just as he loved the rich young man in luibelief. The young man had lived in such a manner, that in his own view he had kept the law of God from his youth up. To live so, was commendable, though he was in error. Accordingly, " Jesus beholding him, loved him." But in whatever way the thing may be explained, the ground of our Lord's ajjprobation of children, is their teachableness, humility, &c,. and this as it respects all children equally. If Mr Hallet will not take edification in my way of understanding the force of our Lord's argument, let him look for something to please himself. That the term such has the reference for which I contend, does not admit doubt. That children are capable of being brought to Christ and blessed by him, is clearly established by this passage ; and in this light it is of inestimable value. Let every Christian, then, bring his children to Christ. Let him bring them to Christ in his prayers night and day ; for their salvation is beyond every earthly consideration. Let him bring them to Christ in his word, and in every thing in which Christ has appointed them to be brought to him. But let not Christians think, that to practise on their infants a religious or- dinance of human invention, is to bring them to Christ, but to in- crease their own sin. Had man appointed an ordinance of imposi- tion of hands on children, from the authority of this passage, it would not have been so strange. But to argue that children must be baptized, because they may be blessed by Jesus, has no colour of plausibility. The M'hole argument may be reduced to a single sentence. Children may he blessed icithout being baptised, there- fore the blessing of the children by Jesus is wo nrgnynent for infant baptism. SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 247 In short, whether our Lord's expression imports that the king- dom of God co7isists of such, or is the property of such, the term such must necessarily mean not them, but persons like them — of such as chikh'en, not of children such as these. The ground of our Lord's approbation of children is their resemblance to his disciples in certain characteristics of mind, which are to be found only in rational creatures ; and they are permitted to come to Christ, be- cause they are capable of being blessed by him. The fact here recorded, however, instead of affording evidence for infant baptism, affords a presumption against it. If infants were every day brought to be baptized, why did the apostles object to their being brought to be blessed ? Mr Ewing has been aware of this difficulty, and has obviated it by a resom'ce worthy of Ulysses, "for wiles renowned." " The disciple of Christ," says he, "never thought of forbidding the children to be brought to them, which they would be, (John iv. 2.) in order to be baptized. They only objected to theh* being brought also to their Master, " that he should put his hands on them and pray." Now, is this a thought that would ever occur to any simple mind in reading the passage ? Is there any thing that intimates a double purpose in bringing the children, — first for their baptism to the apostles, and next to Jesus for his blessing .? What an eagle eye must he have that can dis- cover these things ? But there is here a distinction never once made in the history of Jesus, — a distinction between coming to him and to his attending disciples. There is no instance of coming to his apostles for any thing in his presence. Jesus indeed did not per- sonally baptize ; but he baptized by his disciples. All things were done by his directions, and whoever came for baptism came to Jesus, as much as for any thing else. This distinction, however, if admitted, will not serve. Still, it is asked, if children were bap- tized, why did the apostles object to their coming to Christ to be blessed ? Jesus vindicates the propriety of bringing children to him, by arguments that equally apply, whether it is to himself per- sonally, or to his apostles acting for him. But let this passage be ever so finely wiredrawn, it cannot in- clude infant baptism. It applies to children in general, and not merely to the children of believers ; and though the children of be- lievers only were included, they may be brought to Christ for his blessing without being baptized. The language of the Acts of the Apostles," says Mr Ewing, on the subject of baptism, previously to the history of the propa- 248 STJBJECTS OF BAPTISM. gation of the gospel among the Gentiles, in which family baptism is first mentioned, is alvrays equally comprehensive with that of the gospels, Acts ii. 38, 39." On the subject of baptism ! Does the baptism, enforced in the passage referred to, at all include any but those who repent ? " Then Peter said unto 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 gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to youi* children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.''^ Does this imply the baptism of any but of those who repent ? They who repent, and they only, are to be baptized. " Repent, and be bap- tized." Can language be more clear .'' Are they not to be baptized into the remission of sins ? Does not this shew, that in baptism, repentance and remission of sins are supposed with respect to the baptized .'' They are not to be baptized, that repentance and re- mission of sins may follow. Instead of proving infant baptism, this passage proves that none ought to be baptized, but such as repent, and have their sins forgiven. Is it not expressly said, that all who are thus baptized shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ? The promise is indeed said to be to your children ; but is it not also said, that it is to all that are afar ofF.^ And is it not, with respect to both, confined to those whom the Lord shall call ? Children denotes posterity, and not merely infant children, and the promise of the Spirit is to them and to their posterity, and to all that are afar off. only on their repentance. It is not said, that when a man repents, his children shall recei^'e the gift of the Holy Ghost, M^he- ther they repent or not ; for this is false. His children, and all that are afar off, shall receive this gift, just as he himself received it, when they repent and are baptized. Does Mr Ewing believe, that when a man believes the gospel, his infants, and all the unbe- lievers of his house, receive remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost ? If not, there is no ground to give them that baptism that implies both remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. This promise is to the children, just as it is to the parents ; and it is to all that are afar off, just as it is to parents and children, on their repentance. And it is actually communicated only to those M'hom the Lord calls. Mr Ewing says, " that when the apostle added, ' To all that are afar off', even as many as the Lord our God shall call,"" the meaning plainly is, that the promise M'hich was to the JcMs first, and to their children, should be to the Gentiles also, and to their children." No, Mr Ewing, this is not the plain SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 24.9 meaning. This is a very forced and unnatural meaning. There is no doubt that the promise here spoken of, is to the children of the Gentiles, just as it was to the children of the Jews ; that is, on their repentance, the}' shall be made partakers of the gift of the Spirit. But the words referred to have nothing to do with this. The last clause is a limitation of the promise with respect to the three classes mentioned, restricting it to such of each as the Lord shall call. This is as clear as language can make it ; and nothing but perverseness can mistake it. The promise is unto you ; the promise is likewise to your children ; the promise is likewise to all that are afar off. But it is to none of any class, but such as the Lord shall call. The three distinct classes are coupled by and — you and your children, and all afar off. The last clause is not coupled with the rest by a7id, but added to the whole, as a limita- tion. And does not the whole word of God confirm this view ? Do any receive the gift of the Spirit, but such as are called ? Do the unbelieving children and servants of a believer receive this gift ? It is strange that any Christian should contend for a view of this passage, so unfounded and so forced. But if Mr Ewing will be so perverse as to hold to this view, it M'ill profit him nothing as to infant baptism. Whatever the promise here may import, to whomsoeA'er it is made, the baptism here spoken of, is to such only as repent. Besides, even according to his own explanation of the passage, he must view all the infants and unbe- lievers of a believer^'s house, as possessing the gift of the Spirit. This is a species of unbelievers unknown to the word of God, — unbelievers possessing the Holy Spirit ! Nothing but perverseness, and an obstinate attachment to a sys- tem, could make our opponents rely on an argument founded on the indefinite phrase, your children. Does not God promise to "pour out his Spirit upon all flesh .'*'" Might it not be as plausibly argued from this, that the Spirit must be given to every individual of the human race, or that children here must mean either all children, or infant children ? Even if no explanatory and limiting phrase had been added, the indefinite term must be limited by other known truth. But our opponents are so perverse, as to contend for the unlimited sense of an indefinite term, after it has been expressly limited in the passage itself by the Holy Spirit. Dr Wardlaw asks, How would a Jew understand the term chil- dren in this passage ? I answer, no man of common sense can mis- take its meaning, if he takes the meaning from the words. The 250 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. apostle explains himself, so as not to be innocently mistaken by either Jew or Gentile. Paul says, " Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent." Did not the Jews believe that the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom would be confined to them- selves ? How then, I might ask, would they understand this lan- guage ? Would they not have much greater reason to conclude from this, that Paul confined salvation to the Jews, than that Peter extended the gift of the Spirit to the whole offspring of believers, without any respect to their faith ? He says nothing here to guard them from this conception. But Peter expressly limits the term children, as applicable only to those called by the Lord. Is the gospel sent only to the Jews, and such as feared God ? Is it not sent to all ? Yet Paul, on this occasion, speaks of it as sent to the stock of Abraham, and such among them as feared God. Just so Peter speaks of the promise to them and their children, but he explicitly limits the blessing to those whom God shall call. The most preju- diced Jew could not innocently mistake this language. " Are we, then, to suppose," says Dr Wardlaw, " that this ' holy man of God, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost,' would, without explanation or restriction," &c. Without explana- tion or restriction ! How can Dr Wardlaw use this language ? Is not the last clause an express limitation ? — " as many as the Lord our God shall call." But even had there been no limitation, it is rash in Dr Wardlaw to use such language. Jesus himself used expressions that were capable of being misimderstood. Preju- dices are no excuse for perverting the word of God. If the Jews took less or more out of the words of the apostles than they express, they were blameable. Does Dr Wardlaw believe, that when the head of a family re- ceives the gospel, all his infants receive the Spirit ? If not, why does he baptize them on account of this promise ? Even if they did receive the Spirit, they are not to be baptized by this passage, except they repent. Does he say that the promise implies that they will repent ? But the promise is, that penitents shall receive the Spirit, and not that the children of such shall repent in time to come. Besides, if there was a promise that all the children of all believers would repent, this would not entitle them to that baptism that supposes repentance. But if your children respects children, M'ithout limitation from the concluding clause, then the promise is, that all the children of SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 251 a believer ^yill receive the gift of the Spirit on his believing. Does this imply that all the children of a believer believe also at the same time ? If not, does the promise import that unbelieving adult children will receive the Spirit ? According to our opponents, this promise secures the gift of the Spii'it to the children of believers, as well as to themselves. If so, except it is a false promise, such children will receive the Spirit. Unless, then, all the children of a believer receive the gift of the Spirit, as well as himself, the gift of the Spirit cannot here be promised to his children, except they believe. Let it be observed, that the gift of the Spirit, as respected his miraculous operations, was given to their children with the limita- tion for which we contend. Some of them, indeed, might be chil- dren under age, but none of them were unbelieving children. They were old enough to prophesy : " And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." This is the promise to which Peter refers, and it was fulfilled, as far as con- cerned miraculous gifts, in the gift of prophecy conferred on their sons and daughters. Surely these prophesying sons and daughters, were believing sons and daughters, — not unbelieving sons and daughters, nor infant sons and daughters. Now, does not the very nature of the gift promised to their sons and daughters, limit the gift to believing sons and daughters ? Nothing can be more clear. But why do ^VQ waste time in ascertaining the nature and extent of this promise, or of any other promise ? Neither this promise, nor any other promise, respects baptism. For argument's sake, let it be granted that the Spirit is promised to all the seed of all be- lievers ; this does not imply their baptism, except it implies faith. The commission limits baptism to believers ; and the baptism that Peter here preaches, is limited to those who repent. Whatever a wild fancy may extort from the promise mentioned, it has no con- cern with baptism. That the promise of the gift of the Spirit is limited to those whom the Lord shall call, with respect to them, their children, and those afar off, is as clear as the light of heaven -, but let it be extended as it may, baptism is not attached to it. The passage has no possible bearing on the subject. Our opponents have a popish perverseness in clinging to arguments that have a thousand and a thousand times been shewn to be inefficient, and which they cannot themselves say bear the weight of their conclu-^ sion, but have merely some favourable aspect toward it. It is a most 252 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. vexatious thing, that, in the dispute about infant baptism, the greatest part of the arguments brought to support it, have no con- cern with baptism at all. Is it not evident, on the very face of the business, that infant baptism is not in the Scriptures, when its ad- vocates are obliged to shelter it under such subterfuges ? Had they real evidence, they have talents to exhibit it. Had they only one sound argument, they would not degrade their understanding by resting on arguments that have no reference to the subject. " Precisely in the same strain," says Mr Ewing, " and almost in the same words, the Apostle Paul asserts the interest which be- lievers from among the Gentiles have, in the family promise made to the Jews ; and in the same way as Peter does, he connects this family promise with family baptism. Gal. iii. 13, 14, 26-29-" Fa~ tnily promise, family baptism ? How are such things to be found in the passage referred to ? Is not the blessing of Abraham, that comes on the Gentiles, justification by the faith of Abraham, in the . seed of Abraham ? Is it not such only who receive " the promise of the Spirit .'"' Do any but believers receive the promise of the Spirit ? Is it not here ex-pressly said, that the " promise of the Spirit*" is " through faith .?" Is it not expressly said, that the blessing of Abraham has come on the Gentiles, that " we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith .?" Can this bless- ing, then, extend farther than the promise of the Spirit connected with it, and to be given through it ? This promise is confined to faith, which clearly determines what the blessing is, and strongly confirms our view of the parallel passage from Acts ii. 39- But Mr Ewing says that Paul here, as Peter does, connects this promise with family baptism. No, Mr Ewing, neither of them connects this promise with family baptism. There is not a shadow of foundation for such an assertion. Peter says nothing of the baptism of the children to whom the promise is made. There is no doubt that such children would be baptized as well as their parents, because they were believers, and had received the gift of the Spirit through faith. But this is not said in the passage, nor implied any other way than, as their parents, they repented, and through faith received the gift of the Spirit. In Gal. iii. 14, even believer baptism is not spoken of as connected with the blessing of Abraham, though it is truly connected with it. In ver. 26, 27, the Apostle speaks of the import of baptism, but not as connected with ver. 14. But where is family baptism.'' How can it be extort- ed from ver. 27 ? Mr Ewing, you might as Mell assert that family SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 253 baptism is connected with the breach of the sixth commandment Shall any man suffer his understanding to be imposed on, by sub- mitting to believe that family baptism is spoken of in such passages as this ? Can a righteous cause require the aid of such support ? Give me Scripture for infant baptism, and I will receive it. Give me any reasoning that is founded on a basis of truth, and I will weigh it. But I can have no respect for a mode of reasoning that founds on nothing, or on untrue assumption. A man would read himself blind, before he would find any thing like family baptism in Gal. iii. It cannot be truth that requires learned and ingenious men to adopt such a mode of defence. Mr Ewing, either yield, or give us argument. Do not continue to force and misrepresent the word of God, to sanction the traditions of men. You are flounder- ing in a quagmire, — every plunge to relieve yourself, will only sink you more deeply. " Unless we admit," says Mr Ewing, " that infants, nay, every relation, both of affinity and descent, which can be considered as his property, are interested in the privileges of a believer's house, I see not a satisfactory meaning of 1 Cor. vii. 12—14." This is an astonishing avowal. Mr Ewing believes that all the unbelieving children of a believer, and his unbelieving wife, have from him a right to all the ordinances of Christ. Well, this is extravagant, but it is only consistent. Others have founded an argument for infant baptism on this passage, but they inconsistently refused to admit the argument with respect to the unbelieving wife. Mr Ewing has perceived that the passage cannot be consistently quoted for the one and not for the other, and that it applies equally to the Lord's Supper ; he therefore, instead of giving up the argu- ment, as proving too much, boldly adopts all its consequences. The unbelieving wife, then, is to be baptized, and to be admitted to all the privileges of a believer's house. This privilege, it seems, is granted on the right of property. The unbelieving wife is to be baptized as the property of her husband. Slaves have a similar claim. To refute so monstrous a position, is any thing necessary but to state it ? Is this like the kingdom of Christ '^ Can any thing be more contrary to the Scripture accoimts of baptism and the Lord's Supper ? Faith is necessary to entitle to admission into a church ; faith is necessary to eat the Lord's Supper without con- demnation ; faith is necessary for baptism. How, then, can an un- believing w'lin, or unbelieving children, be admitted to such privi- leges by this passage ? Can any passage in the word of God give 254 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. a warrant to persons to eat and drink condemnation to themselves ? Can any passage warrant the admission of unbelievers into a church from which the Lord has excluded them ? Can any passage sanction the baptism of unbelievers, when all the accounts of bap- tism require faith ? Can any passage give countenance to persons evidently in their sins, to be admitted to an ordinance that figura- tively exhibits their sins as, by faith in the blood of Christ, already washed away ? This is an extravagance that, in a person who has any notion of Christian fellowship, and the nature of a church, can never be exceeded. With respect to the passage referred to, it is usually and suffi- ciently explained, by an allusion to Ezra x. 3, 44 ; Neh. xiii. 23, 24. The sanctification referred to, must be legitimacy according to the law of God. Such marriages were not lawful to the Jews, and both the wives and their children were put away. It is the duty of the disciples to marry in the Lord ; but even if they trans- gress that law, or are converted after marriage, they are not, like the Jews, to put away their wives and children on repentance. The marriage is to continue, and the relation is sanctified, just as their food is sanctified or blessed to their use. Now this is an important, a most important thing. As Jesus commands his disci- ples to marry in the Lord, had no provision been made, every mar- riage contrary to this, must be given up on repentance, just as fornication and adultery ; and the offspring of such marriages could not be considered as the children of marriage, according to God"*s institution. It is said in reply to this, that even the marriages of unbelievers are lawful, and the offspring legitimate. Certainly — because they are according to the law both of God and man. But as Christ commands his people to marry in the Lord, to marry otherwise is contrary to God''s law. Neither such marriage, then, nor the offspring of it, would be legitimate according to the la\v of God, except by this provision. The marriage might be legitimate according to the law of man, and the children legitimate according to the law of man, but neither would be legitimate according to the law of God. This provision, then, is most lx)untiful and kind. The believer, by remaining in his marriage with the unbeliever, does not continue in sin, as he would by continuing in fornication. His marriage is sanctified to him. I can see no difficulty in the passage. But if any ^vill choose to understand it otherwise, let them have it their own way. In no view of it, can it countenance the baptism of infants or unbelievers. This sanctification, >vhat- SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 255 ever it is, is a marriage sanctification, and not the sanetification of the Spirit through the belief of the truth, which is the only sancti- fication that entitles to any Christian privilege. If such infants were even as holy as the infant John the Baptist, it would not im- ply their baptism. They may possess the holiness that Mall fit them for heaven, without entitling them to baptism. Baptism is for believers, and only for believers. So, then, Mr Ewing can see no meaning in this passage, unless it is a warrant to give to unbelievers those ordinances that Jesus has provided for believers, and from which he has excluded unbe- lievers. If this passage will give a right to introduce the unbe- lieving wife and children of a believer into a church, and to give them the ordinance appointed for believers, — if it will enable such unbelieving wife and children to eat the Lord's supper without eating and drinking condemnation ; may it not also introduce them into heaven on the same ground ? It is said, " he that believeth not shall be condemned ;'*'' but if faith can be dispensed with in the ordinance of Christ, in which it is required, may it not also be dis- pensed with in this threatening ? The same explanation that will baptize an unbeliever, or admit him to the Lord's Supper, will in- troduce him into heaven, in defiance of the damnation pronounced against him by the Saviour himself. What a Avretched thing it is for a Christian to be given up by God to justify the traditions of men, and to fight against the ordinance of Christ ! How wide is the range of this error ! How much of the word of God does its defence oblige its advocates to pervert ! But this is a new, and a strange ground of baptism — baptism on the ground of property ! The unbelieving wife is baptized, not, it seems, in virtue of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, but because she is the property of her believing husband. The promises of the Abrahamic covenant are to his seed, but the wife is included only as property. Can any idea be more abhorrent to the nature of Christ's kingdom .'* Would not this baptize the whole dominions of an absolute king ? I call upon all Christians to reflect on this monstrous avowal. Is it not self-evident that the cause that de- mands this defence, is not the cause of God and truth ? That the baptism of the unbelieving wife is the necessary consequence of the argument for infant baptism brought from this passage, Mr Ewing sees to be inevitable ; and therefore avows the consequence rather than forego the argument. It is then utterly vain for more timid minds to attempt to hold the argument and refuse the conse- 256 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. quence. Mr Ewing being judge, the baptism of the infant must be accompanied with that of the unbelieving wife, and the unbelieving adults of the family. Let them, then, choose which they will. They must take all or nothing. Well, suppose they are all determined to adopt the shocking consequences avowed by Mr Ewing, their hardihood will shew only their disposition. It will not save their cause. This holiness of the unbelieving wife and children, is a holiness not of the truth nor of the Spirit ; and therefore cannot entitle to any ordinance of Clirist's kingdom. It is a holiness of marriage, which is an ordi- nance of God for his people, in common with all men. It is a holi- ness which is here expressly said to belong to unbelievers ; and therefore can have nothing to do with ordinances that were intend- ed for believers. It is a holiness that demands the believing hus- band or wife to live with the unbelieving, not to baptize such. The question treated of is solely this. There is no reference to any ordinance of the kingdom of Christ. Why then should this unbe- lieving holiness admit to the ordinance of Christ's kingdom, more than it will admit to heaven ? All the ordinances of Christ imply, that the partakers of them have the holiness of the truth by the Spirit. If this can be dispensed with as to an avowed unbeliever, the declaration " without holiness no man shall see the Lord," may equally be dispensed with for his salvation. The same reasoning that will baptize the unbelieving wife, will introduce her into hea- ven as an unbeliever. But why are unbelievers of this description baptized rather than any other unbelievers ^ Because, says Mr Ewing, sah^ation is come to the house. Salvation come to the house ! But it seems it has not yet reached the wife, or the husband ; and though it has reached one of them, it may not have reached the children. The wife is here said to be sanctified while an unbeliever. Then salva- tion has not come to her, except the Gospel is false, and she can be saved as an unbeliever. Why, then, should she be baptized, or re- ceive the Lord''s Supper, which supposes that she has been already made a partaker of salvation ? But it may be said, she will yet believe. I reply, although this were certain, it would be no rea- son to give her an ordinance that implies faith and sanctification of the Spirit through the truth. This, however, is not certain, for the reason by which the husband is urged to live with her as an unbeliever, is, not the certainty that she will yet believe, but the mere possibility of this. " For what knpwest thou, O wife, whe- SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 257 ther thou slialt save thy husband ? or, how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ?" Here the mere possibility of the future salvation of the unbelieving husband, or wife, through the means of the other party, is lu-ged as a reason to continue in the marriage relation. Nothing can be a clearer confutation of the opinion of our opponents with respect to the meaning of the ex- pression, " salvation is come to this house," than this passage. The utmost that the apostle states as a ground of not forsaking the un- believing partner, is, that it may turn out to the salvation of such. There is not a single promise pleaded. If this is a ground for bap- tism, we might baptize any person ; for we do not know but he may yet receive the truth. Taylor or Carlile might be baptized on this ground. What a monstrous prostitution of an ordinance of Christ does this vindicate ? It gives the ordinances of Christ to avowed mibelievers, if they will submit to receive them ! Am I reasoning with Mr Ewing ? Have I understood him ? Will he hold infant baptism at so immense a price ? This determined ob- stinacy reminds one of the desperate perseverance of the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem. Is Mr Ewing resolved to overturn the whole spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, rather than sur- render this fortress of the man of sin ? But I appeal to the common sense of all my readers. If it had been the custom to baptize the unbelieving husband or wife on the faith of the believing partner, would there ever have been a question with resj)ect to the propriety of living with such ! If the unbelieving husband or wife was admitted to baptism, would it ever be thought that it was contrary to the holiness of marriage to dwell with such a husband or wife ? Would they suppose, that a holiness that ad- mitted to the ordinances of Chrisfs kingdom, was not sufficient for the sanctifi cation of marriage ? Mr Ewing has had the boldness to carry the principles that justify infant baptism to their proper extent. But he has done no more. Many persons who hold the argument from this passage, will be shocked with his sentiment. It is impossible to vindicate the bap- tism of infants from this holiness, without affording equal ground for the baptism of the unbelieving husband or wife. Mr Ewing has the perspicacity to see this, and he has the hardihood to adopt it. He is just like Mr Hume with respect to the philosophy of his time. Mr Hume, in rearing a system of universal scepticism, did no more than cany the acknowledged principles of philosophy to their just consequences. Granting him his first principles, which R 258 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. were universally taken for granted, he, with the greatest ease, over- turned heaven and earth, matter and spirit. He shocked the world by his conclusions ; and thus led, by an examination of his first principles, to the overthrow of his doctrine. Specious or popular error will never be abandoned, till it is driven into extravagance. I hope Christians, who have any regard for the ordinances of Christ's house, and the spirituality of his kingdom, will be led to examine, with more attention, the foundations of a practice that requires such a justification. If the whole ordinances of the house of God must be profaned ; if the spiritual fabric of his kingdom must be pulled down, in order to make room for infant baptism, surely enlightened Christians may be expected to renounce it. What an awful sentiment has Mr Ewing avowed ! Baptism into the oiame of the Father y and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, may — must be give7i to a professed worshipper of Jupiter, Neptune, and Apollo, with the thousands of inferior gods, if the jmrson is the husband, or the wife, or the slave of a believer, and ivill co7ide~ scend to submit to this Christian institution 1 ! ! To refute this, is it not enough to state it ? Having considered the evidence arising from the commission given to the apostles, and from the practice recorded in the New Testament, I shall now exhibit the evidence that is derived from such allusions to baptism, as may ascertain who were its subjects. In general, it is quite apparent that baptism is not only a figure of the washing away of sin, but that it is always supposed that the sins of those who are baptized are already washed a^vay. Now this can be supposed of none but believers. Infants dying in in- fancy, if saved, have theii* sins washed away. But millions of per- sons who have their sins washed away, have not had them cashed away in infancy. With respect to such, then, baptism, that sup- poses sins already washed away, could have no proper application in their infancy. From John iii. 5. we see that baptism is a figure of regeneration. They who are baptized are represented as born again. Now this is peculiar to believers. Even if there was a certainty that an infant would believe in future time, it woiild be no ground to baptize it. The ordinance exhibits the baptized person as at the time born again. The same thing appears from Titus iii. 5. " Not by works of righteousness M'hich Me have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the ^cashing of regeneration, and rene^ving of the Holy Ghost." Here baptism is called the bath or hner of regenc- SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 259 ration. In the figure, it is the pkice of birth. The baptized per- son is represented as born in the ordinance, and is supposed to be ah'eady born, or renewed by the Spirit. Now, this cannot belong to infants ; because infants dying in infancy are not born of the truth, although they are saved by the blood of Christ ; and if they were, how can they be known ? The multitude of saved adults were not boi*n again in infancy. To say that it may represent that in- fants will be born again, is absui'd. For the ordinance supposes, that they are born again. Besides, it is not certain that they Avill be born again. Theu* new birth is not a matter of course. It would not be the same ordinance, if, when applied to infants, it re- presented what might take place in futurity, and when applied to adults, it represented what had taken place. None are represented in Scripture as born again, except through the belief of the truth. " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, Avhich liveth and abideth for ever," 1 Pet. i. 23. Agreeably to this Ananias says to Paul, " And now, why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," Acts xxii. 16. Here we see baptism figu- ratively washes a\^^ay sins, and supposes that they are previously truly washed away. Could our opponents say to the parents of the infant about to be baptized, " Arise, and wash away the sins of thy infant .'*"" The figure supposes that they are washed away, not that they may, in future time, be washed away. Rom. vi. 3 — 5, and Col. ii. 12. explain baptism in a sense that suits believers only. They who are baj)tized, are baptized into Chrisfs death, as dying with him, and as rising with him to a new life. They are viewed as already risen with him through faith. Can any thing be more express than this ? Are infants risen with Christ through feith of the operation of God ? If not, they are not among the number of those that were baptized. In like manner, 1 Cor. xv. 29, all who are baptized are supposed, by submitting to that ordinance, to profess faith in the resurrection. Of this faith, infants are incapable. In 1 Pet. iii. 21, they who are baptized are represented as having a good conscience, which cannot apply to infants. In Heb. x. 22, 23, baptism is supposed to proceed on a confession of the faith or hope of the baptized persons, which being confessed in baptism, they are exhorted to hold fast without wavering. That the external washing, or figurative bath, belongs only to believers, is seen in Ephes. v. 26; " That he might sanctify and 2C0 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. cleanse It by the washing of water, or the laver of the water, hy the word.'''' Here the bath of baptism is only the figure of that which is done by the word. Believers are washed in baptism only in figure, but the reality of this figure they haA^e had in the belief of the word. Infants are not sanctified by the word, and therefore have nothing to do with that Zat'er o/?6Y/#e7- that is appointed for those who receive the word, to their salvation and sanctification. In 1 Cor. vi. 11, they who were baptized are supposed to be washed, — to be sanctified and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. We learn from Ephes. iv. 5, that there is but one baptism. Now, as the baptism of the commission cannot possibly extend to infants, if there is such a thing as infant baptism, there must be two bap- tisms. If, then, there is but one baptism, there can be no infant baptism. In 1 Cor. xii. 13, it Is taken for granted, all who are baptized belong to the body of Christ. " For by one Spirit are we all bap- tized Into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." They who are baptized, are supposed already to belong to the body of Christ ; and for this reason, they are baptized Into it. They are, by baptism, externally united to that body, to which they are in- ternally united by faith. None are here sujjposed to be baptized upon the expectation, or probability, or possibility, that they may yet belong to that body. They are baptized into the body. Nothing can be more express to this purpose than Gal. Hi. 27, " For as many of you as have been baptized Into Christ, have put on Christ." Here, baptism is represented as Implying a jmtting on of Christ : Surely this is peculiar to believers. Infants cannot put on Christ. Dr Wardlaw thinks he has entirely overturned this ar- gument, but his reply to It has no just application. He quotes Gal. V. 2 — 6, as a parallel to the above phraseology, " Behold, I Paul say unto yon, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to CA^ery man that is circumcised, that he is a del)tor to do the Avhole law. Christ Is become of no effect unto you, whosoeA'or of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace." " In the 27th verse of the third chapter of the same epistle, the apostle says, ' For as many of you as haA^e been baptized unto Jesus Christ, (or, ' ye Avhosoever have been baptized unto Jesus Christ,') have put on Christ.' From this expression," SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 261 says he, " it has been very confidently argued, that adults only were baptized ; because of ' putting on Christ,' adults only were capable. Now, let the principle of interpretation, or of inference, be applied to the passage quoted from the Jifth chapter. It is an address to adults ; it expresses things of which adults 07ily were capable. Are we, then, to infer from this, that adults only were circumcised ? We certainly ought, on the same principle on which we infer from the other, that adults alone were baptized. There is precisely the same ground in the former case as there is in the latter." No, Dr Wardlaw, the cases, instead of being parallel, are entii'ely dissimilar. In the one case, the apostle states the import of an ordinance of God ; in the other, he is not stating the import of an ordinance of God. He does not allege that their submission to baptism was an evidence of putting on Christ, for it is not such ; but it is a jfigure of putting on Christ. Some of them might not turn out to be real believers, but in their baptism they were taken for such ; and without this, baptism had to them no application. It is taken for granted, that all ^vho are baptized have put on Christ. But it is not from the import of circumcision, that the apostle alleges that they were unbelievers who submitted to it. Their receiving of cii'cumcision, as necessary to salvation, was evidence that they were not in the faith. Gal. v. 3. This was decided evidence with respect to every one of them individually, that he was yet in his sins. On the other hand, their baptism was no evidence of their being in the faith ; but this was its import. No two cases, then, can be more ' dissimilar than the two which Dr Wardlaw here pronounces to be precisely similar. Let Dr Wardlaw bring an example of similar phraseology, with respect to the import of any ordinance of God, which yet is divinely appointed for those who are not supposed to *' put on Christ," and he will do something to his purpose. Were the Jews ever addressed with such language as this ? Was it ever said, " whosoever of you have been circumcised in your flesh, have been renewed in your hearts by the Spirit of God.^" No, this could not have been said ; for circumcision never imported this. The Abkahamic Covenant. As infant baptism cannot be found in the New Testament, its advocates have endeavoured to find a cover for it in the Old. They think they have discovered this in the covenant that God made with 262 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Abraham. Of course, that covenant has been much discussed oh this subject, and variously explained, to suit the respective sentiments of the different parties. It is lamentable, that the people of God should allow their sentiments on one subject, to influence their de- cisions, so as to perplex the plainest things. Nothing but the sup- posed connexion of the Abrahamic covenant with the subject of infant baptism, could produce such a diversity of opinion in explaining that covenant. I have read much that I cannot approve, on both sides of this question ; and I cannot but think, that, in many instances, both parties have been more guided by their view of its bearing on the subject of baptism, than by an intense desire to ascertain the import of the documents before them. As I am convinced that truth must be consistent with itself, I have no fear that any real evidence can ever be deduced from the Abrahamic covenant, in opposition to what the Lord has so plainly established in the New Testament. The covenant with Abraham, I am convinced, is, like every other part of the Old Testament, full of instruction to us, and is worthy of the most careful study. But as no view of this subject can have the most distant bearing on infant baptism, I do not think it neces- sary fully to examine that covenant. I entirely agree v/ith those who consider this covenant as having a letter and a spirit. For the accomplishment of the grand promise, that all nations should be blessed in Abraham, three promises were given to him. First, a numerous posterity, which was fulfilled in the letter, in the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution, that makes all believers the children of Abraham. The unbelieving Jews were Abraham's children as to the flesh, yet there is a sense in which Jesus denies that they were the children of Abraham. The second promise was to be a God to him and his seed, which was fulfilled in the letter by his protectioil of Israel in Egypt, — his delivering of them from bondage, — his taking them into covenant at Sinai, — and all his subsequent dealings M'ith them in their generations, till they were cast off" by their re- jection of Christ. This promise is fulfilled in the Spirit, by God's being a God to all believers, and to them alone, Horn. iv. 11, 12, in a higher sense than he was to Israel, Jer. xxxi. 33. The third promise was of the land of Canaan, fulfilled in the letter to Israel, and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel in the possession of the heavenly inheritance. In accordance M'ith this double sense of the promises of this covenant, the kingdom of God in Israel, with its officers, laws, worship, &c. is a visible model of the invisible king- SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 263 dom of Christ. The typical ordinances, which exhibited the truths of the gospel in figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity ; and present spiritual things to the mind in so definite and striking a manner, that they add the greatest lustre to the doc- trines of gi'ace. What a striking emblem of the incarnation have we in God's dwelling in the tabernacle and temple ! Hom^ clearly do we see substitution and imputation in the laying on of hands on the victim ! How blind must they be, who do not see the atone- ment by the blood of Christ, in the sacrifices of Israel ! This appears to me to be the only view of the covenant of Abra- ham, that will suit every thing said of it in the word of God. That it has a letter and a spirit, is true, and analogous to every part of the Old Testament. But as long as Christians look at this covenant, on the one side to make it a foundation for a New Testa-; ment ordinance, and, on the other, to make it as unfit as possible for such a purpose, it need not be expected that the mind of the Spirit will be understood. It will be easy for a little perverse ingenuity on either side, to set it in a light that will perplex the simple. If any one can say with the Psalmist, " I opened my mouth, and panted ; for I longed for thy commandments,"" let him come with me beyond the cloud that has been raised around the Abrahamic covenant, and try what we can discover in the sun-shine on the other side. Let them make what they will of that covenant, I maintain that it af- fords no foundation for infant baptism. They tell us that the cove- nant of Abraham was the New Covenant. Now, for arguments sake, let it be the New Covenant, and I deny the result that they wish to draw. Infants are not saved by the New Covenant, and therefore they cannot be connected with it, in any view that represents them as interested in it. It is a vulgar mistake of theolo- gians to consider, that if infants are saved, they must be saved by the New Covenant. There is no such doctrine exhibited in any part of the book of God. Infants must be saved as sinners, and saved through the blood of Christ ; but there was no necessity to give a covenant to man to ratify this. Whether all infants dying in infancy are saved, or only some infants, they are saved just as adults, as to the price of redemption, and as to the sanctification of their nature. But they are not saved as adults, by the truth believed. That sacrifice which is the ground of the New Covenant, is the salvation of saved infants. But there is no part of the word of God, that intimates that it is through faith in that sacrifice. God, who ap- plies that sacrifice to adults only through faith, can apply it to dying 264 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. infants without faith, — for faith has no merit more than works. It is only the divinely appointed medium. Theologians have mani- fested a great want of discrimination on this subject. That neces- sity of faith which the Scriptures apply to adults, and adults only, theologians have applied to infants, without warrant, as if God was hound to proceed towards them as he does towards adults. Therefore it is that, even in Dr Dwight, we find that frightful fanaticism, that speaks of the infant faith of John the Baptist ; as if God could not save or sanctify an infant without faith, because none who hear the gosjiel can be sanctified without faith. Surely it ought to make every sober mind suspect that there must be some- thing wrong at the bottom of these views, that must consider an unconscious infant as possessing faith. Did ever Joanna Southcote say any thing more extravagant .'' But this view not only leads to absurdity, it takes its origin in that principle of self-righteousness that is so prone, even in Chris- tians, to work itself into every subject of divine revelation of which they are ignorant. It supposes that it is so necessary for man to do something as to his acceptance Avith God, that even the infant who cannot comply with the terms itself, must do it by its substitute. It has its name put into the covenant, or put into the gospel grant.^ And who is he that will undertake to put a name into God's coA'e- nant ? What Antichrist will dare to take the throne of Jesus, and put a name into the gospel grant ? Even the most pious men, when ignorant of God's ordinances, will attempt to establish the ordinances of man. Even the pious Henry speaks in this anti- christian style. So true it is, that we cannot oppose any part of the divine counsel, Avithout loss. Every error is in some way injurious to the grand truth of the gospel itself. Theologians, justly considering that infants have sinned in Adam, have also justly considered that they must be washed in the blood of the Saviour. But they have, without warrant, and without discrimination, considered that they must be saved by that covenant that was glA'en for the salvation of believers. But they can have nothing to do Avith a covenant that reciulres faith for s-alvation. Were it true that Infants could not be saved but by this covenant, none of them Avould be saved. This \vould denounce to condemna- tion all who die before the belief of the gospel. The Ncav Covenant knows nothing of any salvation but through fiiith. " He that be- lle\'eth shall be sa\'ed ; he that believeth not, shall be damned,"" is the testimony from which it nev^r for a moment sAverves. Such a SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 265 covenant cannot save an infant, who believes nothing. But there is a covenant in which they are included, and which will save as many of them as are included in it, — the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, in which he engaged to lay down his life as a ransom for his chosen, whether infants or adults. Though infants are not saved by faith, they can join in the song of the Lamb in heaven, " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." But let us ask Jeremiah, xxxi. 31, — let us ask the Apostle Paul, Heb. viii. 10, 11, who they are that are included in the New Cove- nant. " For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." " And they shall not teach every one his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord : for all shall know me, from the least to the great- est." Here we see that all who are included in this covenant, have the laws of God put into their mind, and \vritten on their heart by himself. Can this be said of infants ? The subjects of this covenant, know the Lord — all of them — even the least of them. This surely cannot include infants, who know nothing. Is there not a necessity to teach children, as soon as they are capable of instruction, to know the Lord ? Are any children found who need not this instniction ? If not, there are no infants in this covenant. The sacrifice of the Son of God, was as necessary for infants as for adults. But had it pleased God that all the elect should die in in- fancy, there would have been no need of the New Covenant at all. The gospel would then have never been preached. To keep in mind this distinction, would preserve theologians fi-ee from many of then* embarrassments. The necessity of faith, and the necessity of atonement, are not of the same kind. Ignorance of this, has led to the most frantic extravagance. In order to save infants, some have been led to assert that they have faith ; others, that thev have im- putative faith ; and others, that they have habitual faith. Now, all these opinions are grounded on ignorance of the difference be- tween the necessity of faith, and the necessity of redemption or atonement. The infant faith of Luther, the imputative infant faith of Calvin, and the habitual infant faith of the Church of Rome, have a common foundation in ignorance of this distinction and are all opposed to sound views of the truth. Even Dr Williams an English Independent, and a writer of celebrity, makes the most 266 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. doleful lamentation about cutting off infants from the church milu tant^ by refusing to include them in the commission of the Apostles. Militant infants ! What an idea ! Might we not as well attempt to cure bedlam with syllogisms, as reason with persons who speak of believing militant infants ? If any general would talk of raising an army of infants to oppose an invading enemy, he would at once be deemed insane, and his sovereign would not one moment longer entrust him to command — no, not though he were the Duke of Wellington. But when Doctors of Divinity speak like madmen, it is only the depth of their theological learning, and they are only the more admu*ed. 2. My second obsei-vation Is, that the infants even of Abraham himself, were not saved, when they died in infancy, by Abraham's co- venant. He was not the spiritual father of his own infant seed. It is a common opinion, that Abraham, by that covenant, was con- stituted the head of all the redeemed. But this is a grand mistake. He was the head of believers only. By that covenant he was con- stituted the father of believers in all ages, but of none else. He was made the father of all them that believe out of every nation ; and to his own descendants he was " the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circvimcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith" Avhich Abraham had. So then he was the spi- ritual father of none among his own descendants, but of such as believed. There was, then, by this covenant, no spiritual connexion between Abraham and his infant seed. His justification was not the pattern of theirs. He was justified by faith : his infants dying in infancy were not justified by faith. They were saved, as all saved infants were saved fi'om the beginning of the world, and will to the end of the world, through the bruising of the heel of the seed of the woman. Dr Wardlaw calls on his opponents to shew where the spiritual connexion between believers and their infant seed, established by this covenant, is cut off: I cut it off' by shewing that it never ex- isted. Abraham himself had no such spiritual connexion with his infant seed. The covenant with Abraham made no new relation between him and his infant seed ; and much less did it constitute a spiritual relation between every believer and his infant seed. But even had this covenant constituted a new relation between Abraham and his infant seed, Dr Wardlaw is wrong in throwing the biu'then of proof on his opponents, with respect to the supposed SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 267 similar relation between eveiy believer and his infant seed. There might have been snch a connexion in the case of Abraham and his seed, withont involving the necessity of a similar connexion be- tween other believers and their seed. Dr Wardlaw contends, that if such a connexion existed in the case of Abraham, it lies on his o^jponents to prove that it was discontinued. But surely it is a self-evident truth, that the burthen of proof lies on him who needs as an argument the thing to be proved. For if nothing is proved about it on either side, it cannot be used as an argument. Before any thing can be legitimately built on it, it must be proved, if it is not self-evident. To prove such a connexion, then, between Abra- ham and his seed by this covenant, is not proof that such a con- nexion exists between other believers and their seed. The latter must be proved before it is admitted. Granting, then, that there ■was a spiritual connexion constituted between Abraham and his in- fant seed by this covenant, that such a connexion exists between every believer and his infant seed, is a thing that must be proved. This proof is sometimes rested on Gal. iii. where the blessing of Abraham is said to come on the Gentiles. But that blessing is not the blessing of a spiritual connexion between believers and their seed, but the blessing of having faith counted for righteousness, or of being justified as Abraham was justified. What that blessing is, we see in verse 9. " So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham," None, then, are blessed with faithfiil Abraham, but " they which be of faith." In verse 7? it is said, " Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Abraham, then, has no children spiri- tually, but such as are of faith. Between him and his infants there was no spiritual connexion. 3. My third observation is, that the covenant of Abraham is not made Avith all believers. Indeed, it is strange that there should be a necessity to make such an observation. The Abrahamic covenant is so evidently peculiar, that it is the most extravagant absurdity to suppose, that it is made with eveiy believer in every age. Let us take a look at this covenant, as it is recorded in Gen. x:ii. 1. *' Now, the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy countiy, and from thy kindred, and from thy father''s house, unto a land that I will shew thee : And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Is 268 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. it not absolute lunacy to suppose, that this covenant is made with all believers ? Has God promised to every believer that he will make of him a great nation ? Has God promised to every believer that he will make his name great ? Is every believer to become as celebrated as Abraham ? Has God promised to every believer, that the Messiah shall descend from him, or that in him all families of the earth shall be blessed ? Every believer, indeed, is to be blessed according to that covenant ; but it is by having his faith, like Abra- ham's, counted for righteousness, not by becoming, like Abraham, the father of any of the faithful. Let us look again at Gen. xv. 5. " Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them : and he said un- to him. So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness. And he said unto him, I am the Lord, that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it." Is every believer to have a posterity as nu- merous as the stars of heaven "^ Is every believer to have the land of Canaan for his posterity ? It is said that every believer has a provi- sion from God. This is granted, but is that a fulfilling of this promise ? This is Canaan ; and the Avhole earth, with the excep- tion of that land, would not fulfil this promise. Every believer has a provision from God, but not in virtue of this covenant, nor at all suitable to the inheritance here promised. Abraham's posterity must have that land. No other believer has this promise, nor a promise at all corresponding to it. The most of the Lord's people have no Canaan on earth, though every one of them, with Abra- ham, is by faith heir of that better country typified by Canaan. Let us read again Gen. xvii. 5. " Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a fa- ther of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee ex- ceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an ever- lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- lasting possession ; and I will be their God." Now, can any one think that this covenant is made with every believer ? Has every believer a promise that kings shall descend from him ? This cove- nant is indeed everlasting. It is everlasting to the carnal seed, first, as the covenant of royalty was everlasting to the seed of David, and as the covenant of the priesthood was everlasting to the seed SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 269 of Phinehas. But in all such promises there is a spirit and a letter. The covenant of Abraham is everlasting in the full sense of the word, for by it all Abraham's spiritual seed are blessed with him, by hav- ing their faith counted for righteousness to the end of the world. All believers in every age are blessed by this covenant ; but to them it is not promised, as it was to Abraham, that God would be the God of their seed, for it does not secure that they shall have any offspring at all. This covenant secured to Abraham that he should have a seed, — that God would be the God of that seed. Had not God provided a seed both carnal and spiritual for Abraham, he would have broken this covenant. When God promised to Phine- has, " And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the cove- nant of an everlasting priesthood," Numb. xxv. 13, a posterity is secured by this promise. But believers often have no posterity, there- fore they cannot have the covenant of Abraham. Believers have their own place in that covenant, but that is to be blessed in the seed of Abraham, and like him, to have their faith counted for righteousness. The promise to the seed is to Abraham's seed only — not to the seed of all believers. That Abraham's covenant is given to all believers, is not said here, nor any where else. Abra- ham's covenant is as peculiar to himself, as the covenant of royalty was to David, or the covenant of the priesthood to Phinehas. Even if the covenant of Abraham had promised, that every one of Abra- ham's posterity, by all his wives, to the end of the world, should be heirs of heaven, other believers have no concern in it. What was promised to Abraham's seed, was not promised to their seed. That covenant constitutes all believers Abraham's seed, and secures to them an inheritance as such. But of their seed it says nothing. > 4. My fourth observation is, that the covenant of Abraham is not the new covenant, or the gospel. Dr Wardlaw supposes that Gal. iii. 8, establishes the identity of the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant so clearly, that is a matter of surprise that any should doubt it. " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abra- ham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." But this does not make Abraham's covenant the gospel. It preached the gospel by promising, that all nations should be blessed in Abraham. It might be said also of the Sinai covenant, that it preached the gos- pel, because the giving of the law through a mediator was a figure of Christ. Every part of the legal dispensation preached the gos- pel, and still preaches the gospel, Rom. x. 4. Will Dr Wardlaw 270 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. say, tliat there was nothing in the covenant of Abraham but the gospel ? And that all its promises are promises of the gospel, to be fulfilled to every believer ? Is it a part of the gospel, that God will be a God to the seed of believers, as he was to the seed of Abraham ? Is this contained in the promise, " In thee shall all nations be bless- ed ?" This is the declaration that is said to have preached the gos- pel to Abraham prophetically. But it says nothing to Dr Ward- law''s purpose. Many things essential to Abraham's covenant, are not promised by the gospel to all believers. It is, then, only an abuse of words to call Abraham''s covenant the gospel. 5. My fifth observation is, that the promises of the covenant of Abraham, were not to his seed, either carnal or spiritual, exactly the same as to himself. God promised a numerous seed to Abraham. But this is not promised to his seed, either spiritual or carnal, indi- vidually. So far from this, the covenant of Abraham did not seciu'e to any individual of his race, that he should have any descendants, except to Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was expressly given. It would have been quite consistent with all the promises of that covenant, that any other individual should be childless ; nay, that the most righteous man of his race might either have no chil- dren, or reprobate children. By the covenant, Abraham must have a succession of carnal and spiritual seed ; but this is not promised to his descendants. The race of any other righteous descendant of Abraham, except Isaac and Jacob, might have been totally cut off' for their sins, without any violation of Abraham's covenant. No Israelite, then, except Isaac and Jacob, had Abraham's covenant. This is a grand mistake in Dr Wardlaw. He supposes that every believer has Abraham's covenant, whereas no other man ever had it in all respects. Even Isaac and Jacob had it not in all respects. They were not the fathers of all M'ho belie^'e, while in some respects the whole Jewish nation had the covenant of Abra- ham. Granting, then, that believers now have the covenant of Abraham, even as his OM^n believing descendants had it till the coming of Christ, this does not give them any promise to their seed. If any man is a believer, God m ill be his God, according to the covenant of Abraham, or he is by faith one of the seed of Abraham; but that he shall have a spiritiuil or a carnal seed, is not promised by that covenant. The covenant secures this to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob only ; for to these it ^vas individually given. It is as absurd for a believer to claim the promises to Abraham, as to claim the crown of Great Britain. This is a point as clear 9s the light of SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 27I heaven, and it ovei'tunis all the elaborate deductions that have been drawn from the Abraliamic covenant. 6. My sixth observation is, that the promise, " I will be a God to thy seed," has a letter and a spmt. It is said, that in this promise God must be a God to Abraham''s seed, in the same sense in which he was a God to himself. I acknowledge, that from the words of the promise we could learn no distinction. But this is not absolutely necessaiy, and other Scriptures demand a distinction. Whether it has not an inferior sense in the letter, must be deter- mined by the history of Abraham's descendants. Now, that it has an inferior sense in the letter, is one of the clearest things in the Old Testament. God is every where considered as the God of the \rhole Jewish nation, even in the worst periods of their history. This cannot imply that he was their God, in the full sense in which he was the God of Abraham. Let lis take a glance at a few passages that establish this distinc- tion. Exod. xxix. 45, " And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God." This is spoken of the whole Jew- ish nation, who never were, as a nation, the true people of God. It might be said that this is spoken with respect to them, as all in the New Testament churches are addressed as saints, though there might be some who were not really such. But this is not an an- swer. All in the New Testament churches had given evidence that they were believers, though afterwards some of them turned out not to be such. But no such thing was ever supposed with re- spect to the Jews. They had their privileges, not by evidence of saintship, but by their birth. They were not only born into the kingdom of Israel, but were not aftenvards put away for unbelief. There never was a law given them, as it was to the churches of Christ, that none but saints should belong to the nation or church of Israel. In Exod. xxxii. 11, we read, " And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said. Lord, M^hy doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people F"" — " Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.'''' — " And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do against his people.'''' Here the worshippers of the golden calf are called God"'s people; and the ground on which Moses pleads that God would not execute vengeance, is, that his promise of their inheriting the land might not be violated. The same thing is evident from Lev. xxvi. 44, " And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and 272 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. to break my covenant with them : for I am the Lord their God!'' Even in Babylon he fulfilled his promise of being unto them the Lord their God. Agreeably to this, God is every where in the Old Testament considered as the husband of Israel ; and this relation is acknow- ledged even in her adulteries. Isaiah iii. 14, " Turn, O backslid- ing children, saith the Lord ; for I am married nnto you." But it would be endless to quote passages. Now, God was the husband of Israel only in the letter, which was accomplished in Jesus be- coming the husband of his Church. That the covenant of Abraham has a letter and a spirit, is not a theory formed to serve a purpose, but is consonant to every part of the Old dispensation, and is the only thing that can harmonize it with the New. The temple was the house of God in the letter ; believers are so in the spirit. To call any house the house of God, is as much below the sense which the same phrase has when it is applied to the Church of Christ, as to call the nation of Israel the people of God, is below the sense which that phrase has when ap- plied to the spiritual Israel. Besides, there are many things spoken about the house of God in the letter, in terms that can only fully suit the spirit. " I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever," 1 Kings viii. 13. The incongruity of supposing him, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain, to dwell in a house as a settled habitation, is remov- ed only by referring it to the spirit, or God as dwelling in the flesh. Christ's body is the only temple of which this is fully true. God did not dwell in the temple built by Solomon for cA'er. But in the spirit, it is accomplished in its utmost extent. God will dwell in the temple of Christ's body for ever. In like manner, in ansM'er to Solomon, God declares, " I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever ; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually," 1 Kings ix. 3. It is only in Christ the Spirit that this is fully accomplished. In him the name of God is put for ever ; and in him is he propitious to his people for ever. His eyes are long ago turned from the house at Jerusa- lem. The nation of Israel was the kingdom of God as the letter : the church of Christ is the kingdom of God as the spirit. The nation of Israel ^ras a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation : the church of Christ is the spirit of which the otiuT was but the letter. Israel was an elected people ; but they M'cre only types of tlie true election. They >vere all Jews in the letter ; but it is said, not- SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 273 withstanding, that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, Rom. ii. 28. There was an Israel after the flesh, and an Israel after the Spirit. " For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children : but. In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the chil- dren of the flesh, those are not the children of God : but the chil- dren of the promise are counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 6. Here we are furnished with an inspired commentary on this covenant. God \Fas the God of the nation of Israel in the letter ; and as such, he gave them an inheritance and laws, and ordinances of worship, &c. Even in that sense, he was not ashamed to be called their God ; for he prepared for them a city. But to those who, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, desired a better countiy, that is, an heavenly, he prepared a city fully answerable to the magnificence of the title, people of God. Of all the innumerable things which have a letter and a spirit with respect to Christ and his people, there is not one instance in which a magnificence is not given to the letter, which can be fully found only in the spirit. So little reason have we to think It strange, that God should call himself the God of a whole nation in a typical sense, when the body of that nation were not his true people. 7- My seventh observation is, that \^'hen a promise has a letter and a spirit, it is fulfilled when it Is accomplished in either the letter or the spirit. It has two distinct accomplishments, and may be fidfilled in either, or in both. The Scriptures afibrd many ex- amples to justify this observation. When, then, it is said that both the temporal promises and the spiritual in the covenant of Abraham are to the same seed, all that can be admitted is, that the words of the covenant do not make the distinction. But the dis- tinction is seen In the history of the fulfilment of the promises, and In the explanation of these promises. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, clearly shews the distinction between the two seeds ; and the history shews us that the nation in general enjoyed the temporal promises, but only few of them enjoyed the spiritual. No- thing can be clearer than this, and it is useless to reason with any who have so little spiritual discernment, as to think that all who enjoyed the earthly Canaan, were also heirs of the heavenly. The Pharisees and Sadducees enjoyed the earthly rest, while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were strangers In Canaan, and died not having received the promises. 8. My eighth observation is, that circumcision neither signed s 274 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. nor sealed the blessings of the covenant of Abraham, to the indivi- duals to whom it was by divine appointment administered. It did not imply that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs of the promises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them individually as heirs of the promises. It did not imply this even to Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham. Their interest in the promises was secured to them, by God's expressly giving them the covenant, but was not repre- sented in their circumcision. Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself. It was the token of this covenant ; and as a token or sign, no doubt applied to every promise in the covenant, but it did not designate the individuals circumcised as having a personal interest in these promises. The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham ; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this. But it did not sign this to any other. Any other circum- cised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was given by name, might have been childless. Circumcision did not import to any individual, that any portion of the numerous seed of Abraham should descend through him. The covenant pro- mised that all nations should be blessed in Abraham, or that the Messiah should be his descendant. But circumcision was no sign to any other that the Messiah should descend from him, — even to Isaac and Jacob this promise was peculiarly given, and not implied in theii' circumcision. From some of Abraham's race, the Messiah, according to the covenant, must descend, and circumcision was a sign of this ; but this was not signed by circumcision to any one of all his race. Much less could circumcision sign this to the strang- ers and slaves who were not of Abraham's posterity. The cove- nant promised Canaan to Abraham's descendants, but circumcision could be no sign of this to the strangers and slaves who enjoyed no inheritance in it. Indeed, even to Abraham's seed, it could not sign Canaan individually. For upwards of foiu' hundred years from the institution of circumcision, Abraham's posterity did not enjoy Canaan, and millions of infants died without having enjoyed it. To these, then, circumcision could not be a sign of their en- joyment of that land. If it is said, that though they did not pos- sess it, they had a right to it, I reply, that they had no right to it more than possession, for God Avovild not do wrong in depriving them of their right. What was the ground of their right ? Had they a promise or grant ? They had not. Tlie land was promised SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 275 to the seed of Abraham by Jacob, but not to all of them. Had it been promised to them all, they must have all enjoyed it, for God does not break his promises. To Abraham, it was individually pro- mised, as also to Isaac and Jacob ; and to them the promise was fulfilled in the spirit, as it was to many in the letter, who enjoyed not the promise in the spirit. They obtained the better country de- noted by the promise of Canaan, and so, though they died not hav- ing received the promises, they died that they might receive them. When a prediction, or promise, has a letter and a spirit, it is ful- filled when it is accomplished either in the letter or the spirit. What sort of a right is a right to possess what is never designed to be given ? A man may have a right to possess what he never possesses, but assuredly he will have no such right from God. God will not withhold any right : Abraham must have enjoyed what was promised. The promise of the land, then, must in the letter have respected Abraham's posterity, while it was accomplished to himself in a higher sense. He died, not disappointed, but looking for the promise. As the promises in the Abrahamic covenant were all unconditional, they must have been fulfilled to every individual interested in them. But whatever may be said about the right of possessing Canaan, with respect to those who did not possess it, the reply of Mr Innes is abundantly sufficient. " Even this right to Canaan only belonged to one branch of Abraham's family, while circumcision was to be administered to all. To those who were subjected to it, then, it did not, as individuals, seal temporal blessings. Again, no one will allege it sealed spiritual blessings to every one to whom it was applied, as it was manifest,- that many of those commanded to re- ceive it, had no interest in such blessings." Much stress has been laid on Rom. iv. 11, in which circum- cision is called " a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had, yet being uncLrcumcised."" It is said that it was a seal of spiritual blessings. Undoubtedly it was a seal of spu'itual blessings, but not a seal to the individuals who were circum- cised, that they were personally interested in these blessings. It seals the truth of the gospel, namely, that there is righteousness in the faith of Abraham, or that all who have Abraham's faith have righteousness. This is what it sealed when applied to Abra- ham ; this is what it sealed in every instance of its appli- cation. But it did not seal, even to Isaac and Jacob, that they had this righteousness. It sealed the same truth when applied to Ishmael or Esau, or the slaves bought with money, as it did when 276 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. applied to tliose who walked in the steps of Abraham's faith. It had no individual application to any man but Abaham himself. Words cannot more expressly assert, that the thing of which cir- cumcision is a seal, is the righteousness of the faith of Abraham. It was not a seal to others that they possessed the faith of Abra- ham. Dr Wardlaw supposes that such a marked reference to Abraham, would be inconsistent Avith farther trial. But this is a strange observation from an experienced Christian, deeply conver- sant with the Bible and his own heart. Were we in the morning assured, by a voice from heaven, that God had accepted us, were Satan to be let loose upon us, and we left to ourselves, it would not secure us till the evening from all the horrors of despair. Had God forsaken Abraham for a moment, he might have doubted whether it was God who had spoken to him in these transactions. Trial is not inconsistent with the utmost assurance that the Christian re- ceives in this world. He may hold the truth this moment with the utmost assurance ; let him be given into the hands of Satan to sift him, and he may doubt it the next. Christ himself received his Father's testimony by a voice from heaven, before he entered on his temptations, yet they were not less a trial on that account. That circumcision was not intended to seal any thing personally to those who received it, is clear from its being applied to those who have no interest in the covenant to which it was attached. For a full, clear, and satisfactory view of this argument, I refer to Mr Innes, in his work entitled Eugenio and Epinetus. Dr Ward- law alludes to it, but he cannot be said even to have assailed it. Every position of Mr Innes remains unshaken. Ishmael was circimi- cised, who was expressly excluded from the covenant. Abraham's slaves Avere commanded to be circumcised, without any reference to faith. " He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be cu'cumcised," Gen. xvii. 13. " And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house ; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the self-same day, as God had said imto him," 23. Dr Wardlaw supposes that submission on the part of the adult slaves must have been voluntr.ry. But this is not necessary. As a master, he had power to enforce obedience, and this commission authorised him. Abraham would have been justified in circumcising his slaves, had every one of them submitted ^^•ith reluctance, or had endeavoured to resist. If, then, this is the law of baptism, it will justify the Spa- niards in compelling the American Ijidians to be baptized. Nay, it SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 277 will make it the duty of every master of slaves to have them bap- tized, whether they have faith or not ; for Abraham was bound to circumcise every slave and every person in his house. Dr Ward- law speaks of force as being a profanation of a divine ordinance. To this Mr Haldane's rej)ly is quite in point. " If in Israel a beau- tiful woman was taken captive, and an Israelite chose to marry her, it was the divine ordinance that her hair and nails should be cut. Now, why should there be greater profaneness in cutting off the foreskin .?" But this objection is founded on an entire mistake, as to the nature of the profanation of a divine ordinance. How is a divine ordinance profaned ? When it is not in all respects applied according to institution. It cannot be a profanation of the ordi- nance of circumcision, to apply it to those to whom it is expressly enjoined. Had murderers and adulterers been included in the com- mand to baptize, and to eat the Lord''s Supper, it would have been no profanation of divine ordinances more than to preach the gospel to such persons, profanes the gospel. Does Dr Wardlaw mean, that to force compliance to his appointments would be profane in God ? Man has no right to use force with respect to divine ap- pointments, because God has not given that authority. But God is a sovereign in all respects, and ma)^ in justice enforce obedience. Accordingly, he commanded the Canaanites to be cut off, and all idoiators to be destroyed out of Israel. This is a grand distinc- tion between the Jewish dispensation and the Christian. The sub- jects of Christ's kingdom are all voluntary. To baptize infants is to profane baptism, because it applies the ordinance to those not appointed to receive it. But to force slaves to receive circumcision is not a profanation, for Abraham's commission warranted force. But even although the submission to circumcision had not been voluntary on the part of the slaves ; is a voluntary submission all that is required for baptism ? Is any man to be baptized who is willing to submit to the ordinance ? Dr Wardlaw endeavours to obtain some relief from the faithfulness of Abraham, in teaching his family. But whatever may be supposed as to his faithfulness and success in teaching his slaves, their circumcision is not grounded on this, but on their being his property, and in his house. The com- mand will apply to one that had been bought on that day, or to the most profane scoffer, as well as to Eliezer of Damascus. But what an extravagant supposition, that every slave in Abraham's house had Abraham's faith ! And if they had not Abraham's faith, they were not such as had a right to baptism. If all Abraham's 278 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. household were so well taught, Abraham was much more successful with his slaves than Jacob was with his sons. But we need not waste time in refuting a supposition that is altogether apocryphal. There is nothing said about the knowledge or faith of Abraham's slaves ; and they were commanded to be circumcised, not on ac- count of their faith or knowledge, but on account of being the pro- perty of Abraham. The circumcision of tlie slaves, which destroys the system of our opponents, is not only consonant to our views, but appears as suit- able as the circumcision of the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. It is one of the patterns of heavenly things. As na- tural birth gives a title to circumcision and the earthly inheritance, which was a figure of the title of all who are born of the Spirit, to enjoy the heavenly inheritance ; so the circumcision of the slaves bought with money, represented that all who enter into Chrisfs kingdom are bought with his blood. The circumcision of the slaves is as instructive as the circumcision of Isaac. He had a typical holiness, perfectly the same with the natural posterity of Abraham. The purpose of God in the circumcision of both Abraham''s pos- terity and of their slaves, was totally independent of personal cha- racter. Such a circumcisiouj then, could not imply, that the individuals had an interest in the spiritual promises of the covenant. Indeed, the circumcision of slaves did not make them partakers even of the temporal promises. " Servants," says Mr Haldane, " although circumcised, did not possess the privileges of the children of Abra- ham, nor were looked upon as the people of God. They had no share of the land, and there was no precept against selling them to another nation, \vhen they would lose all privileges of Israel. This also manifestly appears from many considerations. In many of the laws, the distinction between Israel, -vvho were the Lord's servants, and the stranger, is stated. Thus they might lend on usury to a stranger, but not to their brother, Deut. xxiii. 20. They were not to eat what died of itself. They were to give it unto the stranger that was in their gates, that he might eat it, or they might sell it to an alien, and the reason given is, " For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God," Deut. xiv. 21. They might also buy bondmen and bondmaids, not only of the heathen round about them, but of the children of the stranger that sojourned among them, but they could not keep an Israelite a bondman. Lev. xxv. 39 — 46. Thus it appears, that a person being circumcised, did not SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 279 thereby become entitled to the privileges of the children of Abra- ham, or of God's peculiar people." The Shechemites also, as Mr Haldane observes, were circumcised not only without evidence of faith, but even without a profession of it, which could not have been done with the approbation of Jacob, had it been unlawful. Here, then, persons are circumcised not only who had no evidence of being interested in the promises of the covenant, but who were shut out from its temporal promises most expressly. From the spiritual pro- mises they were excluded as long as they continued unbelievers, but from the temporal promises they were excluded for ever. Persons, then, were circumcised who never could obtain an interest in some of the blessings of the covenant of which circumcision was the token. How absurd, then, to make this the law of baptism ! But that circumcision as a seal, had a personal reference to in- fants, is impossible. Our opponents generally say, that circumci- sion was a seal of spiritual blessings ; but the spiritual blessing of which it is said to be the seal, is the righteousness of the faith of Abraham. Now, of this spiritual blessing infants do not partake. They do not possess the faith of Abraham. Circumcision, then, cannot seal what is not true. To all infants it is equally un- suitable AS a seal. None of them possess the faith of the righ- teousness of which circumcision was the seal. The argument, then, from circumcision for the baptism of infants, is utterly groundless. The former was applied to those who were manifestly destitute of an interest in the blessings of the covenant of Abraham. The spu'itual or emblematical meaning of circumcision, the change of -the heart by the Holy Spirit, is also without personal re- ference to the circumcised infants. Infants are circumcised in the flesh, but were not circumcised in the heart. Fanaticism itself can- not suppose, that all the male infants of Israel, and of the slaves of Israel, were renewed by the Holy Spirit before the eighth day. The thing, therefore, that is shadowed by circumcision, is not to be found in the infants who were circumcised. In this it differs by the distance of heaven and earth from baptism. That circumcision had no personal reference to the individuals circumcised, is also evident from the fact, that when a stranger de- su'ed to eat the passover, all the males of his family must be cir- cumcised. " And when a stranger shall sojoiu'n with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it," Ex. xii. 43. Here there is no faith required in the person who desires to eat the passover, nor in 280 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. his adult males, whether children or slaves, who are to be circum- cised as the condition of his eating the passover. The circumcision of his whole male family takes place as a matter of course. There is then no law that requires even a profession of faith in the God of Israel, in order to entitle a stranger to eat the passover. There is no condition of either faith or character. And had he a thousand unbelieving children and slaves, he has a divine warrant to circum- cise them. Our opponents are in the habit of insisting that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, or that it is the Christian circumcision. But this is the most groundless figment, for which thei'e is no plau- sible foundation in the word of God. Yet the thing is so generally received, that it is taken for gi'anted as a first principle. To over- turn it, nothing more is necessary than to call for its proof. Col. ii. 11, 12, is usually appealed to as giving some countenance to the idea ; and Mr Ewing is confident that, on any other principle, the apostle"'s reasoning is inconclusive, and even his language unintelli- gible. Now, it is ^^ery strange how this passage can be made to speak so decisively on this point. Let us hear it speak for itself: " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision madeM'ith- out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : Buried with him in baptism, Avherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This passage says not a word about the subject, either expressly or by implication. How, then, does Mr Ewing extract his notion from it ? Why, by the help of a little management. He represents the apostle as saying, " Being buried with Christ by the washing of baptism, they are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." Ah, Mr Ewing, can your conscience allow you to put so profane a hand on the word of God ? He that can take tliis liberty with the Scriptures, may prove or disprove any thing. Does the apostle say, " Being buried, ye are circumcised ?" This makes the apostle assert, that they were circumcised with the circumcision made without Itands, by baptism. But this is not the apostle's assertion. He asserts, that they were circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, in or by the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by tlie circumcision of Christ. What is said of baptism is something additional. By no torture are the words capable of INIr Ewing's gloss. The apostle himself minutely explains how they were circumcised in Christ. It is a circumcision made without hands. It cannot, llicn, be baptism ; for it is not SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 281 without hands. This circumcision consists in putting off the hotly of the sins of the flesh. The external circumcision cut off a part of the flesh ; the circumcision without hands puts off the body of the sins of the flesh. This is the circumcision of Christ, the other was the circumcision of the law. It is the circumcision made without hands, the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, that is here expressly called the circumcision of Christ. It is called the circum- cision made without hands, to distinguish it from its type, the cir- cumcision of the flesh : it is called the circumcision in which is put off the body of the sins of the flesh, to distinguish it from the typi- cal circumcision, which did not cut off sin, but flesh : it is called the circumcision of Christ, to distinguish it from the circumcision of Moses. No language can be more express, or less capable of per- version. The circumcision here spoken of, could not possibly be baptism ; because it is a circumcision which Christians are not only said to have without any external operation, but which they have in Christ : " In whom ye are circumcised." Christ himself performs this circumcision, and we have it in him. This passage clearly shews us what came in the room of circum- cision. The circumcision made without hands, came in the room of the circumcision made with hands ; the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, came in the room of the cutting off the fore- skin ; the circumcision of Christ came in the room of the circumci- sion of Moses. All Christians are circumcised in heart, as all Jewish males were cu'cumcised in the flesh. The Christian ordinances do not come in the room of the Jewish ordinances. Were this the case, every Jewish ordinance is equally entitled to a substitute or succes- sor. Circumcision has no peculiar right to a preference. Every Jewish ordinance signified spiritual things, as well as circumcision. They are all fulfilled in their emblematical meaning, not in corres- ponding ordinances. For any thing which we could learn fi-om the Old Testament, there might not have been any ritual ordinance in the New. Circumcision and baptism correspond in meaning. They both relate to the renewal of the heart. The Lord's Supper and the Passover have a resemblance still more close ; yet the one is not said to come In the room of the other. Christ himself has come in the room of the Passover ; for it is said, " Christ our Passover Is sacrificed for us." The Lord's Supper is a feast of like nature, but with this fundamental difference, which equally applies to baptism and circumcision, it does not belong to the same persons. The 282 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Lord's Supper, as well as baptism, belongs solely to the true Israel of God; the Passover belonged to the carnal Israel, without respect to their faith or character. The persons whom John drove fi*om his baptism, had as good a right to all the Jewish ordinances as John the Baptist himself. The Scribes, and Pharisees, and Sad- ducees, with the whole unbelieving body of the Jewish nation, en- joyed all the ordinances of the Jewish dispensation, by as valid a title as the apostles of Christ. Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever forbade this, nor made any observations on it as an impropriety. The ministrations of the priests were never objected to ; because they were carnal men, and rejected the Messiah when he manifested himself to Israel. This is the grand distinction between the Jewish ordinances, and the prdinances of the chui'ch of Christ. The former shadowed good things to come, and were appointed for the nation in general, which had only a typical holiness ; the latter are ap- pointed only for the true holy people, and take it for granted, that all who partake of them, enjoy the thing figured by them. If baptism came in the room of circumcision, it would not have commenced till the other had ceased ; nor would it have been applied to circumcised persons. Why did John baptize the circumcised Jews before the manifestation of Christ ? Why did Jesus baptize till after the end of the Jewish dispensation .'' But why shall we labour to overturn a mere figment ? There is no need to establish, by arguments, that baptism did not come in the room of circumcision. Our opponents must prove that it did ; and for this they have not the shadow of proof. They have the saying of divines, but this is the highest authority. It rests on no better evidence than the doc- trine of the Pharisees for the washing of hands before meat. It is a tradition of the elders. Even if it did come in the room of cir- cumcision, this does not import that it must have the same subjects, or be regulated by the same laws. How far they agree, and how fai* they differ, must be learned from what is said of them respec- tively. It is impossible to ascertain, from general principles, how far likeness extends. Our opponents found the right in the child on the faith of the immediate ancestor. But if the law of circumcision is to regulate baptism, the posterity of a believer have a right to baptism, to the remotest generations, if all their intermediate progenitors were atheists. The child of a Jew must be cu'cumcised without any respect to the faith of the parent. If, then, none but believers have a right to obtaui baptism for their children, the law of circumcision SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 283 does not apply to it. Why then should it apply in any thing else ? It is said, that if the children of believers are not baptized, the privileges of the Jewish Church are greater than those of the Christian Chiu-ch. As reasonably may this be said, if slaves are not baptized with their masters, and if we have not all an earthly Canaan. " We have no earthly inheritance like Israel," says Mr Haldane, " nor are Christian servants entirely exempted from work one day in seven, nor have we a sabbatic year, nor a jubilee when our debts are discharged." As to parents and children, circumcision was no privilege at all. Had circumcision made the children of the Jews heirs either of Canaan or of heaven, it might be considered as a privilege, but it did neither. It was not enjoined, nor ever ex- plained as a privilege to individuals. It was enjoined by the most severe penalty, even death. The females had no loss by the want of it. They enjoyed every spiritual privilege equally with the males ; and the want of circumcision did not deprive them even of any temporal privilege, which they would have enjoyed. It is true, indeed, that Paul says that there was much profit in circumcision, Rom. iii. 1, 2. But it is evident that this includes females, and refers to Israel as the circumcised nation. Circumcision is here taken for the whole legal dispensation to which it was attached. For the chief of these privileges was, " that to them were committed the oracles of God." Now the females had this privilege equally with the males. It was then rather a privilege to the females to be freed from this painful rite. Indeed, nothing can more clearly prove that circumcision could not be a spiritual privilege, than that the females were excluded. There never was a spiritual distinction between male and female. Circumcision was a part of that yoke, fi'om which the spiritual Israelites were delivered by Christ. It is strange, then, to hear Christians speaking of it as a spiritual privi- lege. It arises from the same spirit that in the apostolic age made both Jews and Gentiles so prone to return to the weak and beggarly elements. He must be a babe in Christ, who cannot see how much the privileges of the new dispensation exceed those of the old, with- out taking into the account any ordinance in the room of circum- cision. The Church of Israel had the circumcision of the flesh, — the church of the New Testament have the circumcision of the heart. Is not this an immeasurable enlargement of privileges .'' Th6 child of the Christian is perfectly, as to spiritual things, on the footing of the childi'en of the Jews, for circumcision implied nothing to them individually. It did not mark them as the children of 284 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. God. The children of believers may be said, in one point of view, to have better privileges, for they have a clearer revelation. They possess the oracles of God in a much greater proportion than the Jews did. Circumcision secured to the circumcised person no blessing either temporal or spiritual : it was enforced by the penalty of death : it was not enjoined on all Jewish children : it was not enjoined on believers in other nations : it could not then be a spiritual privilege to individuals. The edification that it con- tained was as available to females, who were excluded from it, as to the males on whom it was enjoined. Nothing can more clearly prove that circumcision had no personal application to the circumcised individual, than the circumstance that this ordinance was inapplicable to females, — the one half of the seed of Israel. Had it been of any spiritual advantage, or had it been appointed to mark the character of those to whom it was applied, would females have been excluded .'' Were they not heirs of heaven equally with the males ? Had circumcision then been appointed to designate the heirs of the everlasting inheritance, it must have been extended to females. It is said, the Abrahamic covenant contained spiritual blessings : infants had its seal ; why, then, shall not in- fants have baptism ? I reply, the one half of Jewish infants had not the seal, which demonstrates that the seal had no personal appli- cation to the individual. It is said, that there is no better evidence that women should eat the Lord's Supper, than there is that infants should be baptized. Now, were this true, what is the consequence ? Not that we should baptize infants to be consistent in admitting females to eat the Lord's Supper; but that females should be excluded from the Lord's Supper, as well as infants from baptism. This is the Popish argument to induce Protestants to receive the traditions of the Romish Church. They tell us, " Ye have changed dipping into sprinkling by the authority of the church ; ye have no better autho- rity for infant baptism itself: why then do ye not receive transub- stantiation on the same authority ?" I always reply, that my bre- thren, M'ho practise infant baptism, do not ground their practice on the authority of the church, but on their view of Scripture ; and that the argument is false, because it justifies one tradition by an- other. They tell us also, that we have no authority for the change of the Sabbath, but the authority of the chiu-ch ; and some psedo- baptists tell us, that we have no better authority for the Lord's day than for infant baptism. I give the same reply to both. As soon SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 285 as I (f)€\,rjcr€ tco Xovrpo) avrov. ' He that is cleansed from a dead body, and again touches it, of what i)rotit to him is his cleausing ?' " No such thing is required. 13ut let us hear his proof. "1. The sense, KaOapi^co, purify," says he, "suits the pre- 35 positioii aTTo; — immerse docs not." The preposition^ I assert, equally suits immersion. Immersed from a dead body, is an elliptical expression, for immersed to purify from the pollution contracted by the touch of a dead body. And on this principle it is translated into English, in the common version, though the translators were not immej^sers. " 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 Beechcr did not perceive that even if the word purify itself had been here used, there would have been a similar ellipsis. To purify from a dead body, is to purify from the pollution contracted by touching a dead body. This is school- boy criticism, Mr. President. His second observation on this example is : " No immersion, in the case of touching a dead body, was enjomed, but simply a tvashing 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 performed by immersion. The writer is alluding to practice, and is not relating the words of the injunction. Mr. Beecher^s third observation on this passage is, that " the rite of pmification from a dead body was complex, and no import of the word ^amit,w, but the one claimed, is adapted to include the whole." The writer 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 unfit for his office, of M^hat avail in his anointing V 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 Xovrpov, there is the most decisive evidence that the whole process of purification is not included in ^aTrrl^o). The word Xovrpov here refers to the thing done to the person by his baptism. But \ovrpov 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. Beecher 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. Beecher appears an unanswerable question : to me it has not the smallest difficulty. 3® We are said to be washed in the blood of Christ, and we are said to be sprinkled with the blood of Christ. But the washing and the sprinkling are never confounded. We are not said to be washed by being sprinkled, nor is sprinkling called ivashing. These two forms of speech refer to the application of the blood of Christ under figures entirely different. \\Tien Christ's blood is said to be sprinkled on us, there is an allusion to the sprink- ling of the blood under the law ; when we are said to be washed in the blood of Christ, there is an allusion to the washing under the law. Does not Mr. Beecher know what a difference there is between a mixture of metaphors, and a succession of distinct metaphors ? Careless readers will imagine that there is wonderful acuteness in Mr. Beecher's observations. But the eye of the philosopher will perceive that they are subtle without discrimination. A little more perspicuity would have saved him from undertaking the impracticable task of proving baptism to mean purification. But were we to grant 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 im- mersion. "The case of Judith also," Mr. Beecher alleges, " sustains the same view." But what appearance of difficulty does this occur- rence of the word present ? Is it a thing impossible, or even difficult, to be immersed near a fountain ? Might she not have had attendants with her to provide her with a bath at the foun- tain, 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 supplied ? Was it not usual to have stone troughs at fountains, for the purpose of watering cattle? "Haynes informs us," says Mr. AVhitecross, 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 filling their pitchers with water at a fountain he had described, and about twelve others waiting for the same pm-pose, 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 complied, and filled the trough, and the others waited with the greatest patience," p. 83. Yes, but Mv. Beecher will say, Mr. Carson has not proved that there was such a trough at thisfourtlain. Mr. Carson will reply, this is not necessarij, Mr. President ; it is sufficient for my purpose, if it may have been so. 37 I am answering an objection, and if the thing might be as I suppose, the objection is invalid. But what should prevent her from bathing in the fountain, even if we were assui'ed that there was no other way of bathing? This is quite usual to superstition. Charlotte Elizabeth, speak- ing of a holy well at the top of Slieve 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 healing power in its spring :" shall less be expected fi'om Jewish superstition ? In fact, the English version, which was not made by immersers, actually translates the passage, ''^and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp." Judith, xii. 7. It is true that the exact rendering is immersed herself at a fountain, not in a fountain. The immersion is proved not by the preposition, but by the verb. And though at a foun- tain 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 baptised at the Jordan, when he was immersed in it. I have said all 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 she is said to be baptised 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 insuperable ? Could not innumerable things render a thing practicable, which to us are now unknown ? '^We are told," says Mr. Beecher, '^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 with- out reference to the mode." To avoid such a conclusion, it is not necessary to allege any of the things mentioned. The immersion would be secured 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 accomplished, it is a work of super- erogation. How is the conclusion obvious that the historian means only that she purified or washed 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, without telling us the 38 mode ? This is no ground for such a conclusion. This does not imply that she did not pm-ify 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 word used by the histoi'ian? Ought we not, then, to ground our conclusion, as to the mode of that purification, on the same word, and not on independent probability ? We have no testimony on the subject, but that contained in the word ^airril^w, and that testimony asserts immersion. How can it be concluded that the historian speaks of purification without expressing mode, when he employs the word that most definitely expresses mode ? " What reason is there," says Mr. Beecher, " for all this V Astonishing demand ! What reason is there for giving a word the only meaning it is known to possess ? When a person says, I 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 signify to bathe without reference to mode ?" Our reason for believing that Judith was immersed is, that the historian tells us that she was imrnersed. Is not this a sufficient reason ? "Is not the sense purify,^' continues Mr. Beecher, '' a priori probable ?" AVhether in giving an account of the performance of a rite of purification, a writer will mention the process in the rite to be performed without specification, cannot be previously known. It must be learned from the words of the narrative. That Mr. President Beecher will be immersed in one of the great American rivers, is now very improbable ; but should I ever read that in obedience to Christ, he was immersed, I certainly will not attempt to discredit the account by alleging that immerse does not here signify to dip. " Does it not," continues Mr. Beecher, " fulfil all the exigen- cies of the case ?" This is no criterion. A word might fulfil 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 all the exigencies of the case. Does this prove that dip signifies to ivash or bathe without referring to mode ? " Was it of any importance," says ]\Ir. Beechei', " 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. 39 " call for immersion ?" The word calls for immersion ; it is enough that no circumstances foi'bid 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 wdll pass by the bridge ? Am I then to say that ford signifies to pass a river hy 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 public. A number 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, from their poverty, to pay the toll for passing this bridge fom' times every day, to and fi'om school. In removing this serious difficulty, the little fellows showed at once their eagerness to obtain instruction, and their native ingenuity. Wearing only a light 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 incon- venience they constantly encountered, rather than be absent from school." Now, if instead of this particular narrative, which explains every circumstance, it had been recorded only that the boys passed the river by swimming ; while we knew that a bridge of boats was neai*, what would be the sense in which, according to Mr. Beecher^s philology, a foreigner should understand the language ? " Swim,'' 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 English language, the word siuim has another meaning, but there is the highest probability 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, utterly incredible ! My opponents, it is true, may plead the authority of classical English ; but I rely on Columbine English. The word sivim, then, must here have the secondary signification for which I contend." Every child who speaks English will laugh the critic to scorn. But to his own country- 40 meiij as little acquainted with the English language as himself, he would appear to be a very profound philologist. I maintain that this is exactly Mr. Beechcr^s criticism^ and that it can satisfy nothing but ignorance. Is it not evident^ on the face of the document^ that Judith went out from the camp to the fountain at Bethulia for the purpose of bathing, or washing her whole person ? This the law of purification required, and no other reason made it necessary for her to go to the fountain. Even then, supposing that it were allowed that the word signifies to wash without reference to mode, this gives no countenance to Mr. Beecher^s opinion that the word signifies to purify. To wash and to purifij 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 jmi'ify. 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 ? Could 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 fountain, was not immersion likely 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 when the word of mode is used, why should supposed diificulties make it incredible ? The alleged difficulties, however, are no difiiculties. Mr. Beech er 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 could still prove immersion to be the mode of the christian rite. ]\Ir. Beecher 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 labours under an essential error. He reasons on the supposition that every instance of the occurrence of the word must be treated in- dependently of its established meaning, and its meaning assigned according to views of probability, without reference to testimony. He understands not the difference between answering an objection and founding an argument ; and calls upon mc 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 baptised, she 41 must have been immersed^ though a thousand difficulties may occur in pronding the water. Mj opponents are more un- reasonable mth me than the Israelites were with ]\Ioses. They mmmured when they had no water. ]\Iust I bring water out of the rock, when there is enough in the fountain ? Such a mode of disproving the established meaning of a word, and of giving a new and unauthorized meaning, I cannot dignify with any other designation than that of perverse cavilling. Mr. Beecher alleges as another argument, that, '' No contrary probability, or usage, can be established from the writers of the New Testament age, or of the preceding age, who used the Alexandrine Greek.''^ With probability we have nothing to do in this question. We are enquiring about a matter of fact, namely, whether a certain word had a secondary meaning. We admit proof fi'om writers of all classes to the time of Christ. Mr. Beecher tells us that to refute a secondary meaning, it is of no use to appeal to the earliest writers. This also we admit. If 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 meaning, we admit that a secondary meaning is fully proved. An example from Alexandi'ine 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 everything that candour can demand. But what does the writer mean when he asserts that no con- trary usage can be established from the writers of the New Testament age, or of the age preceding ? Does he mean that dming this time the word is not used in its primary sense ? If he does, the assertion is palpably false. Does he mean that dm'ing 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, Mr. Beecher labours under his usual mistake. He puts proof on his opponent, when it lies upon himself. T\Tiy should we prove a contrary usage in the times of the New Testament, or the preceding 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 alienation is proved. It is possible that he may have sold it, but this is to be proved, not taken for granted. 4^- "I do not deny/' says my antagonist^ ^^that these wri- ters do also use tlie word jBairn^w in other circumstances, and in a secular sense, to denote immersion, sinking, over- whelming, or oppression. But this only proves that the two usages did co-exist; just as Mr. Carson proves that the two usages of /BaTrro did co-exist in Hippocrates, and that the existence of the one did not disprove the existence of the other." But is there not a great difference between Mr. Carson's proving, and Mr. Beecher's asserting, and supposing, and alleging prohahilites, independently of the word. All my opponents endeavour to take advantage of my candour in proving the secondary meaning of y8a.7rr&>, taking it for granted that this equally applies to ^airrtl^o). Let ^aTm^w show as good evidence of a secondary meaning, as I have shown on the part of jBainco, and I will without controversy admit the fact. But when Mr. Beecher has done this, he has not succeeded. Even then I am perfectly able to prove that the word applies to the ordinance of baptism in its primary meaning. A primary and a secondary meaning may co-exist, while each of them must be capable of being definitely ascertained. I deny a secondary meaning, not because it would disprove immersion in the ordinance of baptism, but because it wants the countenance of use. I give my oppo- nents 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. Mr. Beecher's explanation of Acts xxii. 16, is not a little singular. On the strength of this single example I would un- dertake to refute his meaning of the word in dispute. Let us hear his explanation of it. " Here," says he, " we have faith in Christ, the washing away or pardon of sins, and a purification intended to symbolize it. ^airria-at,, purify thyself, or be purified bodily, — airoXovcraL ra? diiapTia<;, 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 reprobates, 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 INIr. Beecher more clearly avow the doctrine which he stigmatizes ? 2. This makes the external rite of baptism purify the body from sin, while the mind is purified not by baptism but by calling on the name of the Lord. If the body is not piu'ified 43 from sin by the rite, it is not accoi'ding to Mr. Beecher purified at all. It is the mind only, as distinguished from the body, that is ]nirified by calling 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 pui'ified ? 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 calling on the name of the Lord, but that he was to be baptized, having called on the name of the Lord. 5. Purify and tcash are not indeed synonymous, but they are too nearly related to be both applied together with reference to the same thing. The one is the genus, and the other is a species under it. Be purified, and wash away thy sins, would be intolerable English. Is not ivashing contained in purifying ? What need is there for both the genus and the species ? 6. Mr. Beecher 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, though the body only is washed ; and the thing signified 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 mode ; and " wash away thy sins" to its emblematical meaning. Baptism is the name of the rite; the washing 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 beUeving the truth, by being immersed in water. Sins are emblematically washed away in baptism, just as ceremonial sir.s were washed away by cere- monial purification. In like manner the Lord's supper repre- sents that which has ah'eady taken place, and not that which is done during 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 washing 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 washing in baptism, the word 44 baptism cannot signify washing, for this would be to say, " Be washed, and ivash away thy sins/^ Two words with exactly the same meaning could not be thus conjoined. No criticism will ever be able to reconcile this passage with either washing or 'purifying as the meaning of the word baptism. It is suitable only to its modal meaning, immersion. Mr. Beecher thinks that 1 Pet. iii. 21, prove his view. The apostle, he tells us, " seems to think that, if he left the word ^aiTTLa-fia unguarded, he might be taken to mean the external purification of the body.^^ Is not this reason of caution as applicable to immersion as to purification ? Whatever might have been the name or mode of the ordinance, it is an ordinance of emblematic purification, and as such was liable to perversion. Have not baptists as much need to caution ignorance against supposing that the external rite is salvation, as those who make the Avord signify purification ? The immersion is an emble- matical washing, and it is necessary to guard against the universal proneness to superstition, in substituting rites for the things signified by them. Mr. Beecher seems to think that the word baptism in this passage does not at all refer to the christian rite, but to pui'i- fication or atonement by the blood of Christ. This conceit is unworthy of notice. 1. Immerse is the meaning of the word, whatever the immersion may represent. 2. It is the appro- priated 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 document. No man could deny this, who had not a purpose to serve. 4. Mr. Beecher does not, as he ought, show the con- sistency of the meaning alleged, with the phraseology of the passage. 5. The ordinance of baptism, and the salvation of Noah by water, have the most lively resemblance. Noah and his family were saved by being buried in the water of the flood ; and after the flood they emerged as rising from the grave. There is no correspondence between purification and the water of the flood. 6. We are saved by baptism, just as Paul washed away his sins by baptism — just as the bread in the Lord^s supper is Christ's body, and the wine his blood — just as the rock was Christ — just as the joint participation in eating the bread, and drinking the wine in the supper, is the communion of the body of Christ, and of the blood of Christ. There is no difficulty in this phraseology to any who have not some heresy to support by perversion. The author refers next to the authority of Josephus. I have already disposed of the testimony of Josephus, with regard to 45 the baptism of John. It is completely in accordance with om* views of the mode of the ordinance of Christ. " To denote baptism/^ says Mr. Beecher, " he uses the word ^dirrrjai'^, and to denote its import he states that they are to use it^ e^' ayvecq. rov crcofiaro'i/' &c. Josephvis does not use ^a7rTficri<; to denote the rite of baptism^ but for the act of baptizing. To denote the rite he uses ySaTrrtcr//,©?. The r/ ^airrrjcnf; is the immersing — /SaTTTiCTytAO? is thc rite of immersion. And the words of Josephus^ quoted by the author^ are the import of the rite as to its nature or object, not the import of its name. This manifests a great want of discrimination in my opponent. Except this were the import of the name of the rite, it cannot serve him. The import of the rite, as given by Josephus, instead of serving my opponent, refutes him. If the people came to John's baptism on account of purification, then baptism is the name of the rite, and purification is its object. They came to be immersed in order to be purified by that immersion. Sm'ely a very child will understand this. '^ Now here I remark," says my antagonist, '^ that there was nothing to cause Josephus or any other Jew to think of the mode, or to attach any importance to it." What trifling is this? What necessity for Josephus to think anything of the mode ? Does this say that a certain mode was not employed, and that Josephus did not mention the purification by the name of the mode employed ? Does any one expect Josephus to attach im- portance to the mode whatever it might be ? Does this imply that Jesus attached no importance to the mode ? I never met so great and so constant a want of discrimination. Suppose an infidel to give an account of the performance of this rite by immersion, would he not speak of it as an immersion ? " No idea,^' continues the author, of a fancied reference, in the rite, to the death of Christ, could bias his mind to the sense immersion.'''' Was it necessary that Josephus should understand the reference of the mode of this rite to the death of Christ, in order to his knowing it to be an immersion ; and in order to his giving it the modal appropriated name ? I am not sure that John the Baptist understood this. Did Josephus understand the emblem of the burial of Christ, that was contained in the figm'e of Jonas in the belly of the whale ? Did all men know what was the import of the rite of circumcision, who spoke of it by its appropriated name ; and who knew what was performed in the rite ? How many people know that the baptists immerse in the performance of the ordinance of baptism, who do not know that in that mode they have a reference to the death, bm'ial, and resurrection of Christ ? I am weary of replying to childish trifling. ' 46 " To liira, it is plain/' continues the author, " that it meant nothing but purifying the body/' &c. It may be very true that the rite was understood by Josephus to mean nothing but purifying the body, without implying that its name signihed purification. As usual the author does not distinguish between the name of the rite and the object of the rite. Though Josephus might see no emblem in the mode, does this imply that immersion was not its mode ; that it had not its name from the mode ; and that Josephus spoke not of it by its appro- priated modal name ? It is sickening to be obliged to notice such arguments. " Now,'' says the writer, " although I would not rely on such places for proof, against a strong contrary probability, yet when I liud them so perfectly coincident with all other facts ; when all shades of probability so perfectly harmonize and blend in a common result, I cannot hesitate, for I see no good reason for doubt." Whatever may be supposed the probability with regard to the mode in the facts referred to, independently of testimony, the moment competent testimony gives its evidence, it decides the matter. Instead of a probability, there is a certainty that immersion was the mode, because the word used by the his- torian signifies immersion, and has no other meaning. Is not the meaning of a word testimony ? The author here admits the possibility of immersion in each of the cases referred to. What, then, should prevent it, when it is testified by a word that has no other meaning? This is testimony against previous improba- bility, which in all courts is competent evidence. That cannot be a safe principle, which, it is admitted, may possibly fail. Now the author himself here admits that the principle on which he interprets this word, will not universally hold good. Mr. Becche?- proceeds on an axiom that is false, fanatical, and subversive of all revealed truth, namehj, that meaning is to he assigned to loords in any document, not from the authority of the use of the language, ascertained by acknowledged examjiles ; but from views of jirobahility as to the thing related, independently of the testimony of the word. He learns not facts from history ; but he dictates to history. The historian he will not allow to use his words in the sense acknowledged by the language, because that sense is, he thinks, unsupported by the previous probability of the fact. If a word is found to have two meanings, it is lawful in every instance of its occurrence, to bring their respective claims to the test. But if a secondary meaning is not in ])roof, })revious probability as to the fact has nothing to do ; because a thing previously improbable may be received as truth, with perfect 47 confidence^ on sufficient testimony. To allege probability against the ascertained meaning of a word^ is to deny testimony as a source of evidence; for the meaning of testimony must be knov\ai from the words used. This is a Neological canon^ and is the very principle on which Neologists interpret the Bible. It is very improbable, they say, that such a thing v/as the case, therefore the words of the historian do not mean this. It is very improbable, some say, that Samson killed so many people with a jaw-bone of an ass ; therefore the word does not here signify the jaw-bone of an ass, but the tooth of a rock, which being loosely attached, was pulled down on his enemies by the hero. This canon would not leave a miracle in the Bible. Nor a doctrine in revelation. On the same principle, should a foreigner read in English, that a prisoner was immersed in jail, on the belief of the gospel, he might say, " as it is improbable that there was water for the dipping of his person, it is to be concluded that immerse here signifies to purify without reference to mode.^'' Yet immerse does not more decidedly mean to dip, than did ^airTC^co ; and there is not in all Mr. Beecher^s examples, a higher probability than this. Such previous probabilities give place to testimony, as darkness gives place to light. Mr. Beecher alleges that " it is not a solitary fact on which the argument rests.''^ This can mean no more, as to the examples alleged, than that there are several instances of improbability, considered previously to testimony. But this is not a combina- tion of evidence. Each of the cases considered separately is nothing ; all taken together, then, must be nothing. It is the addition or multiplication of ciphers. The Columbine bridge will solve a thousand such difiiculties. There is no word, whose meaning is not liable to the like ob- jections, as are here alleged with respect to the word in dispute. What word is there, which in the whole history of its use, does not sometimes occur in circumstances, in which the thing which it attests is previously as improbable as immersion in the cases referred to by Mr. Beecher. Yet this never shakes our confidence as to the meaning of any word, when it testifies. There are some islands in which it is very improbable that horses should be found ; yet if a traveller tells us that he saw a horse, we will believe either that he really saw a horse, or that he deceives us. We never think of solving the difficulty, by alleging that horse here signifies a leopard. With respect to the relation between the name of this ordinance and pmification, the reason is quite obvious. That a coincidence and harmony should exist between a word which is 48 the appropriated name of an ordinance^ and the thing emblema- tically meant by the ordinance, is a thing that can strike no philologist with surprise. This is altogether necessary, instead of being a thing unexpected. There cannot be an instance of a similar connexion without a similar result. If ySa7rTtcr/zo9 is the name of the ordinance, whatever may be supposed its meaning ; and if purification is the emblem of the ordinance, there must be such a coincidence. Any man of ordinary understanding- will perceive the ground of the connexion, without any recourse to identity of meaning in the terms baptize and purify. Was not the ordinance of circumcision so connected with purification ? Yet the word circumcise does not signify to purify. But if all these examples were admitted to imply this meaning, it would not prove that the rite of baptism is not an immersion. These examples refer not to baptism. Even on that supposition we would fight the battle with success. "The argument," says my antagonist, "from the usage of the writers of Alexandrine Greek, is now at an end." Would not any one from reading this conclude that he had brought from these writers, examples in which the word is used without reference to mode ? But has he alleged one such ? All he has done is to allege that the word is sometimes used, when, without reference to the testimony of the word, immersion is improbable. Does this imply that the thing is improbable, after the word gives its testimony ? Have I not exemj)lified this by an instance from Columbine English ? He need not go to Alex- andrine Greek for such instances. They might occur in the oldest Greek without affecting the question. Mr. Beecher next professes to find proof in the Fathers. Proof from the Fathers that /3a7rT«.^&) signifies to purify ! As well might he profess to find in them proof for the existence of rail roads and steam coaches. There is no such proof. There is not an instance in all the Fathers in which the word, or any of its derivatives are so used, ^^'ithout exception, they use the word always for immersion. Now a reader not acquainted with the Fathers, may ask himself, how it is possible that two persons can give a directly contradictory account of the testimony of the same documents. Without any reference to the veracity of cither of the combatants, he may say, the fact must be so easily decided, that it is strange that any of them should be rash in his testimony. Let such a reader attend a moment to me, and I will ask no learning in him, in order to enable him to decide between us. All I demand is a little common sense. Well, how does Mr. Beecher bring out his proof? If the writings of the Fathers prove that they understood this word in 49 Mr. Beecher^s sense, must not Mr. Beecher prove this by alleging examples of the use of the word in this sense ? Com- mon sense, what do you say? But Mr. Beecher attempts no such thing. He does not appeal to the use of the word by the Fathers, but to other words applied by the Fathers to the same ordinance. Now I do not charge my opponent with dishonesty in the use of this argument. I do him the justice to believe that he is the dupe of his o^vn sophistry. But it is a sophistry childishly weak, I have already disposed of this argument. It assumes as an axiom, that words that apply to the same ordinance are identical in signification. Every child may see that this is not fact. The same ordinance is called by different persons, the Lord's supper, the communion, tlie ordinance, the sacrament, the eucharist, &c. Does this imply that each of these words is identical in meaning with the term Lord's supper, or that they are identical in meaning with each other ? Every one of these words has a meaning of its own, while they all agree in designat- ing the same ordinance. Baptism itself is by some called christening. Does this imply that the word baptism signifies christening ? I could produce examples at will : but no reader can need more. The Fathers called baptism regeneration; but they never supposed that the word baptism signified regenera- tion. Both the words referred to the same ordinance, but they referred to it under a different view of it. Baptism v\^as its appropriated name from its mode : regeneration was its name from its supposed effect. When I say William the First, and William the Conqueror, I refer to the same man, but I do not mean that the first signifies the Conqueror. William the First, is the designation of the man as King of England — the Con- queror is a designation of the same man from the way in which he became king. Even if KaOapl^co itself had been the appro- priated name of the ordinance of baptism, it would not be identical in meaning with the word regeneration. In fact, this is one of the words which the Fathers employed to denote baptism, yet this did not make it identical in meaning either with baptism, or with the other words by which they designated this ordinance. When baptism is called purification by the ancients, it is considered as it was supposed to purify : when it was called regeneration, it was considered as a new birth. Purification is baptism under one view of it : regeneration is the same ordinance under another view. Purification does not signify new birth; nor does new birth signify purification. A hundred words or terms might be used to denote the same ordinance, without implying that any two of them were perfectly D 50 identical in meaning. In fact, a great multitude were actually employed, while each designated the same ordinance in its own peculiar manner. The Fathers employed a great multitude of terms to designate baptism ; but they did not make the word baptism designate the same idea with each or any of these terms, " What is it to purify the spirit/' he asks, '' but to regene- rate.'^ It is true that they who are purified are regenerated, and they who are regenerated are purified. Still, however, the terms have quite different meanings. Regeneration is a new birth : purification is an effect of this. I might now dismiss this part of the subject ; but our author gives us such a delicious morsel of his philosophy, in accounting for the fact that baptism came to be considered as regeneration, that I am tempted to take a look at it for a moment. Nothing enables us with greater certainty to estimate the powers of an author, than his attempts at philosophy. " Now," says the writer, " in a case where analogical senses exist, one external and material, and the other spiritual, it is natural that they should run into each other, and terms applied to one be applied to the other. Thus, if ^aTrri^o) means to purify, then there is natui-al purification and spiritual purifica- tion, or regeneration, and there would be a tendency to use avayevvdco to denote the latter idea, and also to transfer it to the external rite. And, at first, it would be so done as merely to be the name of rite, and not to denote its actual efficacy.'' Upon this I remark : 1. — The author here mistakes what he calls the external and material sense, for the emblematic sense. It is of the emblematic sense, as distinguished from the proper sense of the word, he is speaking ; and not of an external or material sense as distinguished from a spiritual sense. Purifica- tion, for instance, first applied to external things, and afterwards by analogy was transferred to the mind. But it is not of external, or material, or natural purification, as distinguished from spiritual purification, he is speaking ; but of emblematic purification, as distinguished from the pm"ification of the soul and body from sin. Every external, or material, or natural pm-ification, is not the purification of which he is speaking, namely, baptism. It is only when the purification is emblematic, that it is the pm'ification of which he speaks. The relation, then, which subsists between what he calls the external, or material sense, and the spiritual sense, is not the same with the relation that subsists between the emblematic sense, and the proper sense of the word. Purification applies as properly to mind as to matter, and designates neither of them separately. 51 but includes both of them. To apply to either of them separately, the word has not to give up its meanings or to run into a different meaning. 2. The running of two senses info each other is philological transubstautiation. Two senses cannot run into each other, nor can one sense run into another sense. This language is paradoxical. Not only does the whale swallow Jonah, but Jonah at the same time swallows the whale. Whatever change may take place in the application of words, one sense cannot become another. This would imply that a thing is different from itself. 3. The author here supposes that purification in baptism is natural purification. But is the design of baptism to wash away the filth of the flesh ? Is not the purification of baptism an emblematic purification ? 4. He tells us that on the supposition that /SavTl^co signifies to purify, with reference to both material and spuitual purifica- tion, there would be a tendency to use the word avayevvda to denote the latter idea. What is the latter idea? Is it not spiritual purification, or regeneration ? What is this but to say, that, on a certain condition, there is a tendency to use a word in its own sense ? There is a tendency to use the word regenera- tion for regeneration ; and a tendency to use a word that signifies spiritual purification for spiritual purification. A wonderful tendency indeed ! Does not the author himself explain regeneration as signifying spiritual purification ? He must be a hardy sceptic who will deny this. 5. He tells us here that if jBaTrri^oo signifies to purify, with reference to both natural and spiritual purification, there will be a tendency to transfer the word avayevvdo) to the external rite. Now would not this tendency be the same, on the supposition that the purification was to be found in the nature of the rite, as if it were found in the name of the rite ? 6. If /SaTTTt^o) signifies both natural and spiritual purification, and avwyevvdoi signifies only the latter, what tendency is there to transfer dva^evvdco to a rite designated by /SaTrri^co, in that part of its signification which dvayevvdo} does not possess ; abandoning that part of the meaning of jSaTrrl^co which it does possess ? Surely if from the partial agreement of ^aTrri^o) and dvayevvdo), the latter is transferred to a rite designated by the former, it must be in that part of their meaning in which they agree — not in a meaning in which they differ. This is a very perverse and capricious tendency. Can the author illustrate this tendency ? He affirms it, but does not show it. 7. He tells us that in the first application of dvayevvdco to baptism, it would be as the pame of the rite without reference to 52 its effect. This is absurd and self-evidently false. How does ava'yevvda) come to be applied to tbe rite of baptism ? Is it not, even on the author's theory, because it agrees with /SaTrrl^co in a part of its meaning ? If then it is applied to the rite, from its agreement with the appropriated name of the rite in a part of its meaning, it must be applied to the rite in that part of its meaning in which it agrees with ySaTrri^a), and not in that part of the meanings of ^aTrrt^co i^dth which it has nothing common. No axiom is more clear than this. 8. Of all the terms by which the Fathers designated baptism, there is not one of them conferred on it on the principle supposed by the author. Even KadapL(Tfi6vhich would bring him to the gallows ? You speak of your op- ponents as " placing religion more in the performance of ordinances of worship, than in the regulation of the heart and conduct." Cer- tainly the midnight revels of the ball-room, and the gross impurities of the stage, are admirably calculated to regulate the heart and conduct ! It has always been triumphantly alleged in favour of the evan- gelical doctrine, that it produces that morality which its opponent .possesses only in theory. This you do not attempt to disprove, though in part you endeavour to account for the fact on another principle. But your account is as unphilosophical as it is unscrip- tural. " "We may admit the fact," you say, " as alleged, in regard to many of the sujDporters of those opinions ; we can even admit that evangelical preaching, may have been the means of bringing to a religious life, persons for whom soberer views would have had no at- tractions." Now, who are these people ? I presume they are very wicked and ignorant people. AVell, admitting that such persons are brought to a profession of religion by the evangelical doctrine, what, I ask, is it that makes them moral, seeing their doctrine not only na- turally, but necessarily, produces immorality ? According to your views, while they are zealous for religious doctrine, they ought to be abandoned to every vice, seeing sin is quite consistent with their salva- tion. Then, Sir, I reject your philosophy as unsound, while 1 de- nounce your religion as infidelity. — You produce an effect, not only without a cause, but contrary to a cause. We can produce thousands of the vilest characters made virtuous by our gosi^el. If, then, that gospel necessarily leads to licentiousness, what is the cause of that change ? You allege that this morality is not the re- sult of our doctrine, but that it arises in spite o/'that doctrine. Now, if this is so, what is that wonderful i:)rinciple that is so powerful as to produce morality, in spite of a cause that necessarily produces immorality ? You allege that " the assumption of such opinions has oftener 40 been the issue, than the commencement of a pious and virtuous cha- racter." But granting, for the sake of argument, that a virtuous life precedes the adoption of these views, Vfhy is it not abandoned the moment they are received ? Why do men continue to practise what they now see to be useless ? Above all, how can they continue virtuous, while the doctrine which they have received necessarily leads to vice. Did you ever know a man believing sin to be harm- less, who did not practise it ? Sir, there is no philosophy in your reasoning. Besides, I ask, are you as good a judge in this matter as your opponents ? Are they not the best judges whether a virtuous life has preceded or followed their alteration of views ? Are they not the best judges with respect to the principle that moves them to virtuous actions ? Ask every individual of all who are truly born again, through the truth of the gospel by the spirit, and their answer without a single exception wiU be, that their morality is the effect of their principles. You have one observation with respect to our argument on this point, to which I by no means object. " If our objections to the evangelical system," you say, " be imsound, let them be exposed ; otherwise we cannot allow of even good results being brought about by false representations of religion," I cordially assent to this. Your doctrine is not proved from the Scriptures ; no fancied good results can warrant it. But, if our doctrine is the obvious meaning of the whole current of Scripture ; if nothing but false reasoning and forced criticism can banish it from the Scriptures, then the fact now referred to, is a most powerful and satisfactory confirmation that our views are just. " We regard evangelical opinions, then," you say, " as having sprung out of an increase of religious feelings, rather than as having produced it." Will you shew how religious feeling naturally pro- duces such doctrines ? Is it not unphilosophical and absurd to speak of religious feeling as the origin of belief? Is not believing the foundation of all human conduct ? " In the estimation, however, usually made of evangelical practice," you say, " there is a fallacy or two to be pointed out. The evan- gelical party claim a greater zeal for religion in respect of their more frequent attendance on religious ordinances — stricter observance of the Sabbath — abstinence from many amusements," &c. Docs not this indicate that frequent attendance on religious ordinances, strict observance of the Sabbath, &c. are not considered by you as matter of duty ? Now, Sir, as you admit that there arc ordinances of Divine appointment, you arc self-condcmucd ? If God has appointed or- 41 iHnanceg, are they not to be strictly oLscrved ? I maintain, that not only is frequent attendance on religious ordinances a duty, but that a single day's unnecessary absence from what God has appointed, is a sin. What, Sir, could you say to any one who should reason on ihe eighth commandment, as you do on the fourth ? If one day is the Lord's Day, is it not wholly to be given to the Lord ? Is it lawful to turn it into man's day ? , " A Roman Catholic," you say, " is not a more religious man than a Protestant, because the latter does not, like the former, do penance or perform pilgrimages." Yery true. But have you not admitted that these religious ordinances are Divine appointments ? Do you believe that penance and pilgrimages are such ? This rea- soning is not only disgraceful to philosophers, like the far-famed •Edinburgh Reviewers, but is disgraceful to common sense. In conclusion, you observe, " The folly may have its day, but .common sense will ultimately prevail." The opposers of evangelical doctrine, are in the habit of speaking, as if all sound understanding were on their side, and that their adversaries were mere fanatics. I hope, Sir, I have lowered your pulse a little. I have shewn you that there is neither Scripture nor philosophy in the reasoning that expels the evangelical doctrines from the Bible. I undertake to shew, against all the Edinburgh Reviewers, assistedby all the school of German Neology, that it is not possible to banish the evangelical doctrines from the Scriptures, without betraying error in the opera- tions of intellect in their reasoning, and a violation of the laws of language in their criticism. LETTER V. Sir, Although you speak of salvation and atonement, I per- ceive that you are entirely unacquainted with the plan on which sinful man is accepted by the just and holy God. You make salva- tion a compound of Divine mercy and human merit. But the Scrip- ;tures represent salvation as harmonizing the mercy and justice of Crod. Man is saved altogether of mercy, yet he is at the same -time, in another view, saved altogether in accordance with justice. 42 The work of Christ becomes the work of the believer hj his one-^ ness with him by faith. Every believer is a part of the body of Christ, and what Christ has done for him, thus becomes his own. The believer died with Christ and has risen with Christ. Wliat you may think, or what I may think, on this subject, indej)endently of the Word of God, is of no value. Let us then for a moment, come to the Scriptures, on this momentous question. May God en- lighten your eyes, and grant you repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth. Let us turn to Rom. iii. 20 — 28 : — " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight : for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now, the righteous- ness of God, without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets ; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe ; for there is no difference : For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God : Being justified freely by his grace, through the re- demption that is in Christ Jesus : Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting, then ? It is excluded. By what law ? Of works ? Nay ; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Here the Apostle does not speak merely of mercy, but of righteousness, yet of righteousness without the law. What strange language is this ! Is there any thing but the evangelical doctrine will give meaning to this language ? The sinner obtains righteousness, yet he obtains it without the law, or without himself fulfilling the law. He is made righteous by Christ's fulfilling of the law in his room. That this is the meaning is expressly asserted, for it is added : — " Even the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ imto all and upon all them that believe." Is there any darkness here ? What fair interpretation can avoid our doctrine in this place ? Are not believers said here to be justified freely by his grace, and that through the redemption of Jesus Christ ? Where is there any room for your system in this passage ? If the believer is justified freely by grace, how can he justified by his works ? What is still more Avondcrful, God is here said to be Just in this way of salvation, and yet to justify the ungodly. How can God be just in forgiving sin ? How he is merciful in forgiving sin, it is ensy 43 to discover ; but how is the forgiveness of sins just ? Through the redemption in Christ. God is faithful and just to forgive the sins for which Christ has accounted. It would be very unjust to make the believer suffer for sins for which Christ has suffered. This would be to pay the same debt twice. The sinner then is saved by faith, in a way in which he becomes completely just — as innocent as the angels of heaven — as pure as the throne of God. Though in them- selves believers are sinners, yet in Christ they are perfect in righteous- ness, and in holiness. Christ sees no deformity in his spouse. " Thou art all fair, my love, there is no spot in thee." " He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel." Now, if God sees no spot in his people, there must be a point of view in which they are without spot ; for God perceives things as they are. The salvation that the apostle here speaks of excludes boasting; does your plan of salvation exclude boasting ? Look now to the beginning of the fourth chapter. " For if Abra- ham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not be- fore God. For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying. Blessed are they whose iniqui- ties are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Does this language need any commentary ? The man who is here represented as justified, work- eth not for his justification, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly. I defy any system ever invented by man to give consis- tency to this language. On all other views but that of justification in Christ, it is a contradiction in terms. If they are ungodly, how are they to be justified ? If they are justified, how can they be un- godly ? In themselves they are ungodly, the children of wrath by nature as well as others ; in Christ there is no unrighteousness in them. They have in him paid their debt : they have sufiered the fuU penalty of the law, and have fully kept all the command- ments. Here it is supposed also that behevers are saved by God's not imputing sin to them. But if this is so, there must be a point of view in which there is no sin in them ; for God, the just God^ wiU impute sin wherever he finds it. But he will not impute sin to believers, because he has imputed it to their substitute and head. He cannot reckon it to both. Agreeably to this, believers are said, in the beginning of the fifth 44 cliapter of tlie Epistle to tlie Romans, not merely to be saved by fiiith, but to be justified by faith. In Christ Jesus all believers are as righteous as if they had never sinned, but had themselves kept the whole law. " Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesns Christ." This plan of salvation, by justification through Christ, is not only the doctrine of Scripture, but is a proof that the Scriptures are not the invention of man. It never could liave occurred to man, that it was possible to save him in a way of righteousness. Indeed this is so^ strange, that men, even after the word of God has come to them, continue to hold their own views, while they profess to receive the Scriptures as the word of God. Man's wisdom coitld not find out how a sinner could becon>e righteous, and the wise men of this world still continue to reject it, even when they receive the book as Divine, in which the revelation is made. The Scripture then can be no forgery. Man naturally looks for salvation by merit, or by mercy, or by a mixture of merit and mercy. They only who become as little children, will look for a salvation that makes them righteous, white they are in them- selves sinners. In the end of the same chapter, the Apostle asserts that " grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesns Christ our Lord." Grace reigns^ that is, salvation is altogether of grace ; in it grace reigns as a sovereign. It has no partner in its throne. But how does grace reign ? Docs it reign so as to dishonour justice, and to encourage sin ? No : it reigns through righteousness. It has provided a sacrifice to take away the sins of those over whom it reigns. It does not injure justice. It gives the law of God all its dues. Christ obeyed its demands in his life ; he suffered its penalty in his death. This, Sir, is Paul's gospel ; how different is it from yours ? Agreeably to this view, Paul considers his crown of glory as a crown of righteousness, and the judge who awards this crovpn, as a righteous judge. Could any man tinder heaven justly speak in this way, from the merit of his own works ? That perfection that the law requires in us, is to be foimd in Christ, and only in him. Of God he is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. The highest angel in heaven must give place to the weakest believer on earth. The angels are represented in a circle without the throne ; but believers sit down on the throne of Jesus. As one with him, they can have no superior in heaven, among all the creation of God. All things in heaven, as well as in earth, are i 45 Christ's, and what is Christ's is the believer's : for every believer is a fellow-heir with Christ. In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul ex- claims, " Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ?" Tliis imports, that the most imperfect of all those who are saved, are without sin, in Christ. None in heaven or earth can lay any thing to their charge. Clirist has paid the debt. Even God himself, wha" is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, sees no blame in believers in Christ. They have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. This is the salvation of the Bible : How different from the salvation which you preach ! You maintain. Sir, that faith, instead of producing good works, will produce the contrary. In this you are at direct issue with the God of the Bible. He has, in many places, solemnly asserted what you have the rashness expressly to deny. In Acts xv. 9. — We read : " and put no difference between us and them, purifi/ing their hearts b?/ faith." Here faith is said to be the means of purifying the hearts both of Jews and Gentiles. Who then is the man who takes on him to assert that faith will not purify the heart, but that, on the contrary, it would lead to sin ? Peter says : — 1 Peter ii 22,— Seeing ye have pmified your souls, in obeying the truth through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love of the brethren." Here the belief of the truth, through the Spirit, is represented as purifying the souls of men. To obey the truth, is to believe th^ truth. The gospel calls on men to believe. He who believes, obeys that call ; and by the belief of the truth is purified in heart, and, consequently, in life. 1 John iii, 3. — " And every man that hath this hope in him puri- fieth himself, even as he is piu-e." Hope is the effect of faith. All hope of being made like Jesus, when h^ shall appear, is grounded on faith in him as a Redeemer. Titus ii. 11 — 14. — " For the grace of God that bringeth salva- tion hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodli- ness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world ; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.'' Thus the grace of the Gospel, instead of leading to sin, teaches those who receive it to deny ungodliness. . Colossians i. 6. — " Which is come unto you, as it is in all the 46 world ; and biingeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth." Those who know the grace of God in truth bring forth fruit from the moment of hearing it. The Apostle James says : — " Yea a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works : shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." Faith then must always produce good works. 1 Thess. ii. 13. — " For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of xis, ye received it not as the word of man, but (as it is in truth) the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Here the Gospel is said to work effectually in those that do believe. 1 John V. 4, 5. — " For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world : and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believcth that Jesus is the Son of God ?" Can any thing more expressly re- fute your doctrine than this ? He that is born of God overcomes the world. Faith gives the victory over the world. What faith is it that gives the victory over the world ? The faith that Jesus is the Son of God. What regard. Sir, ought we to have to your speculations, in opposition to the express, the clear declarations of the word of the living God ? Who are you, that you wiU presume to grapple with the Almighty? If you will hold your system, give up the Bible. The attempt to oppose the evan- gelical doctrines, while the Scriptures are admitted as the tribunal of judgment, is as vain as an attempt to overturn the pillars of heaven. Philosophers, whether as infidels, or under a profession of faith in revelation, have always presumed to treat true Christianity with indignity. The Greek philosophers scorned the doctrine of the apostles as foolishness ; and modern Ethical science, more unjust, while it has pilfered from the Bible almost every thing valuable in its various systems, advances positions in fundamental oppposition to revelation. Sometimes this is done with undisguised hostility to the religion of Christ, but oftcncr with a show of resjiect for it as the religion of the country. But, Sir, the most dishonourable situation in which it is found, is when it presumes to promulgate its dogmas imder the sanction of the word of God, and explain the dictates of tlie Spirit of God, by the doctrines of the schools. In none of these ^7 characters, however, does it appear a formidable enemy to the simplest Christian, who is aware of the proper mode of defence. All the difficulties that Christians have found in defending the doctrines of grace, have arisen from an undue respect to the authority of sys- tems of phUosopliy, and a desire to vindicate the unsearchable ways of God. This is an undertaking uncalled for and profane. It is a8 unwarrantable to attempt to vindicate God in the unfathomable depths of his counsels, as it is to arraign him. If we are asstired that it is God who speaks, it is absurd, as well as impious, to de- mand of him a reason for his conduct. I admit that the light of nature is a revelation previous to that of the Scriptures, and that no- thing can be true that is self-evidently contrary to this. If there is not something known without revelation, man is incapable of re- ceiving a revelation, and the grossest contradictions of superstition might claim a sanction from the word of God. But, beyond this range, philosophy is not to be allowed to advance a single step. A contradiction cannot be true ; and no revelation can be from God, that professes to teach contradictions. But of the mysterious ways of God, the light of human intellect is not an adequate judge ; and from God only can we learn any thing of them. "Whatever a pro- perly attested revelation from God teaches of him, or of us, must be submitted to with the most unqualified deference. The preten- sions of philosophers on this point, are not only to be resisted as false, but scorned as assuming and unphilosophical. They build on their own fancies as first principles, and disregard principles that are self-evident. As the Scriptures came recommended by the most abundant evidence. Christians are entitled to trample on every dogma of philosophy, that stands in opposition to the doctrine of Christ. But not only is philosophy an enemy from whom Christianity has nothing to fear, it is one whom she is entitled to despise. Though Christianity is not the wisdom of this world, yet it is the " wis- dom of God," and to every person who understands it, it has its evidence in itself. It gives a character of God at once perfect in every attribute, with aU his attributes in harmony. It discovers a plan of salvation that never would have presented itself to the hu- man mind, and, therefore, is incapable of being forged; while it gives a ground of hope most completely satisfactory to the conscience, under the deepest conviction of guilt, and apprehension from the Divine justice. To the question, how man, being a sinner, can stand with acceptance in judgment before a just and holy God, it affords 48 an answer that gives confidence to the chief of sinners who receives the account, while it cuts away every hope from any righteousness in the sinner himself. It manifests a righteousness so perfect, as to enable the guiltiest sinner on earth, to lift up his head before the tribunal of justice, with the confidence of an angel ; while, at the same moment, he looks on himself as having in himself by nature no good thing ; and with respect to his own character he exclaims, " God be merciful to me a sinner !" Here, then, is a scheme of salvation that brings glory to God with salvation to man. God is just, and the justifier of the ungodly who believe in Jesus. The law of God, instead of being injured by the intervention of Christ, is magnified and made honour- able. But has philosophy given an answer to this question ? Never, never, never ! No scheme ever formed by it, harmonizes the justice with the mercy of God in man's salvation. And what. Sir, is your doctrine on this point ? It is neither law nor Gospel ; it is neither philosophy nor Christianity. It is a vain attempt to mix mercy with merit ; and reconcile an infidel metaphysics with the grace that brings salvation. "With you, God is neither perfectly just nor per- fectly merciful : while you speak of atonement, you speak also of salvation by a merciful allowance in judgment. It is quite evident that you have no consistent views on the subject; and that, while you profess to hold the Scriptures as a revelation from God, you oblige them to speak according to your own predilection. Your doctrine, indeed, is not new, nor is it now exliibited with an unusually imposing address. Your objections to tlie evangelical doc- trines are the same that in every age, unbelief has urged against the Gospel of Christ. In urging them, you have discovered no accu- racy of thinking, no vigour of intellect and expression, no deep pe- netration, or discrimination, that are at all calculated to make us dread you as an adversary. But you have one advantage that will for a time operate in your favour. You have come forward under the sanction of a periodical work of high character and influence among speculative men. With many, it wall be a suflScient recom- mendation of your doctrines, that they are ushered into the world by the Edinburgh Review. But the evangehcal doctrines dread not the attack of the proudest school of infidel science. Ingenuity has long expended all its resources in opposing the doctrines of the cross, and every fresh assault will affbrd Christianity a new triumph. It is not to be doubted, that every instance of opposition to the Gospel of grace, under all the various modifications of unbelief, is a part of the 49 plan of Him, who in weakness died for liis people, but who, now, with all power reigns over all worlds, and regulates every event for the glory of God and the good of his people. Heresies must arise, that they who are approved may be made manifest, but " the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord know- eth them that are his." THE END. PRINTED BY ANDERSON & BRYCE, EDINBURGH. V >r>r>r>rH )L.)f^ 'f\M A 11 ii >r>r>r>uC>J II >i ^1 ^i > •! ;•! >L>i- 'jfOi..'! >i ,.i .)■; ;i.!i,.'(^ ]i ]f If lOlf I |l II 1> IF i' I' '■ |i: II l» It If l» !> !• " 1. t II )l II )» II l» l» 1' I' I ■• )r If II II' \y \* )• !' !• ■% I II ji ii |i II i» I' l» '» M' .'II fi' II II ll' II l( I) !• I I i»; inn» i» )* 1* 1' " " " !' " " " ' ii:Tnrii.:)ri»'i»/!r i» irii n i* iri' j' )f jj^ir ij II i> !•. 1' ." i' " " '• "«!',' X]f.]f]\' ii' i» I' " !' •' " " " ", '' '' '}i'jMr)(l»)i i« jrir )» i».i' iHi iM]i-.)rir)r 11 !• in» It If i' •' ■ , , ,(1t jn» )M» i»'l' " i' 1' " J' 'V . »• If' )!')»■ !»' I'll I' I' " !» i»^* Til |( ini It I» I' I' "1' . ii' 11- II ir II !• 1' I' •' 1' '■' f-\f ir)f !»■ \f \i I' II i» !• i» '' I f ! ,» .■> If li' If ini' 11 !• 1' I' '• ''■-'' ' ( ;fjrjr:ify^»,i<,!',!U',j'j'j'.J',.": ' }r~iOJ'-)?^ I I* i(' 11 1 -.l 1 ,1: 'i II \\ 11 t 1. 1- !■ 'i I' ,1] I i; i! ll ' i 'i '■ 4 ii > •; 'I f'l "j^n 1, ': ti 'i .'I 'it \ •■ ( ii (' ,11 kIjf* r -i .1 !, Mifirif I, n I; ' 'I ii)rX)jjP8 ,M ,.'i 'I ;: ^1 ;.r>('>ia ' fi ■'•' K >r)/>i?r)r n JI )'. "II )( )j >ai >i1»r M J! t. ,11 %' '■ »l y t: ■■>! "J' i| c j: "f )r'>i )i . H.Ji.,J». '■ 'i- If •! . . u' )i irjrji 11 II ' .jDfii lijij' i» " i». < >' ir 11 ir )».!». ■• : ii'ji.ir if,iijfjiji.j' !■ i^f 11)1 II ir;u«j(.ii ii> II V 11 inni 11- 11 ini n. ir iiiiinn' nim " " » l»)i li H l» li;i.ji l» 11 II )«'.l» )» i» l» J' ."•J ■r- ,j ,J V' .,' „ r. ir !i II II I* li i» t< II II .i» J'J' •• " . ^i ;i J' If I II i ii ll M 11 ii 11 )i ll II 1' > U li II !• '' 11 11 1 1 II 11 \( U 11 ,1 II II ll" II ;i >' II II :i II II ll li I II ll )l II II !» " II .1 ll II II II '