CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY 
 
 HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 
 
BV806 .cm"'" ""'"""** Ubrary 
 ^'fc.,ia,&,ffio«!e..and„suWee*s conside 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 335 712 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tinis book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029335712 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 iMODE AND SUBJECTS CONSIDERED; 
 
 ARGUMENTS 
 
 ME. EWING AND DR WARDLAW REFUTED. 
 
 BY ALEXANDER CARBON, A. M. 
 
 MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, EDINBURGH. 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 A REVIEW OF DR. DWIGHT ON BAPTISM. 
 
 BY F. L. COX, L. L. D. OF LONDON. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY -C. C. P. CnOSBy. 
 
 SOLD AT NO. 4 BOWERY, AND BY J. LEATITT, 182 BROADWAY; HHCOLN 
 
 & EDiHASDS, BOSTON, AND AT THE BAPTIST TRACT 
 
 DEPOSITORY, PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 1832. 
 
PUBLISHER'S PREFACE 
 
 TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 If it be demanded, why add another, to the already 
 multiplied number of works on the question of Bap- 
 tism ? — The reply is, that such an one as this, both 
 for research, and acuteness, has not existed, and by 
 the learned portion of community has long been con- 
 sidered a desideratum ; for, while Pengilly is deserv- 
 edly entitled to the highest commendation, for those 
 who have but little leisure, and are unaccustomed to a 
 long coilrse of critical reading, or close reasoning; yet 
 it fails to convince men, who love a large book and a 
 hard argument. 
 
 I fancy that in giving an edition of this work to our 
 American churches, I not only serve the cause of 
 Christ, and of truth, but also render a service to every 
 critical scholar, and every candid theologian. An ho- 
 nest expectation is entertained that even our opponents 
 in perusing these pages will be gratified, and instruct- 
 ed ; if not'in fact fuUy convinced. 
 
 Never before has been presented in one volume the 
 views of five such men ; Wardlaw, Ewing, Dwight, 
 on one side; with Cox and Carson on the opposite 
 Where could advocates be selected more competent to 
 the pleading of the case^ And if they have not tra- 
 versed the field of argument with a searching and 
 overturning power, who will attempt to follow, and 
 supply their deficiencies ] 
 
 No one, it is believed, has made that deep and tho- 
 rough research into the writings of the Greeks, in or- 
 
fv publisher's preface. 
 
 der to settle the usus loquendi, of the words Bairrw, 
 and BaifTi^o, as has Mr. Carson, and a debt of grati- 
 tude is certainly due to his indefatigable labours. It 
 adds a vast weight of evidence to that already pon- 
 derous mass, which bears so heavily on one side of this 
 long disputed question. On a careful perusal, this 
 book will exhibit merits of no ordinary character- 
 The whole strength of every position taken by Pedo- 
 baptists, is admitted, and met with candid considera- 
 tion, and unless we greatly err, with refutation and 
 ruin. 
 
 Mr. Carson has adduced one idea, that is entirely 
 original, namely, that BoLirru is the word invariably 
 used to signify to dip, or to dye, while BaifTi^u is the 
 word invariably used to signify to dip only, and this is 
 the only word ever used to express the Gospel ordi- 
 nance in question. Such being the factj our assur- 
 ance is doubly sure, that we are on the side of truth. 
 The popping system, which is exposed in this work, 
 will, without doubt, be considered both novel and di- 
 verting. But oh, what deep-felt pity should possess 
 our minds, at the thought that such good, and emi- 
 nent men, as Ewing, and Wardlaw, could be capable 
 of fathering such figments of the imagination. 
 
 There are a few slight alterations, in no way affect- 
 ng the argument or sense, which we presume every 
 judicious reader, on comparison, would sanction in an 
 American edition. If the circulation of this work 
 should be as useful and extensive as he anticipates, it 
 will in some good degree alleviate the unhappiness 
 which results from an inability to serve his blessed 
 Master in the public ministry of the Everlasting 
 Gospel. 
 
 March, 1832. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Nothing can be farther from the intention of the 
 following Work, than to widen the breach among 
 Christians of different denominations, or to minister 
 to the increase of a sectarian spirit. There are two 
 extremes which I wish to avoid — on the one hand, 
 a spirit of liberalism that supposes the Christian his 
 own master, and hesitates not to sacrifice the com- 
 mandments of God to the courtesies of religious in- 
 tercourse — on the other, that sort of dogmatism, that 
 finds all excellence in its own party, and is re- 
 luctant to acknowledge the people of the Lord in 
 any denomination but its own. Liberality of senti- 
 ment is not a phrase which I admit into my reli- 
 gious vocabulary ; for though I love and acknow- 
 ledge all who love the Lord Jesus, I hold myself as 
 much under the law of God in embracing all the 
 children of God, as in forming the articles of my 
 creed. My recognition of all Christians I ground on 
 the a,uthority of Jesus. To set at naught the weakest 
 of Christ's little ones, I call not illiberal, but unchris- 
 tian. To disown those whom Christ acknowledges, 
 is antichristian disobedience to Christ. But while I 
 gladly admit, that many who differ from me with 
 respect to Baptism, are among the excellent of the 
 earth, I cannot, out of compliment to them, abstain 
 from vindicating this ordinance of Christ. This would 
 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 show greater deference to man than to God. " Every 
 plant," says Jesus, " that my heavenly Father hath 
 not planted, must be plucked up." To permit the 
 traditions of men to pass for the ordinances of God, 
 is injurious to the edification of Christians, and dis- 
 respectful to Christ. 
 
 Some are diverted from the examination of this 
 subject, by considering it as a thing of small moment, 
 and that time is better spent in schemes of general 
 usefulness. That Baptism is a thing of small mo- 
 ment, is an opinion that is not likely to have been 
 suggested by the accounts of it^in the Scriptures. It is 
 an ordinance that strikingly represents the truth that 
 saves the soul ; and is peremptorily enjoined on all 
 who believe. But were it the very least of all the 
 commandments of Jesus, it demands attention and 
 obedience at the hazard of life itself. Nothing that 
 Christ has appointed, can be innocently neglected. 
 To suppose that schemes of general usefulness ought 
 to take place of the commandments of God, is a direct 
 affront to the wisdom and power of Jehovah. Saul 
 alleged that he had substantially obeyed the word of 
 the Lord, though he spared Agag, the king of Ama- 
 lek, and a part of the spoil for a burnt-offering ; but 
 the answer of the prophet ought for ever to deter from 
 the exercise of a discretionary power, with respect to 
 the commandments of God. " Hath the Lord as great 
 delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying 
 the voice of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than 
 sacrifice ; and to hearken, than the fat of rams. For 
 rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness 
 is as iniquity and idolatry : Because thou hast rejected 
 the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from 
 being king." 
 
PKEFACE. VU 
 
 Many seem alarmed at controversy, and shrink 
 from it as opposed to the spirit of the gospel. It is, 
 no doubt, a grievous thing, that controversy should be 
 necessary. But as long as error exists, it is impossi- 
 ble to avoid controversy, except we value peace 
 more than truth. Can we forget that the whole life 
 of Christ and his apostles was a scene of never- 
 ending controversy ? He who was love itself, con- 
 tended constantly against the errors of his time. 
 There is not a truth nor an ordinance of the gospel 
 that Christians can hold without opposition. From 
 the manner of revelation, it seems evidently the de- 
 sign of God to manifest what is in man : and to leave 
 an opening to discover the opposition to his wisdom 
 in the minds even of his own people, as far as it exists. 
 The arguments that are opposed to the truth on any 
 subject of revelation, have their effect on the mind, 
 not from their intrinsic weight, but from their adapta- 
 tion to the corruptions of the heart. We yield to them, 
 because what they are designed to establish is more 
 agreeable than that to which they are opposed. Of 
 this we have a remarkable example in the disobedient 
 prophet at Bethel. When he was sent to denounce 
 the judgments of the Lord against Jeroboam's altar, 
 he was forbidden to eat or drink in the place. Yet, 
 after refusing the hospitality of the king, he suffered 
 himself to be deceived by another prophet. " Come 
 home with me, and eat bread. And he said, I may 
 not return with thee, nor go in with thee ; neither will 
 I eat bread, nor drink water with thee in this place. 
 For it was said to me, by the word of the Lord, Thou 
 shalt not eat bread, nor drink water there, nor turn 
 again to go by the way that thou earnest. He said 
 
vm PREFACE. 
 
 unto him, I am a prophet also, as thou- art, and an 
 angel spoke unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, 
 Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he 
 may eat bread, and drink water. But he lied unto 
 him. So he went back with him, and did eat bread 
 in his house, and drink water." 
 
 Many things might be plausibly said to justify or 
 excuse this unhappy man. But the Lord did not ex- 
 cuse him. " Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou 
 hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not 
 kept the commandment which the Lord thy God 
 commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten 
 bread, and drunk water, in the place of the which the 
 Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no wa- 
 ter ; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of 
 thy fathers." It behooves those who change the 
 mode and the subjects of baptism, to consider this 
 awful example. If Christ has commanded his disci- 
 ples to be baptized on their belief of the truth, who 
 can change it into the baptism of infants'? If he has 
 commanded them to be immersed, who can change it 
 nto pouring or sprinkling 1 
 
 In stating the evidence on my own side, and in refut- 
 ing the arguments of my opponents, I have from first 
 to last proceeded as if I were on oath. I have never 
 allowed myself to use artifice, or to affect to despise 
 an argument which I found myself unable to answer. 
 This is a resource in many controversialists, that is 
 both disingenuous and mean. I have not used one 
 argument to convince others, that has not with myself 
 all the weight which I wish it to have with them. I 
 am not conscious of forcing one line in the word of 
 
PREFACE. ]X 
 
 God. I have no temporal interest to serve, by esta- 
 blishing my views of baptism. Interest and reputa- 
 tion are both on the other side. 
 
 False first principles, and false canons of interpreta- 
 tion, lie at the bottom of most false reasoning and false 
 criticism. This is remarkably verified in the reason- 
 ings and criticisms of Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw, 
 which I have examined. The reader will find innu- 
 merable instances m which I substantiate this charge. 
 Criticism can never be a science until it founds on 
 canons that are self-evident. When controversy is 
 conducted on both sides in this way, truth will soon 
 be established. My dissertation on the import of the 
 word ^airri^u, I submit with confidence to the judg- 
 ment of the really learned. If I have not settled that 
 controversy, there is not truth in axioms. 
 
 I earnestly entreat my brethren to consider the sub- 
 ject with patience and impartiality. Though it may 
 injure the temporal interest of many of them, yet there 
 is a hundredfold advantage in following the Lord. It 
 would give me the greatest pleasure in being the 
 means of leading others to correct views on this sub- 
 ject. But I know human nature too well to be san- 
 guine. Something more than the strength of argu- 
 ment is necessary to bring even Christians to under- 
 stand the will of their Lord. However, should I not 
 make a single convert, I am not disappointed. My 
 first desire is to approve myself to my Lord. If I 
 please him, I hope I shall be enabled to bear not only 
 the enmity of the world, ibut the disapprobation of 
 Christian brethren. I expect my reward at his ap- 
 pearing. The motto I wish to be engraven on my 
 heart is, " Occupy till I come." 
 
ON BAPTISM. 
 
 MEANING OF THE WORD Ba*TU DIFFESENCE BE- 
 TWEEN Ba'TTu AND Ba*ri^u. 
 
 Xhe word BaifTu from which is formed Baffn^w sig- 
 nifies primarily to dip ; and as a secondary meaning 
 obviously derived from the primary, it denotes to dye. 
 Every occurrence of the word may be reduced to one or 
 other of these acceptations. It has been said, that 
 it signifies also to wash, but though this is given by 
 the lexicographers as one of its meanings, and is ad- 
 mitted by many Baptist writers, it is not warranted by 
 a single decisive example, either in the Scriptures or 
 in classical authors. It has also been said that it is a 
 generic word, and without respect to mode, or inclu- 
 wve of all modes, denotes any application of water. So 
 far from this, the idea of water is not at all in the 
 word. It is as applicable to every fluid as to water. 
 Nay, it is not confined to liquids, but is applied to 
 every thing that is penetrated. TTlifi ssibstance in 
 which the action of the V&ib is performed, may be oil, 
 or wax, or mire, or any other soft matter, as well as 
 water. Except when it signifies to dye, it denotes 
 
 MODE, AND nothing BUT MODE. 
 
 BoflTTu and Ba*Ti^u are considered by most writers as 
 perfectly identical in their signification. On the other 
 hand, there are writers on this subject, on both sides 
 of the great question, who have assigned a difference 
 of meaning, which is merely fanciful. Some have al- 
 leged, that the termination ^w makes ^owti^u a dimi- 
 
12 THE MODE 
 
 nutive; but utterly without countenance from the 
 practice of the language. Others have erred as far 
 on the other side, and equally without authority 
 make /Sajm^u a frequentative. The termination ^w 
 has no such effect as either class of these writers sup- 
 pose ; and the history of the word, both in sacred and 
 classical use, justifies no such notion. It is true, in- 
 deed, that early church history-shows that Baptism 
 was performed by three immersions ; but it is equally 
 true, that this is neither scriptural, nor indicated by 
 the termination of the Verb. Even had Christ ap- 
 pointed trine immersion, the frequency could not have 
 been expressed by this word. We should recollect 
 that the word was not formed for this religious ordi- 
 nance ; but being taken from the language, must be 
 used in the common sense. The termination ^w 
 does not make a frequentative according to the prac- 
 tice of the language in other words ; and the verb 
 ^a*Tii^£o is not used as a frequentative by Greek writ- 
 ers. It could not become such, then, in an ordinance 
 of Christ. When Tertullian translates it by mergi- 
 twre, he might wish to countenance the trine immer- 
 sion ; but it is strange that he should be followed by 
 Vossius and Stephens. It is strange also to find some 
 Baptists still speaking of ^aimg'w as a frequentative 
 verb, since they cannot suppose that it is such in the 
 ordinance of Baptism. It is a sufficient induction from 
 the actual history of a language, and not speculations 
 from theory, that can settle a question of this kipd. 
 
 The learned Doctor Gale, in his Reflections on Mr. 
 Wall's History of Infant Baptism, after giving us a co- 
 pious list of quotations, in which /3a*rw and /3a<7fTi^u 
 are used, says : " I think it is plain from the in- 
 stances already mentioned, that they are irfoJuvaf^ai, ex- 
 actly the same as to signification." As far as re- 
 spects an increase or diminution of the action of the 
 verb, I perfectly agree with the writer. That the one 
 is more or less than the other, as to mode or frequency, 
 is a perfectly groundless conceit. Yet there is a very 
 
OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 obvious difference in the use of the words ; and a dif- 
 ference that naturally affects the point at issue. This 
 difference is, ^ofXTu is never used to denote the 
 
 ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, AND /Sa'jrTI^W NEVER SIGNI- 
 FIES TO DYE. The primitive w^ord jSa*ru has two sig- 
 nifications, the primary to dip, the secondary to dye. 
 But the derivative is formed to modify the primary 
 only ; and in all the Gieek language, I assert that an 
 instance is not to be found in which it has the second- 
 ary meaning of the primitive word. If this assertion 
 is not correct, it will be easy for learned men to pro- 
 duce an example in contradiction. That ^airru is 
 never applied to the ordinance of Baptism, any one 
 can verify, who is able to look into the passages of the 
 Greek Testament, where the ordinance is spoken of. 
 Now, if this observation is just, it overturns all those 
 speculations that explain the word, as applied to Bap- 
 tism, by an allusion of dyeing ; for the primitive word 
 that has this secondary meaning is not applied to the 
 ordinance ; and the derivative word, which is appointed 
 to express it, has not the secondary signification of 
 dyeing. Ba*Tu has two meanings, /Sairn^w in the 
 whole history of the Greek language has but one. It 
 not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has 
 any other meaning. Each of these words has its 
 specific province into which the other cannot enter; 
 while there is a common province in which either oif 
 them may serve. Either of them may signify to dip 
 generally ; but the primitive cannot specifically ex- 
 press that ordinance to which the derivative has been 
 appropriated ; and the derivative cannot signify lo 
 dye, which is a part of the province of the primitive. 
 The difference is precise and important. Most of the 
 confusion of ideas on both sides of the question, with 
 respect to the definite meaning of the word Baptism, 
 has arisen from overlooking this difference. Writers, 
 in general, have argued from the one word to the 
 other, as if they perfectly corresponded in meaning. 
 To show that derivatives in ^o> are equivalent to 
 2 
 
14 THE MODE 
 
 their ptimitives, Dr. Gale gives us a number of ex- 
 amples- BXuu, /SXu^u. 0UW, &ua^u. Bojgo^ou, /3o|go|i|w* 
 O|)coto, o^i^u. AXsyM, aXsyi^w- Kavaj^sw, xava/i^u. E^w, 
 sfli^u. H^oj, ij^i^w. Now, in every thing essential to 
 his purpose, this is perfectly true ; and in innume- 
 rable instances, no variation may be capable of be- 
 ing traced. Yet I apprehend that such derivatives 
 were not introduced merely to vary the sound, but 
 that they were originally designed to modify the 
 action of the primitive verbs. The termination ^w, 
 w^hen employed to form a derivative, appears to me 
 to have served some such purpose, as the Hebrew 
 causa] form, and to denote the making of the action 
 of the verb to be performed. Mere speculation is of 
 no value. The most ingenious theory, not confirmed 
 by the use of the language, oxight to have no autho- 
 rity. To ground any thing on conjectures, with re- 
 spect to a subject that concerns the faith or obedience 
 of the people of God, would be not only unphiloso- 
 phical but impious. But that my observation is just, 
 may be fully verified by examples. There cannot be 
 the smallest doubt, that the Greeks did form deriva- 
 tives on this plan. Could I produce no other instance, 
 the following from Elian's Varia Historia, would be 
 sufficient to establish my doctrine. It occurs in the 
 anecdote he lelates with respect to the beneficence of 
 Ptolemy Lagides. IlroXsjAaiov (pacfi rou Aayou, xa<ra*Xou- 
 Ti^ovra, Touj (piXous auTou, U'!rE|;)^ai^£iv. EXEys Ss afisivov Eivai 
 irXouTi^siv, Y) •j-XouTsiv. " They say that Ptolemy, 'the 
 son of Lagus, took great delight in enriching his 
 friends. He said that it is better to enrich others 
 than to be rich," 197. Here •s-Xoursw is to be rich, and 
 ifXouTi^u to make rich. 
 
 We have another instance in Heraclides, e| uv 
 *oXXous sSsiirvK^s ; " of whom he provided many with a 
 supper." AscrvEu is to sup, 5ei*vi^w signifies to give a 
 supper. 
 
 Such then indubitably was originally the use of de- 
 rivatives with this termination, though in many cases 
 
OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 they and their primitives may be interchangeable ; 
 and although in some the distinction cannot at all be 
 traced. 
 
 In this view Baitn^u would signify originally to 
 make an object dip. Its use then, would be to apply 
 to the dipping of things too heavy to be sustained by 
 the dipper. Its use in classical occurrence, I think, 
 will accord with this. Compared with its primitive, 
 its occurrence in profane writers is very rare, and it 
 generally applies to objects that are too heavy to be 
 lifted or borne by the dipper. It applies to ships 
 which are made to dip by the weight of the lading. As 
 to the general idea of dipping, the primitive and the 
 derivative are interchangeable. The primitive may 
 be used with respect to the largest body that can be 
 immersed ; but it will not express the modification de- 
 noted by the derivative. The derivative may be ap- 
 plied to the smallest object that is dipped, for it is evi- 
 dent, that if we dip an object in any wp.y, we cause it to 
 dip or sink. I shall illustrate this observation farther 
 when examples actually come before us. In the mean 
 time I observe, that whatever may originally have 
 been the modificatioa of the termination in question, 
 the difference in the use of Bairru and BarfTi^u is clearly 
 established. To ascertain a difference, and to account 
 for that difference, are two very different things. In 
 the former our success cannot be doubted, whatever 
 maybe thought with respect to the latter. 
 
 From some instances in the application of this 
 word, Dr. Gale was induced to suppose that it does 
 not so necessarily express the action of putting under 
 water, as that the object is in that state. But this is 
 evidently inconsistent wilh the essential meaning of 
 the word ; and not at all demanded by the examples 
 on which he founds it. " The word Pa^Tt^u," says 
 he, " perhaps does not so necessarily express the action 
 of putting under water, as in general a thing being 
 in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whe- 
 
16 
 
 THE modi: 
 
 ther it is put into the water, or the water comes over 
 it." Now, were this observation just, every thing 
 lying under water might have this Uterally applied to 
 it. But every one acquainted with the Greek lan- 
 guage must acknowledge that the word has not lite- 
 rally such an application. In any particular instance 
 when this word is applied to an object lying under 
 water, but not actually dipped, the mode essentially 
 denoted by it is as truly expressed as in any other in- 
 stance of its occurrence. Indeed the whole beauty 
 of such expressions consists in the expression of a mode 
 not really belonging to the thing expressed. The 
 imagination, for its own gratification, invests the ob- 
 ject 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. 
 
 The very example alleged by Dr. Gale is formed 
 on this principle. It is brought from the works of 
 Aristotle. " The Phenicians who inhabit Cadiz, re- 
 late, that sailing beyond Hercules's Pillars, in four 
 days, with the w^ind at east, they came to a land un- 
 inhabited, whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and is 
 not laid under water, I3aim^e6ai, at ebb ; but when the 
 tide comes in, it is wholly covered and overwhelmed." 
 Now, though the water comes over the land, and 
 there is no actual exemplification of the mode ex- 
 pressed by this word, yet it still expresses that mode ; 
 and the word has been employed for the very purpose 
 of expressing it. The pecuhar beauty of the expres- 
 sion consists in figuring the object, which is succes- 
 sively 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, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 that this word denotes to pour or sprinkle a httle water 
 on an object. The thing iiere supposed to be bap- 
 tized, was wholly buried under water. The beach is 
 said to be baptized when the tide conies over it. Can 
 any child, then, be at a loss to learn fiom this, that 
 baptism means to lay under water 1 Should we say 
 that God biip.ized the eirth at the flood, we would 
 use an exprc--ion exactly like the above. Who then 
 can be at a loss to know the meaning of the word bap- 
 tism 1 
 
 This example tends to confirm ray observation with 
 respect to tlic peculiar import of derivatives in (^w. 
 TuiS \ias a large oijiccf, that was not supposed to be 
 taken up and dipped, but to be caused to dip, as it 
 were by sinking. 
 
 The distiiiclion whicli Ih;>ve observed betwien the 
 use of /-an-rij and /oa-Trr/j J, will enable us to lelute the 
 interpretation of the word bapfi.-.u!i by Mr. Robinson 
 of Cambridge, an Arian Baptist. " The English trans- 
 lators," says ho, "did not translate ilse word li;iplize, 
 and they aclea vvi;:e!y ; for there is no one word in 
 the English ianifiuige Vv'hirh is an exact counterjiart 
 of the G-reek \\.jtv., ps the Ilaw Tc';:tiniio;it u _es it, con- 
 taining the prt-oi.-o idear, of the evunffelLsiH, iieitlier 
 less nor nicic. I'he dillicidiy, or ruihcr the excel- 
 lence of the word, is, that it contains two id<_Lir-, inclu- 
 sive of the whole doctrine of i;ap[igm. ija],)'ize is a 
 dvf- r's word, and signifies to dip, so as to colour, fc-uch 
 as render the vrord vi ]), give oneti-ue idea ; butiheword 
 stood for two, and one is war:ting in iliis rendering. 
 This defect is Jn the German TestameiV, luait. iii. 1. 
 In those days came John dcr Tauffer, Ji.hn the Dip- 
 per ; and the Dutch, — In those days cai'e John een 
 Dooper, John the Dipper. This is the trutli, tut ii is 
 not the whole truth. The Saxon Testament adds 
 another idea, by naming the administrator, Jolni le 
 Fulluhtere, John the Fuller. The Islandic language 
 translates baptism skirn, scouring. These convey 
 2* 
 
18 THE MODE, 
 
 two ideas, cleansing by washing, but neither do these 
 accurately express the two ideas of the Greek bap- 
 tize ; for though repentance in some cases accompa- 
 nies baptism, as it does prayer, yet not in every case. 
 Jesus was baptized in Jordan, but he was not cleansed 
 from any moral or ceremonial turpitude by it, nor 
 was any repentance mixed with his baptism. Pu- 
 rification by baptism is an accident, it may be, it 
 may not be, — it is not essential to baptism. The 
 word, then, conveys two ideas, the one literal, dip- 
 ping, the other figurative, colouring ; a figure, how- 
 ever, expressive of a real fact, meaning that John, by 
 bathing persons in the river Jordan, conferred a cha- 
 racter, a moral hue, as dyers, by dipping in a dying 
 vat, set a tinct or colour ; John, by baptism, discrimi- 
 nating the disciples of Christ from other men, as 
 dyers, by colouring, distinguish stuffs. Hence, John 
 is called, by early Latins, John Tinctor, the exact 
 Latin of Joannes Baptistes, John the Baptist." 
 
 Mr. Robinson was a man of talents and of exten- 
 sive reading : But whatever other accomplishment he 
 might possess, the above specimen shows that he was 
 no critic. Such a combination of the primary and se- 
 condary meaning of a word, is unphilosophical ; and I 
 am bold to say, that in no language was it ever really 
 exemplified. Itisa mere speculation, and aspeculation 
 that no man at all acquainted with the philosophy of 
 language could indulge. Did Mr. Robinson suppose, 
 that /SaiTTi^u had this double import in common and 
 classical use 1 If he did, he must have paid no at- 
 tention to the various occurrences of the word; for in 
 no instance is his observation verified. Did he sup- 
 pose that the word, in its appropriation to the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, received this new meaning 1 If he 
 did, he supposes what is absurd, and what cannot be 
 exemplified in any word in the Bible. If words could 
 receive such an arbitrary appropriation in Scripture, 
 the Book of God would not be a revelation. Words 
 
OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 must be used in Scripture in tlie sense in which they 
 are understood by those who speak the language, 
 otherwise the Bible would be a barbarian both to the 
 learned and to the unlearned. " Baptize," he says, 
 "is a dyer's word." Baptize is not a dyer's word. 
 BaifTu, in a secondary sense, signifies to dye ; but 
 ^aicrt^u never does. It is strictly univocal. What 
 a ridiculous thing to suppose ihat, by immersion 
 in pure water, Christians received a discriminating 
 hue, like cloth dipped in the dyer's vat ! What 
 mark does it impress ? What portion of Scripture 
 is it that has suggested this Arian whim 1 Are 
 we to take the explanation of the import of an ordi- 
 nance of Christ from the creations of genius, rather 
 than from the explicit declaration of the Apostles 1 
 Such a meaning the word in question never has. 
 Such a combination of primary and secondary mean- 
 ing no word in any language could have. Such a 
 meaning has nothing in the ordinance to verify it. It 
 is the mere arbitrary conceit of this Arian Baptist, 
 who wishes to make baptism any thing rather than 
 an emblem of washing away sin through the blood 
 of Jesus Christ. It is infinitely more important to re- 
 sist such explanations of baptism, even though their 
 authors should agree with us with respect both to the 
 mode and subjects of that ordinance, than to combat 
 the opinion of our brethren who on these points differ 
 from us. It is the truth itself, and not any ritual or- 
 dinance, that our Lord has appointed to be the bond 
 of union among his people. A disproportionate zeal 
 for baptism may sometimes lead to danger of seduc- 
 tion from the gospel, — by fraternizing with its cor- 
 rupters, from agreement with them in a favourite or- 
 dinance. Mr. Robinson's History of Baptism is not 
 so valuable to confirm Christians in the Scriptural 
 view of this divine institution, as it may be dangerous 
 to their faith, by a constant endeavour to infuse the 
 poison of Arianism. 
 
 Dr. Cox has favoured us with the opinion of the 
 
20 THE MODE 
 
 celebrated Greek scholar, Professor Person, with re- 
 spect to the difference between iSdicru and /3a*Ti^u. 
 " My friend Dr. Newman has recorded a conversation 
 which he once held with Professor Porson, in com- 
 pany with a much respected friend, and which, as a 
 corroborative testimony of no mean consideration, 
 may properly be inserted in this place. It is with me- 
 lancholy pleasure I add of that friead, (now, alas, no 
 more !) that he was also dear to my heart, even from 
 the days'of early companionship at school ; and that 
 he was eminently distinguished for his attainments. 
 Not long before the death of Professor Porson, I went, 
 in company with a much respected friend, to see that 
 celebrated Greek scholar at the London Institution. 
 I was curious to hear in what manner he i-ead 
 Greek. He very condescendingly, at my request, 
 took down a Greek Testament, and read, perhaps, 
 twenty verses in one of the gospels, in which the word 
 (3a«ru occurred. I said, 'Sir, you know there is a 
 controversy among Christians respecting the meaning 
 of that word.' He smiled and replied, ' The Baptists 
 have the advantage of us!' He cited immediately 
 the well known passage in Pindar, and one or t^\'o of 
 those in the gospels, mentioned in this letter ; I in- 
 quired, whether, in his opinion, iSaicn^u must be con- 
 sidered equal to (3a-jfru, which, he said, was to tinge, 
 as dyers. He rephed to this effect ; that if there be 
 a difference, he should take the former to be the 
 strongest. He fully assured me that it signified a 
 total immersion. This conversation took place August 
 27, 1807." 
 
 I should hke to know in what respects this emi- 
 nent scholar considered l3a«rt<^u to be a stronger term 
 to denote immersion, than its primitive /3a*T6j. I wish 
 we had his opinion more in detail on this subject. As 
 expressive of mode, the derivative cannot go beyond 
 its primitive. As to totality of immersion, the one is 
 perfectly equivalent to the other. But, as I ob- 
 served before, ^avru has two senses, and ^owm^u but 
 
or BAPTISM. 21 
 
 one ; and therefore, in tliis respect, the word used, 
 with respect to the ordinance of baptism, is stronger in 
 support of immersion as being univocal. Perhaps this 
 was the meaning of the professor. The additional 
 modifying meaning, which I pointed out in the deri- 
 vative, adds nothing to the strength of signification 
 as to mode, though it suflBciently accounts for the use 
 of the derivative to the exclusion of the primitive, in 
 every instance, with respect to the ordinance of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 The just and most obvious method of ascertaining 
 the meaning of a word, is to examine its origin and 
 use in the language. It may wander far from its root, 
 but if that root is known with certainty, the connex- 
 ion may still be traced. The derivative, however, 
 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 /3a*Ti^£j is 
 formed from ^aicru is a thing beyond dispute. But 
 as I have shown that they are not perfectly coincident 
 in their application, I shall examine thera separately, 
 contrary to the general practice of writers on both, 
 sides of the question. 1 shall give a copious list of 
 examples, as it is from this that my readers will be ena- 
 bled independently to form their own judgment. This 
 method will doubtless appear tedious and uninterest- 
 ing to many, but it is the only method entitled to au- 
 thority. For a writer on contioverted subjects, to give 
 merely his own opinion of the import of his docu- 
 ments, accompanied with a few examples as a speci- 
 men 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 amuse"- 
 ment, 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 evi- 
 dence, the other should not grudge the toil of examin- 
 
22 THE MODE 
 
 ing the evidence, seeing it is only by such an examin- 
 ation that he can have the fullest conviction of the 
 truth. Is the meaning of this word to be eternally 
 disputed 1 If one party says that it has this mean- 
 ing, and another that, while a third differs from both, 
 and a fourth is confident that all three are wrong, 
 what method can legitimately settle the controversy, 
 but an actual appeal to the passages in which it is 
 to be found? These are the witnesses, whose testi- 
 mony must decide this question : and consequently 
 the more numerous and definite the examples, the 
 more authoritative 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 without a doubt. Instead therefore of 
 making an apology for the number of my examples, 
 and the length of the observations that ascertain their 
 meaning, the only thing I regret is, that I have not 
 every passage in which the word occurs in the Greek 
 language. Never was the meaning of a word so 
 much disputed ; no word was [ever disputed with less 
 real grouuds_ of difficulty. 
 
 As it has been supposed by some to be a generic 
 word, signifying every application of water without 
 any respect to mode, I shall first give a specimen of 
 examples, showing that it not only signifies mode, 
 but that the ' idea of water is not in the word at all. 
 The nature of the fluid is not expressed in the verb, 
 but is expressed or understood in its regimen. 
 
 Near the end of the Sixth Idyl of Theocritus, the 
 word is applied to the dipping of a vessel in honey. 
 
 'A ■iraig av^' w(5aros rav xaXifi8a xrj^ia /Sa^ai. 
 
 " 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 substance, with re- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 spect 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 sprink- 
 ling, or washing, or wetting, an urn into honey 
 cmbs. 
 
 Aristotle also applies it to the dipping of hay into 
 honey for the curing the flux in elephants. Kai tov 
 XofTov £15 (aeXj /SaiTTovTEf, "Dipping hay into honey, 
 they give it them to eat." Hist. Animal. Lib. viii. 
 26. Though it would be possible to sprinkle hay 
 with honey, yet it would be absurd to speak of sprink- 
 ling or pouring hay into honey. The preposition Eis, 
 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. Ei sis xrj^ov jSa-^eis Tig, M-sxfi toutou 
 £xivr]6rj, sug £€a4'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, to. ya^ •ifu^i *av<ra ^s^aicrat. 
 " For they are all dipped in fire." This is a baptism in 
 fire, and beyond dispute dipping was the mode. 
 
 ^lian applies the word to ointment : tfT6{pavou e\s 
 (Au^ov ^a.-\.a,s. 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 exam- 
 ple thus : " having tinged (imbued or impregnated) 
 with precious ointment a crown (or garland,) — the 
 crown was woven of roses." This translation, how- 
 ever, is not made on sound principles of interpretation. 
 It rests on no basis. The author has not produced 
 one instance in which the word ^cmctu incontestably 
 
34 THE MODE 
 
 and confessedly must signify to imbue, except in the 
 sense of dyeing. To tinge a crown of flowers, is not 
 to imbue it with additional fragrance, but to colour it. 
 The author violates 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 with ointment 
 to give a fragrant smell, is not an English expression. 
 The translation labours under another disease. Eig 
 (Aujov cannot be translated with ointment ; but must be 
 rendered into ointment. To tinge into ointment is a 
 solecism. The verb then cannot here be translated 
 tinge, or imbue, or impregnate, even though it had 
 these significations in other places. The expression 
 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 gen- 
 tleman forget that it was the oddity of the thing that 
 induced the historian to mention it 1 Had it been a 
 common thing, it would not have had a place in 
 iElian's anecdotes. The person to whom it was pre- 
 sented, 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 improve- 
 ment 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 assume ano'- 
 ther sense 1 Shall we say, that it was no improve* 
 ment to the statue to be gilded, the language must 
 signify merely that it was washed 1 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 
 
OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 a critic, so long as he multiplies the meanings of 
 words in an arbitrary manner, according to his view 
 of particular exigencies. In his very next example, 
 he makes the word ^a*Tw signify to purify, from a 
 different exigency. JambHchus, in his life of Pytha- 
 goras, relates as one of the directions of the philoso- 
 pher to his. disciples, — oxiSs sig ifs^i^^oLvrrigiav SfiSairTSiv, 
 which the writer of the Appendix translates " not to 
 purify in the perirranterion." Here, again, he pro- 
 ceeds without first principles. He has not alleged 
 one instance in which the verb must signify to purify. 
 He has, then, no ground-work on which to rest this 
 assumption. And the preposition sis, occurring here 
 both separately and in conjunction with the verb, de- 
 termines that the action of the verb was directed into 
 the perirranterion, or bason. Besides, as a matter of 
 fact, they did not purify 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 perirran- 
 terion 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 under- 
 stood to be dipped, that is, the sprinkling instrument. 
 Had the writer considered that the phrase is elliptical, 
 as referring to a thing so well Imown that the re- 
 gimen of the verb is understood without being ex- 
 pressed, he would have had no necessity for giving a 
 new and an unauthorized meaning to the word ^arfroi. 
 In the next direction mentioned by Jamblichus, we 
 have a similar ellipsis ; ovSs /3aXavsiw Xoustf^ai. " Nor to 
 bathe in a bath," that is, to bathe the body in a bath. 
 We ourselves use the same ellipsis. Pythagoras pro- 
 hibited these things to his disciples, because it was 
 not certain that all who had fellowship with them in 
 the perirranterion and bath were pure. Do not dip in 
 the perirranterion : do not use the perirranterion ; do 
 not dip the sprinkling instrument in order to purify. 
 Nothing can be more unphilosophical than the con- 
 
26 THE MODE 
 
 duct of this writer. As often as he meets a difficulty, 
 he gi'Yes 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 meaning but one 
 that the word confessedly has in some other place. It 
 is not enough to say that such a translation will make 
 sense, it must be the sense that the word is known to 
 express. 
 
 Another difficulty with respect to a passage in Sui- 
 das j^de Hierocie, induces this writer to translate 
 ^a-KTu, to wet. He might as well translate it, to dry. 
 A person was scourged before the tribunal, fsof^svos (5s 
 TU aifiari ^a^cts xoiXijv T7)v %si|a, ifgocfgouvsi tyjv SixaifK-fi^OM , 
 " and flowing with blood, having wetted the hollow of 
 his hand, he sprinkles it on the judgment seat." The 
 word, however, never signifies to wet ; and even this 
 translation does not suit the writer's own commenta- 
 ry. He explains it as referring to the catching of the 
 blood flowing from his wounds, or letting 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 /3a*Tu is here to be translated in 
 its usual sense. " And having dipped the hollo\y of 
 his hand, he sprinkles the tribunal." It may be diffi- 
 cult easily to conceive the process, but of the meaning 
 of the expression there can be no doubt. If the blood 
 was 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. Whatever 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 hyperbolical 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. 
 
 Kt||ov Sia.rrilas, siTaTrjv -^vWav \aSuv, 
 " Having melted the wax, he took the flea and dipped 
 
OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 its feet into the wax." Here the liquid is wax, and 
 the mode can be nothing but dipping. Such an in- 
 stance 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. Dionysius of Halicarnassus applies it 
 to the thrusting of a spear, ^a-^as, 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 immersed in the fluid at the 
 bottom. Efi^a-^ag Tr]v xei^a. " Who dipped 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 pro- 
 per to speak thus of the action of putting down the 
 hand in the inside of a bowl or dish. An excise ofii- 
 cer might be said to dip a vessel even when empty; 
 and we speak of plunging into a wood. Miners also 
 speak of the dip of a rock as being north or south, by 
 referring to the direction of its sinking or slope. 
 
 Lycophron represents Cassandra, foretelling the 
 death of Clyteranestra 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 word is applied to the penetrating of solids, 
 in the sense of thrusting or piercing. In like manner 
 we speak of burying a weapon in the bowels. Pour- 
 ing, sprinkling, washing, have no countenance here, 
 but are entirely excluded. 
 
 Ajax is represented by Sophocles as dipping his 
 sword into the army of the Greeks. ESa^ag syx^S "^^ 
 ■ffgos A|y£iwv (fr^aru. 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 
 
28 THE MODE 
 
 consists in the reference to the proper and modal 
 meaning of the terra. 
 
 Having proved the appUcation of the Vi'ord to mode, 
 without respect to the nature of the fluid, I shall now 
 at random produce examples. 
 
 In the thirteenth Idyl of Theocritus we have an 
 example of it, in the account of the drowning of the 
 boy Hylas, who went to a fountain to draw water for 
 the supper of Hercules and Telamon. Htoi ojcu^os sir'sixf 
 ifoTu ^ouXyaiidsa. x^uadov, (3a.-^ai sirsiyoii^evng. " The youth 
 held the capacious urn over the water, hasting to dip 
 it," &c. Can any thing be more definite than thisi 
 Can any one be at a loss to know how a pitcher is 
 filled with water at a fountain ? Can an unprejudiced 
 reader demand a clearer example than this, to show 
 the modal meaning of ^a*Too 1 Even the unlearned 
 reader may judge for himself in this matter. Indeed, 
 from the connexion 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 5' an XaSoutfa rsup^oj ap(cua Xar^i, 
 Ba^}^aJ' svEyj^s Sev^o ifovnag akag. 
 
 " 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, 
 — iSafTSiv sgi TO ■)(^a,Xav ti sis vSu^, r\ sig ststov ti vy^ov. 
 " Ba*Tsiv signifies to let down any thing into water, or 
 any other liquid." Can we wish for better authority 
 for the meaning of a Greek word? 
 
 Aristophanes, in the play entitled Ei^*]V7i, affords us 
 an example of the word. 
 
 *sps Sti to Saif iov roS' eji,§a-\/U Xa§uv. 
 " Bring the torch, that I may take and dip it." 
 
op BAPTISM. 29 
 
 Dr. Gale observes that the Greek Scholiast and 
 Florent. Christianus, preceptor to Henry Fourth, of 
 France, refer this to the manner of purifpng among 
 the Greeks, by dipping a hghted torch in water, and 
 so sprinkling the persons or things to be purified. This 
 explains the Pythagorean precept, quoted in Mr. 
 Ewing's Appendix. 
 
 Dr. Gale has given us some fragments of this 
 author, preserved by Harpocratian, where the gene- 
 neral meaning is more obscure, but in which the pe- 
 culiar meaning of this word is not at all doubtful. 
 " When I have dipped jSa^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 ^a-^ag 
 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, «*sSa(p^*i, in brine, like 
 a pickled herring." We have, therefore, the autho- 
 rity of Suidas, that /3a*TS(v applies to the dipping of an 
 oar in the water. 
 
 Aristotle, speaking of a kind of fish, says : Kai rag 
 fteraSoXag 5' oux u^ofjiEvouo'i Tag itfj^uiag, oiov ^ai <rois ^sgovdiv 
 sav jSaitrudiv sig -^vxgov. " 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 sprinkling, or pouring, or wet- 
 ting a fish info water. 
 
 Speaking of the remedy for the bite of a certain 
 kind of snake in Africa, he says : ou xm Xeysrai axog sivai 
 "KiSog Tig, ov XajA.Savoua'iv a*o Tospov jSarfiXsug ruv a^aiuv, 
 xai £v oivw wtfoSa^aMTsg, irivoutfi. " Of which the remedy 
 
 3* 
 
go THE MODE 
 
 is said to be a certain stone which they take from the 
 sepulchre of a king of ancient times, and having im- 
 mersed it in wine, drink." Here the virtue of the stone 
 is supposed to be extracted by the wine in which it is 
 dipped. Tliey do not sprinkle the stone with wine, 
 nor pour wine upon it, but they dipped the stone, and 
 then drank the wine in which it was dipped. Even 
 tlie unlearned reader can be at no loss with respect to 
 the mode imported by the word in this process. 
 
 The same author applies the word arfoSaipri to the 
 immersion of animals in a pool of Sicily, which had 
 the property of resuscitating them when put into it 
 after suffocation. What can be more satisfactory than 
 this 1 If any thing can be more decisive, it is an ex- 
 ample from the same author, in which he tells us, 
 that it is the custom of some nations to dip their chil- 
 dren, aifoSarfreiv, into cold water, soon after birth, in 
 order to harden them, 
 
 Herodotus decisively fixes the meaning of this 
 word, when he applies it to the Scythian ceremony of 
 dipping certain things in a mixture of blood and wa- 
 ter, in concluding an alliance. " The Scythians, in 
 concluding a league with any one, make it in the fol- 
 lowing manner. Having poured wine into an earthen 
 vessel, they mingle with it the blood of the parties, 
 making a shglit incision in the body by a knife or a 
 sword. After this, they dip into the vessel a scimitar, 
 and arrows, a hatchet, and a javelin. When they 
 have done this, they utter many imprecations ; and 
 they who make, the league, with the most distinguished 
 of the company, drink the mixture." The phrase 
 avoQa-^avTsg sg T-rjv xuXixa, can mean nothing but dipping 
 in the bowl. Pouring, sprinkling, washing, wetting, and 
 all other fancies are entirely excluded. 
 
 The setting of a constellation is termed, by Aratus, 
 dipping, ^attrut, into the sea. Is there any doubt with 
 respect to mode in this example? When the sun, 
 moon, and stars descend below our horizon, when we 
 stand on the shore, they appear to dip in the sea. All 
 
OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 nations speak in pliraseologj' tliat imports this. We 
 have some beautiful examples in Virgil. 
 
 The same author applies the word, just in our man- 
 ner, to the setting sun. " If the sun dips himself, 
 without a cloud, into the western sea." 
 
 Again he says, — " If the crow dips, s€a4/aTo, his 
 head into the river." Can anyone need a comment- 
 ary to point out the mode imported by the word here? 
 
 " Constantine," says " Dr. Gale, observes from an 
 epigram of Hermolaus, is vSan x^urfrfov s^a-^s, He dipped 
 his pitcher in the water. The mysterious Lycophron 
 affords us an instance parallel to this, in Callimachus ; 
 dipping, ^a4/avT-sf, with strange and foreign buckets." 
 And again, to this may be added, what Aristotle says 
 in his Mechanical Questions; " The bucket must be first 
 let down, or dipped, ^a-^ai, and then be drawn up again, 
 viz. when it is full." Can any thing be supposed 
 more specifically to express dipping, than ^aitTu in 
 these instances ? 
 
 Homer employs the word in the Odyssey, in a situ- 
 ation where the meaning cannot be doubted. He 
 compares the hissing of the eye of Polyphemus, when 
 bored by a red-hot stake, to the hissing of the water 
 when a smith dips his iron in order to temper it. 
 
 Eiv vSuTi •I'Vx^u jSaitTri fijsyaka laj^ovra. 
 
 " Aa when the smith an hatchet or large axe, 
 Temp'ring 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 /3a*T5iv. An instance of tlie same kind we 
 have in the Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, where 
 iron heated in the furnace, is said to be tempered, 
 £v§a(pr), by immersion in water. The note of Didy- 
 mus on the place is : to ^a^^cu ■^vx^u tov vsifvguii.svm 
 
32 THE MODE 
 
 cfiSri^ov id-xp^m ya.^ aurov iroisi. " The dipping of red-hot 
 iron in cold water hardens it." 
 
 Anacreon, in his Ode on the Arrows of Cupid, re- 
 presents them as forged by "Vulcan, and dipped by 
 Venus in honey, into which Cupid put a mixture of 
 gall. 
 
 A)c(5as 5' s^oMTS Ku*jiff, 
 MsXi TO yXuxu XaSoutfa. 
 O 5' E|ug j^oXiiv SjAitfys. 
 
 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 /3a*ri^s(v, in the ordinance of baptism. He ap- 
 plies it to a ceremonial or religious purification of the 
 person_^and garments, by immersion in a river after de- 
 filement. Xv 5' AiyuifTioi (ji/ia^ov ijyiivTai Stj^jov aivai xai touto 
 fx,£v, 11V Tij -j^autfTi auTuv ttapuv mg, uvtok/i roirfi ly^ariois a*iwv 
 sSa-^s sauTov, ^as eg rov ■jeora.ij.ov. " The Egyptians con- 
 sider the swine so polluted a beast, that if any one in 
 passing touch a swine, he will go away and dip him- 
 self with his very garments, going into the river." 
 Here is a religious baptism, for the purpose of cleans- 
 ing from defilement ; and it is by immersion, ex- 
 pressed by /SaiTTEiv. Can any one require a more de- 
 finite example ? The person dips himself ; therefore it 
 is /3a*rw, not /SaiTTi^w. All the occurrences of the word 
 in the Septuagint, are confirmatory of this view of its 
 meaning. 
 
 Aij-^/Sg^s Se 5sift,riv iirf(j'u*oii,)cai IBo^omtss a*o rou aijAaroff Tou 
 -xa^aTTiv ^u^av. 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 washing : it is smear- 
 ing. It is not pouring or sprinkling, but dipping. 
 
 Lev. IV. 6. Kai ^a^si isgsvg f o" (SaxruXov sig ro aifia, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 33 
 
 xai ifgaggavsi a/Ha rou aifjiaToff. " And the priest shall dip 
 his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood," 
 &c. Here we have the action both of dipping and 
 sprinkling ; and fiaitru applies to the former, while 
 faivw applies to the latter. Can any thing be more de- 
 cisive than this 1 
 
 Lev. iv. 17. Kai ^a^|>El o isjsuj tov (JaxTuXov CfKo tou 
 aifittTos TOU ^od-xpM, xm fiavEi. " And the priest shall dip 
 his finger in the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it," 
 &c. 
 
 Lev. ix. 9. Kai s^a-^s rov SaxTuXov SiffVo aifjia. " And 
 he dipped his finger into the blood." He could not 
 sprinkle or pour his finger into the blood. 
 
 Lev. xi. 32. Eig vSu^ (Bacprjiie'rm. " It must be put 
 into water." Literally, "It shall be dipped into water." 
 This cannot admit even of plausible evasion. 
 
 Lev. xiv. 6. Kai I3a.-^si aura xai <ro o^vj^iov to ^uv Sig 
 TO aifta. " And shall dip them and the living bird in 
 the blood," &c. 
 
 Dr. Wall has asserted that the Word I3a-^si here, 
 cannot be understood dipping all over : for the blood 
 of the bird in the bason could not be enough to receive 
 the living bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and 
 the hyssop, all into it. To this the answer of Dr. Gale 
 is perfectly satisfactory. The blood of the slain bird 
 was received in a vessel of running water, in which 
 mixture, as appears from verse 51, the things were to 
 be dipped. It may be added, that this makes the 
 figure have a beautiful allusion to the double eflBcacy 
 of the blood of Jesus Christ. It washes as well as 
 atones ; and though this might be exhibited by sepa- 
 rate dippings, yet the union is seen more clearly in 
 the combination of blood and water. But that the 
 word /3a*T6iv is employed when only a part of an 
 object is dipped, is most freely admitted; and the 
 s^me thing may be said of the very word dip itself. 
 Thus we speak of dipping a pen in ink, when only 
 the point of the pen is dipped. What would we say 
 
34 THE MODE 
 
 of the foreigner who should allege that the English 
 word dip, when applied in the expression, They dipped 
 the man in the river, does not necessarily imply tnat 
 they dipped him all over ; because he finds from 
 the expression, dip a pen in ink, it is applied some- 
 times when only a part is dipped 1 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 
 /3airrw and dip have their proper and entire significa- 
 tions, 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 ob- 
 served, that Dr. Wall, though he is a friend to infant 
 baptism, is decidedly in favour of immersion. With 
 Xespect 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 ob- 
 jection 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 their 
 own practice, dipping neither in whole nor in part, 
 but substituting pouring or sprinkling in its place. 
 
 Lev. xiv. 1 6. Kai /3a-4/Si rov (JaxTuXov tov Ss^iov aifa Tou 
 sKam. " That the priest shall dip his right finger in 
 the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of 
 the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." 
 Here, also, we see the characteristic distinction be- 
 tween dipping and sprinkling. The action of putting 
 
OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 the oil on the finger, is expressed by ^airru ; that of 
 applying it to the object, by jaivw. The word occurs 
 again in the 51st verse, with reference to the same 
 process as that described in verse 6. 
 
 Numb. xix. 18. Kai Xij^srai utftfuirov, xai jSavj^si sij 
 TO \}6ug avr\^ xcdagoS, ""i ifegig^avsi sm 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-,|^£i sv sXaiu tov *o5a auTou. 
 " Let him dip his foot in oil." Here the great abun- 
 dance of oil is expressed, by representing the possessor 
 as dipping his foot in it. The unlearned reader may 
 perceive, that in all these instances the meaning of 
 the word in question is so clear and definite, that even 
 our translators, who were no practical immersers, ren- 
 der it as we do. Can it then admit a doubt, that this 
 is the proper rendering 1 
 
 Josh- iii. 15. "And as they that bore the ark 
 were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests 
 that bare the ark, s§a(piifl'av sis (aej oj tou vdaros tou Io|(5avou 
 were dipped in the brim of the water." 
 
 Ruth ii. 14. IBu-^eis rov-^ufj-ov sv Tw o|£i. "Dip thy 
 morsel in the vinegar." 
 
 1 Sam. xiv. 27. "And Jonathan heard not when 
 his father charged the people with the oath ; where- 
 fore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his 
 hand, and eSa-^sv avro sig to xii^iov Tou (AsXiroff, dipped it 
 in a honey-comb." Here the mode is most deter- 
 minately fixed. He stretched forth his rod, and dip- 
 ping the point of it, ate the honey off the rod. 
 
 2 Kings viii. 1 5. " And it came to pass, that on 
 the morrow he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in wa- 
 ter," sQa-^sv Ev TU xiSaTi. 
 
 Job. ix. 31. What our translators render, "yet 
 shalt thou plunge me in the ditch," &c. in the 
 Greek is, Ixavug ev |u*io (as s€a4'af. Thou hast dipped me 
 deeply in filth. Here we not only have the mode sig- 
 nified by this word, but evidence that the word is as 
 
36 THE MODE 
 
 applicable when the object of dipping is to defile, as 
 when the object is to loash. It denotes the mode onljr, 
 without, any reference to the intention with which it 
 is used. 
 
 Psalm Ixviii. 23. 0*ws av ^at^ri o •irous rfou sv aijjiaT/, t) 
 yXugia ruv xuvuv tfou s| sx^f "" ''''*^' "'J^'ou. " That thy feet 
 may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the 
 tongue of thy dogs in the same." Here the person 
 is supposed to wade through blood, to denote the 
 greatest slaughter. 
 
 In 2 Mac. i. 21, the word is used to signify the 
 drawing of water from a deep pit, (compare verse 
 19.) " He ordered them to draw," literally, dip. , 
 
 The use of the word in the New Testament, is ex- 
 actly the same as in the examples which have been 
 quoted from other writers. Matt. xxiv. 23, has al- 
 ready been referred to. The same transaction is re- 
 lated Mark xiv. 20. " It is one of the twelve that 
 dippeth with me in the dish," o £(*ga*TO[;,Evi)ff jxst' sfjiou 
 £i£ TO T^ugXiov. John xiii. 26, relates the fact, omitting 
 the circumstance that the betrayer was dipping with 
 him in the dish, and giving a circumstance omitted 
 by Matthew and Mark, namely, that Jesus pointed 
 out the betrayer by giving him a sop, after he had 
 dipped it. Ba4^as to ■\,u^\av eitiSudu. Kai Efji,6a4'ag to 
 ^/ufjiiov. The word here refers to the dipping of the 
 bread in the bitter sauce. Neither pouring nor sprink- 
 ling could have any place here. 
 
 Luke xvi. 24. " And he cried and said, Father 
 Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that 
 he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my 
 tongue," iva ^aL^y\ to ax^ov rou 5axTuXou auTou uiaToff. 
 
 Rev. xix. 13. " And he was clothed with a vesture 
 dipped in blood," ^sSafifASvov M[t.wri. 
 
 The glorious Redeemer is here represented as going 
 forth to the destruction of his enemies, and as an em- 
 blem of his work, he is figured as clothed with a ves- 
 ture dipped in blood. This gives the most awful 
 
OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 image of the approaching slaughter. Dr. Gale, in- 
 deed, has alleged some reasons, to prove that we have 
 not here the genuine reading. " The authority of 
 Origen," says he, "whose writings are older than 
 any copies of the Old Testament we can boast of, 
 and therefore that he described from more ancient 
 copies, must be more considerable than any we have. 
 Now he, in his commentary on St. John's Gospel, 
 cites these-words from ver. 11, to ver. 16, inclusively, 
 almost verbatim as they are in our edition ; but 
 reads sjiavno-fAsvov, sprinkled, instead of /3sea(<,fAsvov ; 
 which makes this passage nothing to our purpose. 
 However, 1 should not think this single authority 
 of Origen sufficient to justify my altering the word; 
 but I have likewise observed that the Syriac and 
 iEthiopic versions, which, for their antiquity, must 
 be thought almost as valuable and authentic as the ori- 
 ginal itself, being made from primitive copies, in or 
 very near the times of the Apostles, and rendering the 
 passage by words which signify to sprinkle, must 
 greatly confirm Origen's reading of the place, and 
 very strongly argue, that he has preserved the very 
 same word which was in the autograph." These 
 reasons, however, do not in the least bring the com- 
 mon reading into suspicion in my mind, and I will 
 never adopt a reading to serve a purpose. Misappre- 
 hension of the meaning of the passage, it is much more 
 likely, has substituted e^jav^-irffAsvov for /3£§a(ji,(ji.£vov. The 
 warrior is represented as going out, and not as return- 
 ing, and the garment as emblematically dyed to re- 
 present his work before it was beguu. Dr. Cox's re- 
 ply to Mr. Ewing's observations on this verse is a tri- 
 umphant refutation of the objection which misconcep- 
 tion 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, spotted, or stained with 
 blood.' 'In this case, evidently, the vesture was 
 4 
 
S8 THE MODE 
 
 not popped into the blood, but the blood was popped 
 upon the garment, and thus it was bespattered with 
 blood,' &c.* 
 
 " If any thing is evident here, it is that Mr. Ewing 
 has mistaken the sense, and unwillingly produced a 
 quotation most unequivocally in our favour. The 
 illustrious person described is the Wokd, 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 with it he 
 should smite the nations ; iva sv aurr] ifaroufir) tu s^vij. 
 But it may be demanded, is it not incongruous to re- 
 present his vesture as stained or bespattered, as dyed 
 in the blood of his enemies before he has engaged in 
 the conflict 1 The answer is, it does not in reality, 
 though it is so commonly understood, refer to the 
 blood of foes splashed in mortal stiife upon the garment 
 of the conqueror ; it simply contains an emblema- 
 tical representation of Christ, under the figure of a ge- 
 neral, commencing some great expedition, clothed in 
 the splei did vestment which was usual on suieh oc- 
 casions. The name given to it by the Roman writ- 
 ers,-is Paludamenium. It was the distinguishing robe 
 of the general, and was usually of a purple, or scarlet 
 colour. As the prcetexta, or white robe, worn by the 
 chief magistrate, constituted the usual domestic badge 
 of honour ; so the Paludamenium distinguished the 
 hero when he marched to battle ' Quibus erat,' says 
 Pliny, ' moris paludamento mutare prsetextam.' A 
 vesture dyed in blood, was, therefore, a vesture of a 
 red or purple colour, to express the military charac- 
 ter of the expedition ; as, even to the present day, a 
 peculiar dress, of a vivid and sanguinary hue, is worn 
 
 • See chapter on the Examination of Mr. Ewing's System in this work. 
 
OP BAPTISM. 39 
 
 by those who are devoted to war. What then be- 
 comes of our author's bepopped or besprinkled vesture ? 
 It is found only in his own imagination." 
 
 Before I proceed farther, I shall advert to some ex- 
 amples in which /3a*rtj has been supposed to signify 
 to wash; but in all of which it retains its own pecuhar 
 meaning. 
 
 Aristophanes applies the word to the cleansing of 
 wool in warm water ; must not icash or cleanse, then, be 
 one of its meanings 1 By no means. Let us examine 
 his words : irgwra (at]v ya| r si^ia jBoof^ouii SsffAU xara, rov 
 af)(a.m vofiov. " First they dip the wool in warm water, 
 according to ancient custom." What is asserted, is 
 that they dip, or immerse, ox 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 axi exact version of the 
 words. Had he used the word *Xuvu, then the washing 
 would have been expressed, and the dipping would 
 have been necessarily supposed. Both these words 
 might be used for the same thing in many situations j 
 still each of them would have its peculiar meaning. 
 Accordingly Suidasand Phavorinus interpret /Saifnvtfi 
 here by irXuvourfi. It argues very shallow phil >sophv, 
 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 arc 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 equivalent, as in certain situations, to 
 be equally fitted to fill the same place, when each con- 
 tinues even in such situations to have its characteris- 
 tic 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. Whenever they find one 
 word used in explanation of another, or where ano- 
 ther would serve the purpose, they think the worda 
 
40 THE MODE 
 
 are synonymous. 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 ^airru signifies to wash. 
 Suidas and Phavorinus explain it by *Xuvu, therefore 
 it must signify to wash. To convince the unlearned 
 reader of the fallacy of this principle, let him open an 
 Englisli 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 
 supposed to be irresistibly evident, that ^airru signi- 
 nifies to wash, because baptism is referred to in the ex- 
 pression, " having your bodies washed with pure wa- 
 ter," Heb. X. 22. When a person is dipped in pure 
 water, he is washed, still dipping and washing are two 
 different things. Baptism is a washing, not from.the 
 meaning of the word itself, for as far as that is con- 
 cerned, it might be a defilement ; but because it is an 
 immersion in pure water. 
 
 The passage from Herodotus, in which he repre- 
 sents swine as an abomination to the Egyptians, 
 coincides entirely with this doctrine. If an Egyp- 
 tian touches a swine, he runs immediately to the 
 river -and dips himself. That he dips himself, is 
 the thing expressed ; 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 paicru no more signifies to loash 
 or pwri/j/ here, than it does in the translation of the 
 LXX. with respect to Job, when applied to plung- 
 ing in filth. The word has here its own peculiar 
 meaning, and makes not the smallest intrusion into 
 the province of Xouw. Mr. Ewing's remark on this 
 passage is truly surprising. The Egyptian, it seems, 
 performed this operation on himself, but the Chris- 
 tian is baptized by another. And can Mr. Ewing 
 really think that this is any thing to the purpose 1 
 Was it ever supposed that it is from the verb /3a*T'" 
 that we are to learn whether a believer is to dip him-* 
 
OP BAPTISM. 41 
 
 self, or to be dipped by another in the ordinance of 
 baptism'? It is enough that tiie word informs of the 
 mode : other things must be learned from their pro- 
 per sources. From Herodotus, in the story of the 
 Egyptian, we may learn the meaning of the word j 
 but froni Scripture, we must learn whether the opera- 
 tion is to be perlornied to the believer by himself, or 
 by another. 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 unaH'ected, whether the 
 person dips himself or is dipped by another. Does 
 Mr. Ewing doubt whether /Saifru can apply when the 
 operation respects a thing different from the agent ■? 
 This cannot be his meaning, for almost all the exam- 
 ples of its use refer to such cases. Does he mean, 
 that among the innumerable things which are said to 
 be dipped, as expressed by fSamw, a human being is 
 not to be found, except in the case of one perofrming 
 the operation for himself? If this is his meaning, it is 
 not to the purpose : for though an example could not 
 be found in which one person is said to dip another, 
 the commandof Christ warrants the practice, and the 
 word /Sa*rw will apply to one thing as well as another. 
 But, as Dr. Cox has observed,- there is an example in 
 the case of the drowning of Aristobulus, which we 
 shall afterwards consider. And we have already seen 
 an example in the Scythian custom of immersing 
 their new-born infants. But I will never consent that 
 any such example is necessary. The demand isfounded 
 on a false principle of criticism. A passage from the 
 Hymns of Callimachus, in which this word is misun- 
 derstood by some, is set in its proper hght by Dr. 
 Gale. ''My opinion," says he, "is cowiinmed also 
 by Callimachus, in his hymns, when he says .^ 
 ' Ye Grecifin watermen, (they furnished private 
 houses with water, as some do among us) dip not yqiiv 
 vessels in the river Inachus to-day.' The hymn was 
 made on the splemnizing the festival of washing thq 
 4* 
 
42 THE MODE 
 
 Statue of Pallas ; which ceremony was performed by- 
 persons set apart for that purpose, in the river Ina- 
 chus, a little before day ; from this river the inhabit- 
 ants were usually supplied with water, which makes 
 the poet, in veneration to the goddess, charge the wa- 
 termen here not to dip their pitchers in the river on 
 that day." 
 
 This, however, is of importance, rather for the un- 
 derstanding of the poet, than for ascertaining the 
 meaning of the word in question. For whether the 
 purpose of the watermen was to wash their pitchers 
 by dipping them, or to fill them by dipping them, 
 dipping is the only thing expressed by the word 
 
 In Dan. iv. 30, 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 fSa/irru 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 
 thie passage well enough, but is by no means a trans- 
 lation 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, in- 
 stead of being harsh, M'ould have found correspond- 
 ing 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 perspicuity. The words 
 of the Septuagint are, a*o tt^s S^oiov tou ou^avou to 
 rfufia auTou sScupri. " His body was imynersed in the 
 dew." In the translation, " His body was wet with 
 the dew," the general effect is the same, but the elo- 
 quence 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 
 
OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 language to this observation, what havoc should we 
 make of their beauties'. How dull and lifeless would 
 become their animated expressions! I have seen'no 
 explication of this passage that appears to develop 
 the principle of this application, tliough the general 
 sense of the passage is well enough understood. As 
 the theory of generic meaning in /3a*Tu, including 
 every application of water without reference to mode, 
 has no other plausible foundation but the common 
 version of this passage, 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 1 think he 
 fails in his attempt to analyse the expression. His ob- 
 servations on the copiousness of the eastern dews are 
 much to the purpose ; a part of which I shall tra 
 scribe. " Philosophically speaking," says he, " t 
 hottest climates and clearest skies naturally aboun 
 most with dew, which is also confirmed by constant 
 experience. It is commonly known to be so in her 
 Majesty's Leeward Islands in America, — where one 
 season of the year, when they have no rains for a con- 
 siderable time together, the fruits of the earth would 
 be burned up, Avere it not for the dews that fall plen- 
 tifully in the night. That incomparable mathemati- 
 cian, Captain Halley, observed, when making some 
 experiments 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 withovxt frequent wiping. 
 And as to Africa, in particular, where part of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's dominions lay, Pliny tells us, the nights 
 were very dewy. Egypt has little or no rain ; but is 
 fed by the overflowing of the Nile, and by constant 
 nocturnal dews ; and Nebuchadnezzar kept his court 
 in a country of near the same latitude, and conse- 
 quently of the hke temperament." 
 
 This is very useful as a ground-work for the ana- 
 lysis of the expression ; but it does not in the least 
 
 ire 
 
 i 
 
44 THE MODE 
 
 give a reason why a wetting with a copious fall of dew 
 is called an immersion. 'Had this monarch, been wet 
 even by a shower-bath, why is his wetting called a 
 dipping ? If all the water in the ocean had fallen on 
 him, it would not have been a literal immersion. The 
 words would still be wanting. Our opponents, if they 
 know then- business, may admit this, and still deny 
 the consequence which this writer draws from it. Nor 
 does this gentleman succeed better in analysing the ex- 
 pression. "Hence it appears very clear," says he, 
 "that both Daniel and his translators designed to ex- 
 press the great dew Nebuchadnezzar should be ex- 
 posed 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 
 BJut in, so that the metaphor is easy, and not at all 
 Bpained." But Daniel does not say that Nebuchad- 
 Tiezzar should lie in dew, and be covered with it all over. 
 Had this been his expression, it would have been 
 quite literal. Dr. Gale absurdly supposes that BairTu 
 means to cover with water without reference to mode, 
 and at the same time metaphorically alludes to dip- 
 ping. Neither Daniel nor his translators say that 
 Nebuchadnezzer 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 gentlest distilla' 
 tion that is known in nature." " To this it has been 
 generally replied," says Dr. Cox, " and I think satis- 
 factorily, that a body exposed to eastern dews, would 
 be as wet as if plunged into water." Now, this is 
 vahd, 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 contaioed in the word. 
 
or BAPTISM. 45 
 
 Many persons do plead for a copious effusion of water 
 in Baptism ; and they might yield to the above rea- 
 soning, still contending that the mode is not essential 
 or that it is not immersion. The most complete wet- 
 ting by dew or rain is not dipping hterally. If we will 
 fairly meet this passage, we must show, not n)erely 
 that Nebuchadnezzar was completely wetted, but 
 that a wetting in one mode may be figuratively desig- 
 nated by the words that properly denote a wetting in 
 another mode. I will not hide one particle of the 
 strength of our opponent's cause, nor an apparent 
 weakness in our own. Let Christianity itself sink, 
 rather than use one insufficient argument. 
 
 Dr. Cox continues : " The passage, however, me- 
 rits a little more detailed explanation. The verb is 
 used in the passive voice, in the second aorist, and the 
 indicative mood, implying consequently that the ac- 
 tion was pastj 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 characteri«iic 
 meaning. " It does not," continues Dr. Cox, "im- 
 ply 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 expresses mode here as well as anj' where 
 else. To suppose the contrary gives up the point at 
 issue, as far as mode is concerned. This in fact 
 makes jSa/jfru signify simply to wet, without reference 
 to mode. 
 
 Dr. Cox gives an illustration, but unfortunately it 
 can give no relief, as it fails in an essential point of 
 similarity. " Suppose," says he, " by way of illus- 
 tration, we select another word, and put it into the 
 same voice and tense ; as sgXagrj d*o tfou, " he was 
 hurl 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 in- 
 
46 THE MODE 
 
 flicted," &c. Very true. Nothing of manner is here 
 expressed, and for an obvious reason, nothing of man- 
 ner is expressed by the verb BXairTu. But will Dr. 
 Cox grant that this is the case with the verb Ba*Tw 1 
 ,If he does, about what is he contending 1 Baifru 
 not only necessarily implies mode, but literally ex- 
 presses nothing but mode. Instead of literally denot- 
 ing wetting in any manner, it does not literally include 
 wetting at all. This is as true in this passage, as it is 
 in any other. Mode is as much expressed here, as it 
 is in the commission of our Lord to the Apostles. 
 The difference is, that the thing that is here called an 
 immersion, was so only figuratively. I claim this 
 passage as, much as I do the plainest example in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 That the word in question ought here, as in all 
 other places, to be rendered immerse, is necessary 
 from the following reasons : 
 
 1. It is utterly unwarrantable to give a meaning 
 to the word which it cannot be shown to have in 
 some unquestionable examples. To assign a mean- 
 ing not so justified, is to reason without first princi- 
 ples — -to build without a foundation. This suits the 
 visionary, but can never be the resource of true criti- 
 cism. 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 wetting of Nebuchadnezzar is called immersion, 
 immersion it is called. 
 
 2. This is confirmed, as Dr. Cox has observed, by 
 the original. The word in the original signifies to 
 dip ; if so, why should not the Greek word by which 
 it is translated have its own peculiar meaning ? How 
 can mode bs excluded, if it is in both the original and 
 the translation ] 
 
 On this point Dr. Gale is quite satisfactory. " The 
 word here used in the original," says he, " is y^QT, 
 which in the Chaldee necessarily implies dipping, wit- 
 ness Buxtorf, Castell, &c. and above all, the constant 
 
OP BAPTISM. 47 
 
 use of the word. It is by this word the Jerusalem 
 Targum renders the Hebrew "jao, Levit. iv. 6, — the 
 only place where that imperfect version translates the 
 Hebrew word, but had it been complete, we should 
 probably have had more examples. 
 
 " In other places where the word is used, though 
 not to translate h^o, it is always in the same sense, 
 signifying to immerse or drown ; as Exod. xv. 4, in 
 which place the Jerusalem Targum, Jonathan's Pa- 
 raphrase, and that called Onkelos, the Syriac ver- 
 sion, and the original of Moses, do all use y^Q or 
 yaa, to signify, immerse, plunge, or drown, as our ver- 
 sion renders it ; but I suppose it will not be ques- 
 tioned, 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 ^aicru in this passage, must have its own pe- 
 culiar 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 neighbourhood of Babylon, 
 and well enough acquainted with the large dews in 
 these parts, and endeavoured to give an exact literal 
 translation, have shunned this error." If, then, the 
 Syriac translators have rendered the original by a 
 term that signifies to dip, why should not ^a«<ru in 
 the translation of the LXX. have the same meaning t 
 To me the reasoning of Dr. Gale is entirely satis- 
 factory. 
 
 4. The expression is intelligible and beautiful in our 
 own language, and, I have no doubt, might be exem- 
 phfied in all languages. Alluding to the flood, we 
 might say, that God immersed the world in water ; or of 
 a rock when covered by the tide, that it is immersed in 
 the sea. Do we not every day hear similar phraseo- 
 logy 1 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 Daniel. One mode of 
 
48 THE MODE 
 
 wetting is figured as another mode of wetting, by the 
 liveUness of the imagination. The same figure meets 
 us ahuost in every page of the poets. Virgil will sup- 
 ply us with instances in abundance ; 
 
 " Postquam collapsi cineres, et flamma quievit ; 
 Relliquias vino et bibulam lav^re favilldm." 
 
 They washed the relics, and the warm sparli, in wine. 
 
 Who washes ashes, and bones, and embers 1 On the 
 principle of Mr. Ewing's criticism, we might, from this 
 passage of Virgil, deny that lavo properly signifies to 
 wash, and assert that it denotes to drench, to quench, to 
 wet, to moisten, &c. What avails it then , to tell us 
 that Nebuchadnezzar was weJwith the gentlest distilla- 
 tion in nature 1 The effect of that gentle operation 
 may be so like that of another more violent operation, 
 that the language of the imagination may designate 
 the more gentle by the characteristic denomination of 
 the more violent. A wetting by dew, may, in the lan- 
 guage of animation, be called a dipping. Language 
 violates the laws of natural philosophy, as well as of 
 logic, without scruple ; or rather it does not at all own 
 subjection to them. It owes allegiance only to the 
 laws of Hfiind. Things most absurd, if explained ac- 
 cording to the laws of natural philosophy, and most 
 imtrue, according 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 1 Was it for lack of proper terms to express his 
 ideas 1 Of these he had abundance. Was it to de- 
 ceive or puzzle 1 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 Nebu- 
 chadnezzar 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 la/»o 
 in this figurative catachrestic sense. Literal accuracy 
 
OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 would have been comparatively tame. And had not 
 the word ^a.icrt^ been a term whose meaning affects re- 
 ligious practice, the above expression of Daniel and 
 the Septuagint, instead of tormenting commentators 
 and controversialists, would have been admired as a 
 beauty in composition. " Wetting by the gentlest dis- 
 tillation 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 clas- 
 sics, is a ground of never-ending quibble to theolo- 
 gians, 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 autho- 
 rity 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, from this ex- 
 ample, 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 prjelia misnent 
 Vulneribas crebris : lavit ater corpora sanguis. 
 
 In the encounter of the two bulls, the black blood 
 washes their bodies. Here it might be said, in the spi- 
 rit of Mr. Ewing's criticism, the black blood could 
 not wash; nay, it would defile the bodies of the con- 
 tending animals. Lavo, then, cannot signify to wash, 
 but to smear. But every one must see that the word 
 lavo has here its pecuhar signification, and that the 
 whole beauty of the expression depends on this cir- 
 cumstance. Everyman 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 washing, 
 to express figuratively the copiousness of the blood 
 that flowed from the mutual wounds of the contend- 
 ing bulls. This gives a feast to the imagination, 
 where literal expression would afford no food. Audire 
 habenas, to hear the reins, signifying to obey the bridle, 
 
 5 
 
50 THE MODE 
 
 is an expression of the same kind. Indeed, it is im- 
 possible to open the poets without being presented 
 with examples of this phraseolog}^ 
 
 Having examined those examples in which this 
 word has been supposed to signify to loash or to wet, 
 but in each of which it is to be explauied 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 re- 
 peatedly to every mode of the application of liquids, in 
 the voluminous writings of this great physician, there 
 can be no doubt but we shall find the characteristic 
 meaning of jSair-Tu, Accordingly, we do find it in nu- 
 merous 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 Superfcet. p. 50. edit. 
 Basil. Ba'ji'TEiv SsTug y,YjXa.s, s\i evi rwv jxixk6ax<r7i^iuv 5i5i(xevw. 
 " Dip the probes in some emollient." 
 
 At the bottom of the next page, we have another 
 example. fSa-^aiia 8s to ^axog ev fiu^u Xeuxu aiyuirriu svu6si, 
 " Dipping the"*rag in white sweet-smelling Egyptian 
 ointment." 
 
 In the treatise De Victus Ratione, p. 104, the fol- 
 lowing example occurs : syx^uipiai, Se^ixoi ej oivov avg-n^ov 
 E(x§ai'To,a£voi. "Let the food be cakes dipped hot in 
 sour wine." 
 
 In the treatise De Usu Humidorum, we have the 
 following example ; 
 
 E ^la 8s otfa (x,£v ^j^"!-"? sivixa, i) v-aTaysirai, y\ svtsrai, ■») Sfi- 
 Sa^r-riTai sis u(5wf 4'U^^uraTov. " But for the sake of cool- 
 ing the wound, wool is either sprinkled with the sour 
 wine, or put into it, or it may be dipped into the cold- 
 est water." 
 
 In continuation from the last words, the following 
 immediately succeed : oa'a i5e -^v^wc, fi^sXag oivoj xai si^iu 
 
OF BAPTISM. 51 
 
 xara^vai. oiov. xai (puXXa teutXiuv, ■») oflovia /Sa^rsrai siri ra 
 ■rXsisa. 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 : xou ir^os tjjv xsipaXiiv tf^oyyous £v uSart /3a*ruw 
 &sf(A(j, w^otfri^Evai, Lib. xi. p. 145. "Dipping sponges 
 in warm water, apply them to the head." 
 
 In the next page, at top, we have the following ex- 
 ample : sfufcv Ss difoyyous ^aicruv ss \>Su^ &e|(j,ov, if^off'ri- 
 ^crfdto ir^oj Tag yva^ous xai <ra. tfiayovia. " As an external 
 application, dipping sponges into warm water, let them 
 be applied to the cheeks and jaws." A similar exam- 
 ple occurs near the top of the next page ; rf'Toyyov es 
 xjSu^ &s^(iov s(A§«,irT£jv, ir^orfTi^svai. " Dipping a sponge 
 into warm water, apply it." Page 149. (Sxogoda StSov, 
 Eff (aeXi /Safrm. " Give garlic, dipping it into honey." 
 
 In page 151, we have the following example : ^wjaov Js 
 (*■>) |o(ps£T-£j, (xijiJs ^a/ifTsaSai. " Let him not sup soup, nor 
 even dip his bread into it." In the Appendix to Mr. 
 Ewing's Essay on Baptism, written by a friend, we find 
 a very odd view of this passage. I shall quote bis 
 observations at large. " Hippocrates (de Morb. lib. 
 ii.) uses /SaifTid^a.! to denote the application of a liquid to 
 the skin. Zu(ji,os is f/,») ^opeiTu (xi]5s ^aicrei ai, " neither 
 sip, iiorpour (or sprinkle) broth ;" using ^oLttrsiicu in this 
 sense, I suppose, from the idea that the application of 
 the liquid would strongly affect the place to which the 
 application was made ; at all events, it would require 
 no small ingenuity to discover in this passage the idea 
 of immersion." In this criticism there is a complica- 
 tion of errors and false principles. 1. Why does the 
 author translate l3aifTsif6ai hy pour or sprinkle? Is 
 there one instance in which it confessedly must have 
 this meaning in the whole compass of Greek litera- 
 ture ? If not, to apply such a meaning in any parti- 
 cular emergency is to reason without first principles. 
 2. If the author read the whole of the works of Hippo- 
 crates, as I am convinced he did, must he not have 
 
52 THE MOBE 
 
 found a multitude of examples in which the word ^wtros 
 unquestionably has the meaning dip ? He would re- 
 ply, no doubt, such a meaning could not apply here 1 
 But even if he could not find any view in which the 
 usual meaning of the verb could apply in this instance, 
 would it not have been more candid to grant the usual 
 signification of the word, and confess a difficulty, than 
 to assign a meaning altogether at random, without a 
 shadow of authority either from the word or the con- 
 text? 3. How does he bring the skin of the patient 
 into requisition in this place? Where does he find 
 this ] Neither in the expression, nor in any usual ellip- 
 sis. He might as well have supposed the feet or the 
 head. 4. Is it a fact that broth or soup would have 
 such a mischievous effect on the skin 1 The solution 
 of this surpasses my medical knowledge. 5. It re- 
 quires no ingenuity to find here the proper meaning 
 of the word Ba^Tstf^ai, as importing to dip. It is well 
 known that at table the ancients dipped their bread 
 into the soup, or other liquid which they used as a 
 seasoning. What then can be so natural as to fill up 
 the ellipsis with the bread which was dipped 1 An 
 ellipsis of the regimen in things so common was quite 
 usual. The evangelist uses the same ellipsis, where 
 he says," he that dippeth with me in the dish," that is, 
 he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, as ano- 
 ther evangelist expresses it ; or " he that dippeth his 
 bread with me," might, with equal propriety, be sup- 
 plied as the supple i ental matter. 6. The elliptical 
 matter must be supplied by the connexion. In an 
 ellipsis we are never left to wander abroad to look for 
 the thing that is wanting. It is always omitted, be- 
 cau e it is so obvious that it cannot be missed. This 
 is the principle on which ellipsis is used, and on no 
 other is it justifiable. Were it otherwise, all language 
 would consist of riddles. This is the reason why eUip- 
 sis is so common in conversation, and about the most 
 common things. What is omitted, is omitted, because 
 every hearer will instantly supply it. We say of a 
 
OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 man, that he is a great drinker — drinker of what ? 
 Drinker of waier "? No. Drinker of milk ? No. But 
 without the smallest hesitation, we understand it to 
 be drinker of ardent spirits. Just so in the present 
 passage. The elliptical matter must be supplied from 
 the connexion, and this leaves no doubt what it is. 
 The writer was giving direction about the food of his 
 patient. In the words immediately preceding, he 
 prescribed boiled rauiton, fowl, gourd, and beet. In 
 the passage quoted, he forbids him to eat broth, or 
 even to dip — dip whati Dip his bread in the broth. 
 What else could he mean 1 In this view, the passage 
 has a natural and a rational meaning. In some cases, 
 a patient might be forbidden to partake freely of broth, 
 when he might be permitted to season his morsel by 
 dipping it in the savoury liquid. But in this case, it 
 seems, even this indulgence was not permitted. But 
 upon what principle could the skin of the patient be 
 supplied as the supplemental matter ? It is not in the 
 connexion, and is as^arbitrary as if we should supply 
 the coat of the patient. It may be added, that in the 
 immediately succeeding connexion, the patient is per- 
 mitted to eat fish. The whole passage speaks of diet. 
 7. Whatever is forbidden in a medical prescription, 
 must be a thing that is likely to be done, if not forbid- 
 den. No physician would act so absurdly as to prohi- 
 bit what there is no probability his patient would do. 
 Now, there was no probability that the patient here 
 would sprinkle broth on his skin, had the physician 
 been silent on the subject. I never heard of any such 
 custom, and against even accidental sprinkling he 
 was sufficiently guarded, by the circumstance that he 
 was not permitted to use the fluid as food. Thera 
 was surely no danger of sprinkling his skin with 
 broth, if he was not permitted to eat broth. This 
 gloss is one of the wildest that I ever met. 
 
 The word occurs again in the same book, p. 153. 
 Soi,ifT»v 1$ u5u?, e*( ra (trtjisa xai tov vwrov eitm^ivcU " Dip- 
 
 5* 
 
54 THE MODE 
 
 ping linen rags (^axia iifjiiTuSiou) into water, apply them 
 to the breast and back." 
 
 Lib. iii. p. 163. ito^cpoXvyog ya^ Moi(s\i8vc\> yivofjisv*)? 
 E*i rris yXui((ctr]g, oia rfiiSri^iou ^acpevTog sis sXam. "A hvid 
 blister rising on the tongue, as of iron dipped into 
 oil. 
 
 P. 164. 6ff riiv s|ST^i& y>]vuyf->)v, jcafXi»)v TST^rjjifjievov xa» 
 ■)(Kia^rjv, E*t§av)^a£o^oviov \sifTo\i *s^ixaXu-^a( xuxXu tov &u^7ixa. 
 " Having dipped a piece of fine hnen into moist Ere- 
 trian earth, well pounded, and warm, cover the breast 
 round with it." 
 
 In the treatise De Internarum Partium Affectibus, 
 we have the following examples from the same au- 
 thor : — 
 
 P. 193. sv i)5ari -^vx^^u j3a<Kruv o'surXa xai, ru rfufxaTi 
 6*iTi4siff, fx.akiga, ir^oj ^ovov vsov, t] gaxia fSarfruv sv ■^v)(^^(>i 
 vSan xai sxSXiSwv ir^otfT-ifevai. " Dipping beet in cold wa- 
 ter, apply it to the body, especially to a new pain ; or 
 dipping rags in cold water, after wringing out the wa- 
 ter, apply them." 
 
 in the same page we have another example : 
 r^uysru Ss xai ryjs o^iyavou Trjs a'!faXi]S, ug irXsijov sg (AsXj 
 ; a-KoSaicruv. " Let him eat green marjoram, for the 
 most part dipping it into honey." 
 
 P. 199. Having prescribed a variety of things to 
 be eaten by his patient, he adds : «s lij^oraroi (asv outo* 
 (//aXija sia'i. xat sj tov ^u(jiov (jit] sjiSaTr'Tso'^M. " These are 
 of a very dry nature ; and let him not dip them into 
 the broth." This passage is a decisive commentary 
 on the ellipsis which Mr. Ewing's friend has so 
 strangely misunderstood. The different kinds of food 
 here mentioned, are prescribed on account of the qua- 
 lity of dryness, and the patient is expressly forbidden 
 to dip them in the soup or broth, as was usual. He 
 is not forbidden to sprinkle his skin with broth, which 
 no man ever thought of doing ; but he is forbidden, in 
 the eating of the things prescribed, to dip them in the 
 soup, which he was likely to do, had he not been for- 
 bidden. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 P. 202. Kautfai Ss sv ifulivoirfiv aTfaxroirfi, ^aifruv $s 
 eXkiov ^£ov. " Burn it with spindles of box-wood, dip- 
 ping them into boiling oil." 
 
 P. 203. goupouiSi -x^sstf^u. xai (fsXivcj, is o|off ^airruv. 
 " Let him use radish and parsley, dipping them into 
 vinegar." 
 
 In the treatise De Natura Muliebri, p. 119. goSmv 
 [Aufou EfAgaiTToutfa, " Dipping (the flies) into the oil of 
 roses." 
 
 P. 226. sv ■)Qj'r^iSiu, si^iov us (AaX^axuTttTov sy^Saifruv. 
 "Dipping the softest wool in a pipkin." 
 
 P. 228. airogaiTTuv sj o*ov avxr\s. " Dipping the balls 
 (^aXavous) into the juice of the fig-tree." 
 
 P. 231. 6(Jl€a^|/al ss aXsiipaj Xsuxov aiyviTTiov. " Dipping 
 (the plaster) into white Egyptian oil." 
 
 In the treatise De. Morb. Mul. the following exam- 
 ples occur : 
 
 p. 249 XaSwv d'sroyyov, rj ei^iov f/.aXfexov fSavruv ss &e^(i.ov 
 uSu^. " Taking a sponge, or dipping soft wool into 
 warm water." And in the next line : sira ss oivov 
 ax^rirov Sjj.^aifruv *aXiv tov tfiroyyov rj to si^iov. " Then dip- 
 ping again the sponge, or the wool, into pure wine." 
 
 P. 250. Speaking of a number of things boiled to- 
 gether, he says : sim si^iov sis Vouto ^omtuv. " Then 
 dipping wool into this." 
 
 P. 254. Speaking of a certain mixture, he says : 
 eiTEiTa jSa-^jaff Eg aXsKpaj ^o5ivov, tj cuyuifTiov, <ifgog6s(f6u tvjv rjfi^s- 
 frjv. " AJfter this, having dipped it into the oil of roses, 
 or Egyptian oil, let it be applied during the day." In 
 the same page, we have another example : fiSTa 6s ro 
 dsiiivov, (payoutfa x|o(jt(Aua SfiSairrourfa sg fAsXi. " After sup- 
 per, let her eat onions, dipping them into honey." 
 
 P. 257. When a blister is too painful to the pa- 
 tient, he orders it to be taken away ; and ss §oSmv sigiav 
 a/ifoSaifTBvda, 'regoiSsadu, "dipping wool into the oil of 
 ro.ses, let her apply it." 
 
 P. 258. Nirjov s^^ijo'ag |uv figT-iv*| xai *oiij(fas j8aXavo» 
 
 jSoMTruv ss epiSos fsaj i(^oiiridii, " Having boiled nitre 
 
56 THE MODE 
 
 with rosin, and forming- them into a ball, dipping it 
 into the fat of a fowl, apply it." 
 
 P. 261. SfA§a-|.aff eg aksi^pa^ XsuJcov atywffnov. "Dip- 
 ping the ball (/SaXavov) into white Egyptian oil." 
 
 Kixifc £v (xsXiri. 11 "/oXriv Tau^ou, 6f aiywimov sXaiov jSa-^a- 
 tfa ■riotfrifco'^u. " Having dipped nut gall into honey, 
 or the gall of a bull into Egyptian oil, let it be ap- 
 plied." lb. 
 
 jSaXavov 'j'oieiv su|ji,»))t6a, xai /3a*ruv ej sXaiov Xsuxov. " Make 
 an oval ball, and dip it into white oil." lb. 
 
 P. 262. siTEira ^axog 'rs|i&eivai XstfTov sv si|iw j8a^j..a(j'a 
 aX6)(j)a| aiyvicnov. " Then put a fine rag about it in 
 wool, dipping it into Egyptian oil." sg Xeuxov aKei(pa.^ 
 aiyuifTiov |3a*Tuv. " Dipping (the thing prescribed) 
 into white Egyptian oil." lb. 
 
 P. 263. 5^aX§av'(]j ocfov sXaiTjv £v£Xi|a£ ss o^oviov xeS^ivov 
 Sfji,ga4^a(fa. " Having 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, (xiiiSevi irs-rs^i vsifoirifj.svov eg o|os 
 s(ji,gairruv. " Cooked without pepper, dipping it into 
 vinegar." 
 
 p. 269. Speaking of wool rolled round a quill : 
 (Sa^ai, 7) Xsvxu, &c. " Dip it either in white oil, or," 
 &c. And within a few lines : v *rs^ov o|£i /3a^]>al. 
 " Dip the feather in vinegar." 
 
 P. 273. "'0 (JioXu§5iov a*o^a-^ai sg mSu^ ■\,vy_^m. "Dip 
 the leaden instrument into cold water." 
 
 P, 279. sXaipou f£ tfTEa^ i(^o(iTi6s(fSu tijxtov EfjiSairrwy 
 lxaK6axoM ei^iov. " Apply the fat of the deer, melted, 
 dipping soft wool into it." 
 
 P. 279. Ei|)ov Es [Au^Qv a'j'oSa'Tr'rouo'a. " Dipping wool 
 into ointment." 
 
 P. 280. TouTo 8ii,*\a.(fat sig ei|iov f/.aXaxov xa^a^ov, xai 
 EjASa^/aru ev Xeujcu eXkiu a(j/u*riw. " Put this mixture 
 into clean soft wool, and let her dip it in white 
 Egyptian oil," 
 
OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 P. 284. ^anTourfa 56 TO leivuSes sigm ev ft,ekm. " Dip- 
 ping the unscoured wool in honey." 
 
 P. 288. fSoKavov *oi6(v, xai Sf/.Sa'TTEiv ig ti tcjv vyguv. 
 " Form it into a ball, and dip it into some liquid." 
 
 jfoXr|v Tau|ou Tf iiTTiivire^i irXaddeiv *r£ju xai Ef aXsiipa^ S(ji,Sa- 
 4.as aiyuirriov, -ir^oo'Ti^evai. " Roll around a quill, the 
 gall of a bull, rubbed ; and dipping it into Egyptian 
 oil, apply it." 
 
 ri xuxXa(/.ivov otfov agrga/yaXov tfuv j^aXxou av6si, i) avSjxuv*)^ 
 xs<paXiiv, T^i-vJ/ttg tfuv aX»iTU, -frs^oi ieepit\afi(isiv sg Xsuxov ei^iov 
 EfiSairrstf^ai. " Or cyclaminus, the size of a die, with 
 the flower of brass ; or a head of anemone, bruising 
 it with meal, and putting the mixture into white wool, 
 around a quill, dip it," as directed above. For sifiov, 
 some read aXaiov ; dip it into white oil : oleo alho 
 intingito. 
 
 P. 289. Aivou TO (Syidrav auri] tyi xaXafiii otfov S^a')(}i,rtv 
 jco^/aff Xe-jfra, xaraSge^ai sv oivu Xeuxto wj rj^irfru tijv mxra, 
 tiretra aifri6riitas Sia,-)(\ianas rs sv iigtu ug (ioKiaxuraToi 
 sfiSaiTTEiv. " Having pounded finely a drachm of the 
 fibres of flax with the stalks, steep them thoroughly 
 for the night in the sweetest white wine ; then, hav- 
 ing strained and warmed it, dip the softest wool in 
 it." Literally, dip in it with the softest wool ; just 
 as we might say, dip the liquor with the wool, in- 
 stead of dip the wool in the liquor. 
 
 P. 290. (ffiu^vriv xai f'liTivJiv ofiou fii|aff, xai Sisig Sv oivw, 
 o^oviou sfxSairrtJv, if^oo'Ti^svai : " Mixing myrrh and rosin 
 together, and putting them in wine, dip a piece of 
 linen in the mixture, and apply it." 
 
 De Steril. p. 292. jSa^rciv 5s xai r-riv (iviXrjv sv tw (<,aX- 
 daxTii|i£j : " Dip the probe in the unguent." 
 
 P. 293. (puf yirfavra fSaXaviov li^iu xarsiXifai •ffXijv tou ax^eu 
 i«siTa Big aXsiipaf ^a^avra, ug rjSio'Tov, sriorf^eivai : " Working 
 them into a little ball, roll it in wool, except the top : 
 then having dipped it in the sweetest oil, apply it." 
 
 P. 297. Speaking of a mixture the size of a nut- 
 gall, he says : sg tgmv fiu^ov ^a^/atfa : " Dipping it in 
 the ointment of fleur-de-luce." 
 
58 THE MODE 
 
 P. 299. MoXu§5ov xcu Xidov Tov diSrf^ov a^ifa^si, <raura 
 
 ■j-forfflsTu x?')"'^" = " Taking lead and the magnetic stone, 
 rub them smooth, and tie them in a rag ; then hav- 
 ing dipped them in breast milk, apply them." 
 
 Ei^iov a*Xurov sg (jisXi /3a4/as : ib. " Dipping unwashed 
 wool into honey." 
 
 De Morb. Pass. Grass, p. 339. Speaking of a shoe- 
 maker who was killed by the prick of his awl in the 
 thigh, he says, sSa^sv us SaxrvXav, " The instrument 
 dipped about a finger's length." 
 
 P. 362. (firayyoug ^aifrovra : " Dipping sponges." 
 
 De Ratione Victus Acutorum, p. 383. ^e^i^ovs a^rwg 
 sfoivou lesXaMogxai sXaiou avoSairruv. "Dipping hot cakes 
 in black wine and oil." 
 
 Coacse Preecognitiones, p. 435. IlofiipoXoyof bs viro- 
 *sX)ou yivofASv^iff sifi T'jjf yXuisfrig sv ot-^-xa., oia (fi8ri^io\i /3a(p£vros 
 5S sXaiov, j^aXe*UT5|i) »| afoXvcfig yivsrai : " If a livid blister 
 rise on the tongue at the beginning, as of iron dipped 
 in oil, the cure becomes the more difficult." 
 
 De Ulceribus, p. 514. Ta (ji,ev aXXa, ra aura, avri 5s 
 TOM oivou, o^oj o|uTarov sgu Xeuxov. £fJ^.§a^]>al 53 sg auro, si^ia uj 
 oKfvKudsa. "The other things being the same; but 
 in place of the wine, take the strongest vinegar of 
 white wine. Dip into this the most greasy wool." 
 ra si^ia fBa-^ai ug sv oXoyisu uSari. sitstra, oivov |uyp^6aj fxs^off 
 T^irov, ^^|/Slv iug av xaXug s-^r) to ^aj^os : ib. " Dip the 
 wool in the smallest quantity of water possible ; then 
 pouring into it of wine a third part, boil it to a good 
 thickness." 
 
 P. 522. sv fAsXiri jSa'truv rjifa^ /8oof wfji-ov : " Dipping 
 the raw liver of an ox in honey. " 
 
 Thus we have seen in what a vast multitude of ex- 
 amples Hippocrates uses this word to signify to dip ; 
 and that quite irrespectively of the nature of the 
 fluid. Indeed, he not only uses it so frequently in 
 this signification, but he uses it in no other signifi- 
 cation, except once in the sense of to dye ; and it is 
 the only word which he employs to denote the mode 
 
OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 in question. For I have intentionally omitted no 
 instance in which the word occurs in all his works. 
 Besides, we have in this writer the words which sig- 
 nify every application of water, and other fluids, from 
 the gentle distillation from the nipple, to the bathing 
 of the whole body. He uses gaivu, «iovaw, &c. for 
 sprinktt ; and for pour he uses x^'J' veith its com- 
 pounds, which occurs times innumerable. For wet, 
 moistefi, soak, steep, he uses Ssvu, l3^s-)(u, reyyu, &c. 
 The first of which meets us in almost every page ; 
 the second is often used ; and of the last there are 
 several examples. For bathing the whole body, he 
 constantly uses Xouu, and he makes a very free use 
 of the bath, both hot and cold : for washing a part 
 of the body, he uses vwru, with its compounds ; and 
 occasionally the compounds of irXuvu. If it is possi- 
 ble to settle the meaning of a common word, surely 
 this is sufficient to fix the meaning of fiatTiji be- 
 yond all reasonable controversy. In the words of 
 the father of medicine, in which he has occasion to 
 treat of every mode of the application of liquids, and 
 which consist of no less than five hundred and forty- 
 three closely printed folio pages, all the words of mode 
 are applied, and /3a*Tw invariably is used when he de- 
 signates immersion. 
 
 Having established the meaning of this word, as 
 significant of mode, I shall now show that it signifies 
 also to dye. That it has this signification, I believe, 
 is not doubted by any. But while one party contends 
 that this is its primary signification, the other errs as 
 far on the opposite side ; contending that this mean- 
 ing is only by consequence, and that the word, v.hen 
 it relates to dyeing, always denotes dyeing by dipping, 
 as the mode. Now, while I contend that dyeing is 
 the secondary meaning of this word, I contend also 
 that this is a real literal meaning, independent of con- 
 sequence. Although this meaning arose from the 
 mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come 
 by appropriation to denote dyeing, without reference 
 
60 THE MODE 
 
 to mode. Were this a point of mere philological ac- 
 curacy, I would pursue it no farther ; but as it is of 
 material importance in this controversy, I shall esta- 
 bUsh it by a number of examples, that will put the fact 
 beyond question. One truth can never injure ano- 
 ther ; and if it has the appearance of doing so, we may 
 depend that there is something about the matter 
 which we do not understand. The advocates of truth 
 often labour in the proof of what cannot be proved, 
 the proof of which their cause does not require, and 
 which sometimes would be injurious rather than pro- 
 fitable. That (8a*Tu signifies to dye in any manner, is 
 a truth which, instead of being against us, serves to 
 solve difficulties that have been very clumsily got over 
 by some of the ablest writers on this side of the ques- 
 tion. Indeed one of the most plausible objections is 
 by this fact removed to a demonstration. 
 
 Nothing in the history of words, is more common 
 than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas 
 not originally included in them, are often affixed to 
 some words; while others drop ideas originally asserted 
 in their application. In this way ^atru, from signify- 
 ing mere mode, came to be applied to a certain opera- 
 tion usually performed in that mode. From signify- 
 ing to dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, 
 because this was the way in which things were usu- 
 ally dyed. And afterwards from dyeing by dipping, 
 it came to denote dyeing in any manner. A like pro- 
 cess might be shown in the history of a thousand other 
 words. Candlestick originally denoted a stick to hold 
 a candle, but now the utensil employed to hold a can- 
 dle, is called a candlestick, even when if is of gold. 
 
 The only instance in which I have observed the 
 word /Saifru in this signification, in the works of Hip- 
 pocrates, employs it to denote dyeing by dropping 
 the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed; s*siSav iiadrali] 
 sift TO. i\}.a.TM ^a*rsTai : \" When it drops upon the gar- 
 ments, they are dyed." This surely is not dyeing by 
 dipping. 
 
op SAIPTISM. 61 
 
 There is a similar instance in Arrian's Expedition 
 of Alexander the Great, the only one in which I have 
 found the word at all in that work tous Ss ifuyuvas 
 Xsysi Nsa^-xps on fSa/frovrai IvSoi : " Nearchus relates that 
 the Indians dye their beards." It will not be con- 
 tended that they dyed their beards by immersion. 
 
 We meet this word, or its derivatives, several times 
 in iElian, in the sense of dyeing, and sometimes when 
 the process was not by dipping. Speaking of an old 
 coxcomb, who endeavoured to conceal his age by dye- 
 ing his hair, he says, Sm touto tijv Tjixa iroXiav ourfav 
 s«sigaro ^cuptj cKpavi^siv : " He endeavoured to conceal 
 the hoariness of his hair by dyeing it." ^acpti here 
 denotes dyeing in general ; for hair on the head is not 
 dyed by dipping. In the title of this anecdote, the 
 old man is styled rr\v r^i-xpL ^a4'afAsvou : " The old man 
 with the dyed hair," lib. vii. c. xx. 
 
 Speaking of a lady whose yellow locks were not 
 coloured by art, but by nature, he uses the word iSoupaig. 
 Lib. xiii. c. 1. 
 
 Nicolas of Damascus, speaking of parasites as 
 obliged to flatter their patrons, says, A*o tuv stuv 
 xXsifrii Tiff, t] KM /Stt'jrrsrai : " Does a patron affect to be 
 younger than he is ? or does he even dye his hair V 
 
 JEschylus, in the Choephorae, p. 85, uses the word 
 in the same way : 
 
 *a|Off TaSs us s§a^|^sv Aiyirf^ou |i(poj : 
 
 " 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 
 word iSaiTTu signifies to dye in general, though origin- 
 ally 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 subject of the mode of Baptism. In a con- 
 troversialist nothing can compensate for candour ; 
 6 
 
6g 1*HE MObE 
 
 and facts ought to be admitted, even when they ap 
 pear 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 openness 
 and honest dealing, without any attempt to conceal, 
 or to colour. To force through difficulties, employ 
 insuflScient evidence, refuse admissions that integrity 
 cannot deny, and by rhetorical artifice 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 fSaicru, 
 1 cannot but blame some of the most distinguished 
 writers on both sides of the question. On the one 
 side, supposing it to be necessary, or at least servicea- 
 ble, to prove that, when the word relates to dyeing, it 
 is always dyeing by dipping, they have evidently 
 strained, and have employed false criticism. With 
 respect to the other side, to say nothing of the strain- 
 ing to squeeze out of the word the several significa- 
 tions of sprinkling, pouring, washing, wetting, &c. for 
 which there is not any even plausible ground, the ob- 
 vious fact that it signifies dyeing by any process, has 
 been uncritically pressed to prove, that when it relates 
 to the application of pure water, it denotes all modes 
 equally. There is neither candour nor philosophy in 
 such attempts. It manifests little acquaintance with 
 the history and philosophy of the signification of 
 words. In reality this admitted fact is nothing in their 
 favour, as it is perfectly agreeable to the history of 
 the meanings of a numerous class of words. Use is 
 always superior to etymology as a witness on this sub- 
 ject. A word may come to enlarge its meaning, so 
 as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvi- 
 ous to every smatterer in philology. Had it been at- 
 tended to. Baptists would have found no necessity to 
 prove that /Somttu, when it signifies to dye, always pro- 
 
OT BAPTISM, 63 
 
 perly signifies to dye by dipping ; and their opponents 
 would have seen no advantage from proving, that it 
 signifies dyeing in any manner. The word candlestick 
 applies now e^s well when the material is gold, as 
 when it is timber. He would not, however, be worth 
 reasoning with, who should from this circumstance 
 deny that the name points out the materials of which 
 candlesticks among the Saxons were originally made. 
 
 The observations of Dr. Gale on this subject, fall in 
 some degree under the above censure. " The Gre- 
 cians," says he, " very frequently apply the word in 
 all its various forms, to the dyer's art, sometimes per- 
 haps not very properly, but always so as to imply and 
 refer only to its true natural signification to dip." 
 
 What does this learned writer mean when he ex- 
 presses a doubt of the propriety of this usage 1 Does 
 he mean that such an extension of the meaning of 
 words is in some degree a trespass against the laws of 
 language 1 But such a usage is in strict accordance 
 with the laws of language ; and the history of a thou- 
 sand words sanctions this example. Language has 
 not logical truth for its standard ; and therefore 
 against this it cannot trespass. Use is the sole arbi- 
 ter of language ; and whatever is agreeable to this 
 authority, stands j ustified beyond impeachment. Can- 
 dlestick is as properly applied to gold as to timber; 
 I3a.ifru} signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by 
 dipping, though originally it was confined to the latter. 
 
 Nor is he well founded when he asserts, that the 
 word in such applications always implies and refers 
 to its primary signification only. On the contrary,/ 
 I have produced some examples, and he himself has 
 produced others, in which candour cannot say that 
 there is any such implication or ifeference. From 
 such examples it could not be known even that 
 ^aitru has the meaning of dip. They relate to dyeing 
 wholly without reference to dipping ; nay, some of 
 them with an expressed reference to another mode. 
 
64 THE MODK 
 
 This is a fact, and were it even against me, I could 
 not but admit it. 
 
 Nor are such applications of the word to be ac- 
 counted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts. They 
 are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by exten- 
 sion of literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, 
 that words come to depart so far from their original 
 signification. The examples of this kind which Dr. 
 Gale produces, cannot be accounted for by his philo- 
 sophy. Kai Xu5i juv, j(ai ^/rjvi^uv, xai /Sa^TojAsvos /3arf aj^Eioij. 
 "Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the 
 Lydian music, shaved his face, and smeared it over 
 with tawny washes." Now, surely ^aif'roii.svog here 
 has no reference to its primary meaning. Nor is it 
 used figuratively. The face of the person was rubbed 
 with the wash. By any thing implied or referred to 
 in this example, it could not be known that ^aifru 
 ever signifies to dip. 
 
 O^uis Baierog, a coloured bird. This expression is 
 indeed figurative. But the figure has no reference to 
 dipping, the primary meaning of the word, but to 
 dyeing. The bird is said to be dyed, though its co- 
 lours were natural. By the same figure we would say 
 fy painted bird, though its colours were not conferred 
 by the pencil. This example strongly confirms my 
 view of the word in Daniel. Here even in the verbal 
 of the very word fSaitru, we have the same figure which 
 I have pointed out in the use of the word in the above 
 contestedpassage. The colours of a bird are said to 
 be dyed, by a beautiful figure founded on likeness ; 
 just as in Daniel , Nebuchadnezzar was said to be im- 
 mersed in dew, though literally the dew fell on him. 
 What a Goth should we reckon the critic, who would 
 philosophise on such expressions as painted bird, on 
 the principle of the objection to dipping as the mean- 
 ing of the word in the expression used by Daniel ! 
 "The plumage of the bird," says the philologist, "is 
 oatureil, and not conferred by either painter or dyer^ 
 
OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 The word painted, therefore, and the word dyedy 
 when applied to birds, designate properly natural co- 
 lours. BaiTTos, therefore, in the expression used by 
 Aristophanes, does not signify dyed, but denotes co- 
 lour, whether artificial or natural." A foreigner, on 
 the same principle, might show the depth of his philo- 
 sophy on the phrase painted bird. "Here-," says 
 he, " a bird is said to be painted. Now, we know 
 that the colours of a bird are not given by the pencil, 
 but by the Creator. The proper sense then of the 
 English word painted, is not coloured by the pencil. 
 but coloured in any way." This might appear to 
 have great depth and justness, to people as little ac- 
 quainted with the language as himself; and who 
 should not venture to dip into the philosophy of the 
 criticism. But a mere child who speaks English 
 would laugh at it. Yet it is the very criticism em- 
 ployed by celebrated scholars, on the passage in 
 Daniel. If theologians had as much taste as they 
 have ingenuity and learning, it would save them- 
 selves and their readers an immensity of useless 
 labour. 
 
 The pictcB volucres of Virgil, is a perfectly similar 
 example in the Latin language. Aristophanes speaks 
 of dyed birds, Virgil of painted birds. Let the criticism 
 on the passage in Daniel, be applied to the phrase of 
 Virgil. "Here," says the critic, "instead of colours 
 laid on by the pencil of the painters, the colour is 
 given by the invisible hand of nature. Pictce then 
 cannot signify painted, or have any allusion to paint- 
 ing, but must denote properly natural colouring. This 
 is the very essence of the criticism on the passage in 
 Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was not immersed in dew, 
 — therefore the word /3a*Tu must here signify the di»- 
 tillation of dew. 
 
 Our own Milton uses the same figure, when, speak- 
 ing of the wings of the angel Raphael, he says, co- 
 lours dipped in heaven, though he does not mean 
 that they were either dipped or dyed. The foreigner 
 
 6* 
 
66 THE MODE 
 
 who, from his authority, should argue that the En- 
 glish word dip does not signify the mode which we un- 
 derstand by it, would find his justification in the cri- 
 ticism on the above passage in the book of Daniel. 
 
 Dr. Gale gives us another passage from Aristotle, 
 which is as little to his purpose, namely, to prove that 
 the word, when it signifies to dye, has always a refer- 
 ence to dipping, and implies it. ©XigofiEvos Se (Ba^rsi 
 xai avflii^si Ti]v /siga. "If it is pressed, it dyes and co- 
 lours the hand." Surely there is no reference to dip- 
 ping here ; the hand is dyed by pressing the thing 
 that dyes. Here also the critical eye will see a con- 
 firmation of my view of the principle that operates in 
 the application of the word /3a*Tu in the passage of the 
 book of Daniel. Things are said to be dyed by na- 
 ture, on the same principle that Nebuchadnezzar was 
 said to be immersed in dew. 
 
 Having found beyond reasonable doubt, that /3a*rw 
 in its secondary sense, is employed literally and pro- 
 perly to denote dyeing, even when there is no dip- 
 ping,' we are now prepared to examine the occur- 
 rence of the word in the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, 
 which has been so obstinately contested ; and which 
 hitherto has been the most plausible resource of those 
 who have laboured to prove that at least one of the 
 meanings of the word is to pour. The blood was 
 poured into the lake, therefore it is thought /3a*™ 
 must signify to pour. But in reality, the passage fa- 
 vours neither the one party nor the other. It ex- 
 presses neither pouring nor dipping, but dyeing with- 
 out reference to mode. If (3aitTu, as we have proved, 
 signifies to dye in any mode, there is no occasion for 
 the advocates of immersion in Bapt.ism,to find immer- 
 sion in the word as it signifies to dye. This simple fact 
 settles the controversy about this passage for ever. 
 
 Ti.aifrscts S' ovd' avg'ir'vsuo'ev £§a*T?To S' ankari Xi(ji.v*i 
 " He fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was 
 
OF BAPTISM. 67 
 
 tinged with blood ;" or, according to the translation of 
 Cowper, 
 
 " So fell Crombophagus, and from that fall 
 Neyer arose, but reddming with his blood, 
 The wave," &c. 
 
 To suppose that there is here any extravagant allu- 
 sion to the literal immersion or dipping of a lake, is a 
 monstrous perversion of taste. The lake is said to be 
 dyed, not to be dipped, nor poured, nor sprinkled. 
 There is in the word no reference to mode. Had 
 Baptists entrenched themselves here, they would 
 have saved themselves much useless toil, and much 
 false criticism, without straining to the impeachment 
 of their candour or their taste. What a monstrous 
 paradox in rhetoric, is the figuring of the dipping of a 
 lake in the blood of a mouse ! YeA Dr. Gale supposes 
 the lake dipped by hyperbole. " The literal sense," 
 he says, " is, the lake was dipped in blood." Never 
 was there such a figure. The lake is not said to be 
 dipped in blood, but to be dyed with blood. 
 
 They might have found a better commentary to 
 this passage, in the battles of Homer's heroes in the 
 Iliad. The expression evidently alludes to one in 
 the beginning of the twenty-first book of the Iliad, 
 with respect to the slaughter of the Trojans by Achil- 
 les in the river Xanthus : s^u^aivsro (5' aijxaTi v6u^ : " The 
 waters as they ran reddened with blood." — Cowper. 
 In allusion to this, in the burlesque poem, from which 
 the disputed passage is taken, the whole lake is said 
 to be dyed with the blood of a mouse, which fell in 
 battle on its edge. 
 
 The Monthly Reviewers, as quoted by Mr. Booth, 
 understood the expression in this paradoxical sense. 
 " In a poem attributed to Homer," they say, " called 
 the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, it is said a lake was 
 baptized with the blood of a wounded combatant — a 
 question hath arisen in what sense the word baptize 
 can be used in this passage." This should never have 
 been a question ; for this lake is not said to be bap* 
 
68 THE MPDE 
 
 tized. The word /Scmttw not ^a,im^u is used. Again, 
 the lake was not dipped, as these friends of dipping, or 
 at least of profuse pouring, assert. The expression is 
 literal, and has not the smallest difficulty. 
 
 The derivatives of this word, both in the primary 
 and secondary meaning, prove that it denotes immer- 
 sion. ^a|ji,(ji,a, sauce or soup into which bread or other 
 food is dipped in eating ; also a dye into which the 
 thing to be dyed is dipped, as distinguished from 
 
 ^oupy], immersion : xayu ya,^ og <ra 5eiv' sxagrs^ow tots 
 /3a(pr) dibiigos us, &c. Soph. in Ajace : " I who endured 
 horrible things, as iron dipped in water." I3a<pri rfi^rjf ou 
 is also used for the edge of iron ; because the edge, 
 or sharpness, is given in the tempering by immersion 
 in water. 
 
 ^a-^is, the art of dipping : as jSa-^jig xa^xm xai 
 diSfi^m, the tempering of brass and iron ; quoted by 
 Scapula from Pol. ex Antiphonte. Now metal is 
 tempered in water by immersion. 
 
 IBaimdie, a laver, or bathing place, used by Lucian. 
 
 Ai§a(poj, dyed by being twice dipped ; just as dyers 
 with us speak of giving their cloth one dip, or two or 
 three dips. 
 
 O|o§a(pos, o|u§a(pov, and o|u§a(piov, quoted by Scapula 
 from Athen. hb. 2. The small vessel which was 
 used to hold the vinegar with which they seasoned 
 their food. This the ancients did by dipping. To 
 this doubtless our word saucer owes its origin, how- 
 ever differently it is used at present. This is an in- 
 stance of the process by which words extend their sig- 
 nification beyond the ideas originally contained in 
 them. The word saucer, from signifying a small 
 vessel for holding sauce, now signifies one for cooling 
 tea. This is a fine illustration of the process by which 
 ^DLifTu, from signifying to dip, came to signify to dye 
 by dipping ; and at last dropping the mode, to dye 
 in any Tnanner. The foreigner who should allege 
 that the English word saucer, caimot signify a small 
 
OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 vessel for tea, but must always denote one for sauce, 
 would reason as correctly as those who attempt to 
 force I3aifru, when signifying to dye, always to look 
 back to its origin. 
 
 This compound mentioned above, is also used as 
 the name of a measure, doubtless because this vessel 
 was at first used as the measure of the quantity so 
 designated. At last, however, it would come by a 
 natural process to denote the measure, without any 
 reference to the vessel. 
 
 In medical language, this compound was also ap- 
 plied to the deep cavities or cups in which bones turn 
 in the joints — doubtless taking the name from the 
 shape. Here the socket of a Joint is called a vine- 
 gar cup. 
 
 O4'oga(pov, taken also by Scapula from Poll. lib. vii. 
 denotes the small vessel in which these things were 
 served up ; which were eaten with bread, and which 
 were always used by dipping. Xenophon represents 
 the hands of the king of Media, as smeared in this 
 operation. 
 
 The verbal fSarfroe, to be dipped, or that it may be 
 dipped, we have already seen in the passage quoted 
 from Euripides in justification of the translation of a 
 passage in Hippocrates. The negative Agaii-roj may 
 also be alleged as confirmatory of the application of 
 the root in the sense of dipping. A§a*Tos (fiSyigos is 
 untempered iron, literally undipped iron, for iron is 
 tempered by dipping. 
 
 ASaifTKfTog also signifies that cannot be immersed, 
 and is applied by Pindar, as Scapula observes, to cork. 
 This fact is perfectly decisive. There can be no doubt 
 that the property of cork not to sink in water, is re- 
 ferred to by Pindar. 
 
 Aga^rirfTov, a trepan, a surgical instrument, so called 
 because it was so formed as not to sink too deeply, 
 lest it should injure the membrane of the brain. This 
 shows that the word from which it is derived signifies 
 to dip. 
 
70 THE MODE 
 
 In ascertaining the meaning of ^aifrw, it may be of 
 assistance to us to examine also some of its cotn^ 
 pounds, and also the prepositions with which it is con- 
 strued. In composition, we find it sometimes joined 
 with prepositions that point to the meaning, for which 
 we contend, and which will not suit the meaning at- 
 tached to it by our opponents. Besides, it admits no 
 preposition in composition or construction with it, 
 which cannot be accounted for on the supposition of 
 this meaning. If this position can be made good, it 
 will afford the strongest confirmation to our doctrines, 
 
 We have sefen, in the numerous examples quoted, 
 that it admits both the prepositions sis and svto be com- 
 pounded with it, as well as to construe with it in regi- 
 men. A mere glance at the examples may convince 
 any one that this would not suit either pour or sprinkle, 
 from the consideration of the things which are the sub- 
 jects of the operation of the verb. We could not, for 
 instance, say, pour or sprinkle loool in or into the river. 
 If then the word signified powr or sprinkle, it could not 
 admit these prepositions either in composition or in 
 regimen, with respect to many things that are the 
 subject of the operation of the verb. 
 
 Both the prepositions sis and sv in composition with 
 this word, have the same form. Ef*,§a*Tu is the com- 
 pound word with respect to both. The regimen, 
 however, is different. If s[* is put for sis, the verb is 
 construed with the accusative of the thing in which 
 the operation of the verb is performed, either without, 
 or more generally with the preposition itself repeated 
 before it. £(*.§«*«'£») sis to uiJuf. When s^ is put for sv 
 the verb is construed with the dative of the thing in 
 which the operation of the verb is performed, either 
 with the same preposition repeated before it, or with- 
 out it. — Efi§a*T£j sv Tu sXaito. 
 
 When Eis is used either in the compound or before 
 the substantive, there can be no question that all idea 
 of pouring or sprinkling is excluded. And though su 
 may sometimes be translated with, it never has this 
 
OF fiAPtlSM. tl 
 
 acceptation in composition. Indeed, this form is so 
 decisive, that the celebrated Dr. Owen asserts, that it 
 is this that makes the verb signify to dip. " ^airn^tj," 
 says he, " does not signify properly to dip or plunge, 
 for that in Greeis is s^gaifTw and si^Saicn^u," This ob- 
 servation is not virorthy of the learning of that great and 
 good man. If the verb ^a*Tu did not of itself signify to 
 dip, the preposition in question could not give it that 
 meaning. Dr. Owen's criticism is well exposed by the 
 cool good sense of Mr. Booth. " Besides," says he, " I 
 appeal to the learned whether Dr. Owen might not as 
 well have asserted, that mergo does not properly signify 
 to dip or plunge, for that, in Latin, is immergo ? Nay, 
 does not the Doctor himself, in the same discourse, ac- 
 knowledge, that ' the original and natural significa- 
 tion of the word, imports to dip, to plunge, to dye, to 
 wash, to cleanse.' " 
 
 EfxSafAfjia signifies sauce, or any liquid into which 
 food is dipped in order to be eaten — something to be 
 dipped into. This compound could not suit either 
 pouring or sprinkling. E^Sacpiov, a saucer, or vessel to 
 hold the liquid for seasoning food, which was used by 
 dipping. It came also to denote a certain measure, — 
 no doubt from the circumstance that this vessel was 
 employed as a measure. In this sense, Hippocrates 
 uses it several times. 
 
 Karaga*Tw signifies, literally, to dip down, that is, to 
 dip deeply, or thoroughly. The preposition is de- 
 signed to increase the action of the verb. According- 
 ly, xara^aicruv, signifies a dyer. 
 
 Eiri§a*Tw, to dip upon. We find this compound 
 once used by Hippocrates, and although it affords us 
 no evidence it takes none from us. 
 
 The use of A*o with this word, may appear more 
 strange, but it is explicable. It is used both in com- 
 position and following the verb ; and sometimes it is 
 used in composition when sis follows the verb. Airo- 
 Sa/KTu appears to designate to dip, as proceeding from 
 the dipping power' — I dip from, intimating that the 
 
72 THE MODE 
 
 thing dipped is at some distance from the dipper ; or, 
 rather it marks the departure of the thing dipped, from 
 the thing in which it is dipped. When A*o follows 
 /3a*Tw, it respects the point from which the finished 
 dipping has proceeded. I3cmtu ato rou aifiarof. / dip 
 it from the blood. The blood is the point from which 
 the dipping proceeded. 
 
 The preposition sx is also construed with aifoSatTu, 
 in one of the examples taken from Hippocrates. This 
 makes it still more evident, that mo, in construction 
 with this verb, denotes the point /rom which the dip- 
 ping was effected. Ex, views the thing dipped, as 
 proceeding out of the thing in which it was dipped. 
 
 Scapula seems to think that a*o in composition with 
 this word is designed to intimate the gentleness of the 
 operation, as he translates it, immergo leniter, / dip 
 gently ; and refers to Dioscorides, lib. 5. a*oga-|.ai sis 
 
 But though it may be used with respect to the gen- 
 tlest dipping, it cannot intimate this. But whatever 
 may be the peculiar effect of this preposition in com- 
 position with ^air™, and on whatever principle its use 
 is to be accounted for, the fact that the compounded 
 word is sometiines used in construction with sis, re- 
 moves all appearance of objection to our view of the 
 meaning of the verb. 
 
 Let us now take a glance at a few passages in 
 which /3a*Toj is used figuratively, as this also may 
 cast some light back upon its literal meaning. Aris- 
 tophanes says : Iva (a*i ^K'^u ^ay^^i^a. da^Smmov. "Lest I 
 dip you into a Sardinian dye." The figure is but low, 
 and is just the same as if a pugihst with us should 
 say, / will dip you in vermillion. It is an allusion to 
 the dyer's art, and means, I will beat you, till you 
 shall be covered all over with your own blood. It would 
 be to no purpose to allege, that, when a man is beaten, 
 he is not literally dipped in his blood, but the blood 
 runs over him. This would indicate a total miscon- 
 ception of the figure. The likeness does not consist 
 
OP BAPTISM. 7S 
 
 in the manner, but in the effects. As the reference is 
 to the art of dyeing, so the expression must be suited 
 to the usual mode of dyeing. / will dip you in Vermil- 
 lion, is exactly the expression of the poet in English. 
 He would be a sorry critic, who, from this> should 
 allege that the English word dip, signifies to run over, 
 as blood from the wounded body. In fact, pour and 
 sprinkle are as little applicable here, in a literal sense, 
 as dip itself. When a man is beaten, there is no 
 pouring or sprinkling, more than dipping. The blood 
 is not put on the beaten person by the beater, in any 
 manner. 
 
 Marcus Antoninus Pius speaks of the man of virtue 
 as /36§a(A(Asvov, dipped or dyed in justice. I would not 
 explain this with Dr. Gale, " dipped as it were in, or 
 swallowed up with justice." Justice is here repre- 
 sented as a colouring liquid, which imbues the per- 
 son who is dipped in it. It communicates its qualities 
 as in the operation of dyeing. The figure can receive 
 no illustration from the circumstance that " persons 
 given up to thek 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 (Saifru, and points to the drowning efiiects 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 observation of the same 
 writer, where he asserts that the thoughts, /Sairrsroi, 
 are tinctured by the mind. We use the word imbue in 
 the same way. He uses the same word also when 
 the dye injures what it colours. He cautions against 
 bad example, lest {I3a(fris) you be infected. 
 
 We see, then, that the use of this word in a figura- 
 tive sense, is not only always consistent with my view 
 of the meanings of this word, but that it frequently 
 illustrates its primary import. 
 7 
 
s 
 
 74 THE MODE 
 
 That ISwifTu signifies to dip is strongly confirmed by 
 the circumstance, that dyeing, which it also imports, 
 was usually performed, both among the Greeks and 
 Romans, by immersion. If the word originally denoted 
 to dip, it might by a natural process come to signify to 
 dye, which was performed by dipping. But if the 
 word originally signified to pour or to sprinkle, no pro- 
 cess can be supposed by which it would come to de- 
 note to dye. Upon our view, there is a connecting 
 link which joins these two meanings together, not- 
 withstanding their great diversity. They are seen 
 by our doctrine as parent and child. On the view of 
 our opponents there is no relation. The two mean- 
 ings cannot have any consanguinity. Now, that 
 dyeing anciently was commonly performed by dip- 
 ping, 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 between the ancient Greeks and us, as 
 they used /Sa*™, we use the word dip, both among 
 the workmen in the shop, and in ordinary conversa- 
 tion ; for what is more common than to talk of such 
 or such a thing dipped, meaning in the dyer's copper, 
 or in some colours." " Besides it is observable, that 
 the Grecians made a difference between dye, and 
 other colouring matter. Thus Plutarch distinguishes 
 between xiu^aTa and /SajAfjiaTa; and Pollux does the 
 same ; /3af;ifj,aTa signifying only that sort of colour- 
 ing-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 ma- 
 
OP BAPTISM. 75 
 
 cerata est, crassius medicamentum an aquatius traxe- 
 nt, seepius mersa est, et excocta, an semel tincta. 
 There is a difference also, how long it lies infused ; whe- 
 ther the dye he thick and gross, or waterish and faint ; 
 and lohether it be dipped very often and boiled thoroughly, 
 or only once tinctured. And Phavoiinus and Pollux 
 use xaragairrajv, which on all hands is allowed most 
 emphatically to signify dipping, plunging, immersing, 
 as a synonymous word for /Sairruu and xf "''""f > i"^ En- 
 glish a dyer. 
 
 " This makes it necessary to suppose they dyed by 
 dipping ; as well as another word used by them in 
 these cases, viz. s4'5'*'> to boil ; they boiled it in kettles, 
 says Aristotle ; and when the flowers are boiled long 
 enough together, at length all becomes of a purple. 
 E-^iiiiiv sv raig jjuT^aij — xai Tors rsXeuTaiov aifavra yivSTai 
 
 *0^(pU|06l5rl TUV avfewv IXaVWff tfuvS-vJ/S^EVTWV." 
 
 A most decisive passage to the same purpose, he 
 thus translates from Plato de Republica, lib. iv. p. 
 636. " The dyers, when they are about to dip a quantity 
 of wool, to makeit of a purple colour, cull out the whitest 
 of the fleece, and prepare and wash it with a world of 
 trouble, that it may the better take the grain ; and then they 
 dip it, /Sairroutfi. The dye of things thus dipped is lasting 
 and unchangeable, and cannot be fetched out or tarnished, 
 either by fair water, or any preparations for the discharg- 
 ing of colours. But things which are not dyed after this 
 manner, you knoie what they are ; no matter what dye 
 they are dipped in, ^aL«ri\, they never look well ; without 
 this preparation they take hut a nasty colour, and that is 
 easily washed out too. Aid thus in like manner our 
 choosing soldiers, and instructing them in music, and 
 those exercises which consist in agility of body, you must 
 imagine our design is only to make them the better receive 
 the laws, which are a kind of dye, — that their temper be- 
 ing formed by a proper discipline, may be fixed and urial- 
 terable by terror, <^c. and (pwpriv) their tincture may not 
 be washed out by any medicaments of the most powerfully 
 expelling nature ; as pleasure, which is stronger to this ef- 
 
76 
 
 THE MODE 
 
 feet 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 
 performed by dipping. Indeed, nothing but perverse- 
 ness 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 dipping. 
 
 The truth of this fact is not in the least affected by 
 the observation of Mr. Ewing, that dyeing, staining, 
 and painting, were originally similar operations, hav- 
 ing been first suggested by the accidental bruising of 
 fruits, &c. Though this were a fact recorded, in- 
 stead of a conjecture, it could be of no service on this 
 subject. Arts are not necessarily conducted in the 
 way in which they were originally suggested. What- 
 ever was the origin of dyeing, dipping was the com- 
 mon way of performmg 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 prima- 
 rily discovered, the correct meaning of the term which 
 expresses it, involves the idea of immersion, and did 
 so at the very period when the contested words were 
 in colloquial use. Pliny states, ' the Egyptians be- 
 gan 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 colour, and yet when re- 
 moved 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 previously applied to different parts of the stuff.' 
 In this passage we are favoured with an intelligible 
 distinction between painting, immersion, (or the art of 
 
OP BAPTISM. 77 
 
 dyeing,) and staining ; yet we are required to admit 
 that they were one." 
 
 Agreeably to the above view of the connexion be- 
 tween the secondary meaning of this word and the 
 primary, we have a great number of the branches 
 which have the same double import, from the same 
 connexion. ^a^k^a, sauce into which food is dipped, 
 — and a dye into which things are to be dipped. /3a(pri, 
 dipping, and dyeing stuff, or the tincture received from 
 dyeing, ^aqjixof, both dipping and dyeing, — and /Soupixij, 
 the dyer's art. iSanrrog, to be dipped, and to be dyed, 
 &c. &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 meaning in so many of its 
 branches, there must surely be at the bottom some 
 natural relation between these meanings. 
 
 This view of the primary meaning of ^aicru, and 
 the secondary, is greatly confirmed by the analogy 
 of other languages. The same primary and second- 
 ary meanings are found in the corresponding word, in 
 many other languages. The Septuagint translation 
 gives *a^a§a*Ta, in Ezek. xxiii. 15. The Hebrew, to 
 which this corresponds, is O'Siao, signifying dyed rai- 
 ment. Here we see that Sata, which, as Dr. Gale ob- 
 serves 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 Latin also, the same word, tingo, signifies to 
 dip and to dye. To this Mr. Ewing repUes, that 
 " Tingo is the Greek rsyyu, which is very properly 
 translated in the Lexicons, madefacio, humido, mollio ; 
 I moisten, wet, soften, or mollify." That tingo, is de- 
 rived from Tsyyw is undoubted ; but to assert that it 
 has all the significations of its parent, and that it has no 
 
 7* 
 
78 THE MODE 
 
 other, would be as unphilological in theory as it is in- 
 consistent with fact. Tsyyu does not signify to dye ; 
 tingo, its derivative, has this signification. Where did 
 it find it 1 Tsyyu 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, ivet, &c. I grant, indeed, that the word 
 may be used when washing, wetting, moistening, soften- 
 ing, &c. is tlie consequence of the dipping. Still, 
 however, this is not literally contained in the expres- 
 sion. Though any of these words might be given in 
 certain situations as a translation, yet such a transla- 
 tion would not be literal. Tingo expresses appropri- 
 ately dipping and dyeing, and these only. 
 
 Indeed, the meaning of tingo is to be learned from 
 its use iu the Latin language, and not from the use of 
 its root in the Greek. When this is ascertained, then 
 the philologist may look into its origin, to discover a 
 correspondence. It may be expected that the root 
 will contain some idea which has been a foundation 
 to its use in the derived language. But a corres- 
 pondence 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 word will contra- 
 dict 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 te 
 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 trans- 
 lated the Greek verb by ti^go. 
 
OF BAPTI&M. 79 
 
 The same analogy is recognized by our own lan- 
 guage ; and though I would not say with some, that 
 dip has dye as a secondary signification, yet in certain 
 circumstances it may have tliis import by conse- 
 quence, — "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 1 and ^a*Tw, 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 La- 
 tin poets, to translate /3a*Tw by tingo, in the sense of 
 dipping. As the Greels poets apply $aifTu to the set- 
 ting of a constellation, or its dipping in the ocean, the 
 Latin poets express the same thing by mergo and 
 tingo. 
 
 Having viewed /Sairru in every light in which it 
 can assist us on this subject, I shall now proceed to 
 exhibit the examples of the occurrence of ^a.i(Ti?u 
 itself, which, to the utter exclusion of the root, is ap- 
 plied to the Christian rite. Bairrw, the root, I have 
 shown to possess two meanings, and two only, to dip 
 and to dye. Ba*<n^u, 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 xoash, or 
 moisten. I do not admit this with respect to either. 
 I have already proved this with respect to ^omtu ; the 
 proof is equally strong with respect to ^a.-rcn^u. My 
 position is, that it alwavs signifies to dip ; me- 
 
 YER EXPRESSING ANY THING BUT MODE. NoW, as I 
 
 have all the lexicographers and commentators against 
 me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word 
 or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many 
 
80 THE MODE 
 
 may be startled at the idea of refusing to submit to 
 the unanimous authority of lexicons, as an instance of 
 the boldest skepticism. Are lexicons, it may be said, 
 of no authority t Now, I admit that lexicons are an 
 authority, but they are not an ultimate 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 lexi- 
 cons 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 pri- 
 mary 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 skepticism, 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 
 jBaifTi^u and /Ba^ru. 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 Psedo-Baptist writers. On the 
 contrary, their opponents often taken refuge in a sup- 
 posed sacred or Scriptural use, that they may be 
 screened from the fire of the lexicons. 
 
or BAPTISM. 81 
 
 It is in giving secondary meanings, in which tlie 
 Unes are not so easily discovered, that the vision of the 
 lexicographers is to be suspected. Nor is it with re- 
 spect to real secondary meanings that they are likely 
 to be mistaken. Their peculiar error is in giving as 
 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 mistake 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 occurs. 
 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 criti- 
 cism. 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, ok even 
 
 SEVERAL words MAY WITH EQUAL PROPRIETY FILL 
 THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH THEY ARE ALL ESSEN- 
 TIALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS. The 
 
 physician, 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 
 
82 THE MODE 
 
 known that the object of the dipping is to moisten. 
 Now it is from ignorance of this principle that lexi- 
 cographers have given meanings to words which they 
 do not possess ; and have thereby laid a foundation 
 for evasive criticism on controverted subjects, with 
 respect to almost all questions. In Greek it might be 
 said with equal propriety ^suifai sv oivu, or I3a^ai sv oivu, 
 " moisten in wine, or dip in wine ;" and from this cir- 
 cumstance it is rashly and unphilosophically con- 
 cluded that one of the meanings of ^aicru 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 mislead- 
 ing their readers with respect to the general meaning 
 of the passages, on the authority of which they have 
 falsely assigned such secondary meanings. The ideas 
 which they affix to such words, are implied in the 
 passage, though not the meaning of the words out of 
 which (hey 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 ia the defence of error. It may 
 be of no importance to correct the lexicographer, who, 
 from finding the expressions isurfai sv oivu and /3a4/ai sv 
 OIVU employed for the same thing, asserts that here 
 ^a4>ai signifies to moisten. But it is of great import- 
 ance when the error is brought to apply to an ordi- 
 nance of Christ. Besides, it introduces confusion 
 into language, and makes the acquisition of it much 
 more difficult to learners. The mind must be stored 
 with a number of different meanings in which there is 
 no real difference. What an insurmountable task 
 would it be to master a language, if, in reality, words 
 hadj as many different meanings as lexicons represent 
 them ! Parkhurst gives six meanings to /3a*Ti^u. I 
 undertake to prove that it has but one ; yet he and I 
 do not differ about the primary meaning of this word. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 03 
 
 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 application. 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 giving the proper meaning of the word. 
 When this is known, it must be a bad figure that does 
 not contain its own light. It is useless to load lexi- 
 cons with figurative applications, except as a concord- 
 ance. 
 
 Polybius, vol. iii. p. 311. ult. applies the word to 
 soldiers passing through water, immersed (^airn^ofjisvoi) 
 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 march- 
 ing a whole day through the tide, between the moun- 
 tain Climax and the sea, (Lib. xiv. p. 982.) ^aicn- 
 ^ofisvwv, baptized up to the middle. Surely this bap- 
 tism was immersion. 
 
 Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general, dying of 
 his wounds, says, that having dipped {^aicrKSas) 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. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of ani- 
 mals in water, says, that when the water overflows, 
 " many of the land animals, ^a^n^ofisva, immersed in 
 the river, perish." This baptism also is immersion. 
 The whole land was overwhelmed with water. This 
 itself, upon a principle before explained, might be 
 called a baptism or immersion, in perfect consistency 
 with the modal meaning of the word. However, it is 
 not the land, but the land animals, that are here said 
 to be baptized. These would at first swim, but they 
 would soon sink, and be entirely immersed. There 
 
84 THE MODE 
 
 is here then no catachrestic extension of the word, as 
 in the cases which I have illustrated in anotlier place. 
 The sinking of animals in water is here called bap- 
 tism. What then is baptism but immersion ? Upon 
 the principle of giving secondary meanings to words, 
 which has been resisted by me, drown might be given 
 as an additional meaning to jSaim^u, from the autho- 
 rity of this passage. As the animals were c^rownec? by 
 immersion, this immersion might be called drown- 
 ing. ^ 
 
 Lucian uses the word in a like case, and with cir- 
 cumstances that explain the former example. To- 
 wards 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, xai i^v riva tou j^sijauvoj o forafioj ■tfagaqjsg'y], o be, rug 
 ■)(Siiag opyuv, avriXaSsif^ai Serjrai, udsiv xai rovrov siri xE(paX'»iv 
 /SaiTTi^ovTa, tM>s li-nSs avmcu-^ui Smri6siri. " If in winter, 
 the river should carry away any O^e with its 
 stream, and the person ivith outstretched hands 
 should beg to be taken out, that he would drive 
 him from the bank, and plunge him headlong, so 
 that he would not be able again to lift up his head 
 above water." Here is a baptism, the mode of which 
 cannot be mistaken. Timon's baptism was certainly 
 immersion. To resist such evidence, requires a har- 
 dihood 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 (Saimi^u, is as vain as to question the significa- 
 tion of the word dip. The latter is not more defi- 
 nitely expressive of mode in the English, than the 
 former is in Greek. The only circumstance that has 
 enabled men to raise a cloud about jSa/itn^u 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.) 
 
OS' fiA^TlSMv 85 
 
 as haptized up to his head, {^aitn^srai fisjfji xiqiaMe) in 
 Styx, a celebrated river in hell. Is there any ques» 
 tion about the mode of this baptism ? 
 
 Dr. Gale gives some striking examples from Straba 
 " Strabo," says he, " is very plain in several in- 
 stances : 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 
 sivim, do not sink (/Sairn^stf^ai) in the water of the 
 lake, but float 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, ^aim^saSai^ into 
 them." " In another place, ascribing the fabulous 
 properties of the lake Asphaltites to the lake Sirbon, he 
 says, the bitumen floats atop, because of the natur6 
 of the water, which admits no diving ; for if a 
 man goes into it, he cannot sink, or be dipped, 
 jSa^^Ti^sddai, but is forcibly kept above. Now, in these 
 several passages, the modal meaning of the word is 
 confirmed in so clear, express, and decisive a manner, 
 that obstinacy itself cannot find a plausible objectionv 
 Things that sink in other water, will not sink or be 
 baptized in the lake near Agrigentum. This is mode, 
 and nothing but mode. It is immersion, and nothing 
 but immersion. Sprinkling, and pouring, and pop'- 
 ping, and dropping, and wetting, and washing, and im- 
 buing, and dedicating, and devoting, and consecrating, 
 with all the various meanings that have ever been 
 forced on this word, are meanings invented merely to 
 serve a purpose. And if the sinking of an arrow in 
 water is called its baptism, what can baptism mean but 
 immersion '? If, when the buoyancy of water will not 
 suffer a person to sink, the idea is expressed by I3om- 
 Ti^u, what can baptism be but an operation of the 
 same nature with sinking or diving, which are used 
 here as nearly synonymous terms with that which 
 signifies to baptize? It may as well be said thiat 
 
 8 
 
86 THE MODE 
 
 sprinkling or pouring, is sinking or diving, as that 
 it is baptism. 
 
 Two Greek critics are quoted by Dr. Gale, as apply- 
 ing the word in exhibiting the beauty of Hoiner's 
 representation of the death of one of his heroes : 
 " He struck him across the neck with his heavy sword, 
 and the whole sword became warm with blood." On this, 
 Pseudo Didymus says, that the sword is represented 
 as dipped in blood, sSaifriiiri. And Dionysius says, 
 " l7i that phrase, Homer expresses himself with the 
 greatest energy, signifying that the sword was 
 so dipped, ^a.-n'riiikvTos, in blood, that it was even 
 heated by if." 
 
 " 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, Meptune is ingeniously sup- 
 posed to deliver JVLarsfrom Vulcan, to signify, that when 
 a piece of iron is taken red hot out of the fire, and put into 
 loater, /3a*Ti^sTai, the heat is repelled and extinguished, 
 by the contrary nature of water." Here we see that 
 the immersion of hot iron in water, for the purpose 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, ^a^jr- 
 Tirfai, sunk into the sea." Such a baptism, surely, 
 would be immersion. 
 
 The word occurs in the Greek translation of the 
 Old Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our 
 version. 2 Kings v. 14. Kai xarsSifi Naifxav xai s§a*Ti- 
 rfaro sv Tw lo^^avi] evraxis. Naaman Went down, and 
 dipped him,self seven times in Jordan. Here bath- 
 ing in a river is called baptism. What more do we 
 want, then, to teach us the mode of this ordinance of 
 Christ 1 If there was not another passage of Scrip- 
 ture to throw light on the institution, as far as respects 
 mode, is not this, to every teachable mind, perfectly 
 
OP BAPTISM. 87 
 
 sufficient 1 But, it seems, we are crying victory be- 
 fore the field is won. This passage, which we think 
 so decisive, has a far different aspect to others. On 
 the contrary, it is made to afford evidence against us. 
 Well, this is strange indeed ; but ingenuity has many 
 shifts. Let us see how artifice can involve the pas- 
 sage in a cloud. Nothing is more easy. Does not 
 the prophet command Naaman to wash'; if, then, he 
 obeyed this command by baptizing himself, baptiz- 
 ing must signify washing. For the sake of argu- 
 ment, I will grant this reasoning, for a moment. If, 
 then, this is so, go, my brethren, and wash the per- 
 son to be baptized, as you think Naaman washed 
 himself from head to foot. This will show that you 
 respect the example. In what manner soever the 
 water was applied to Naaman, he was bathed all over. 
 If the word signifies to wash the whole body, who but 
 the Pope himself, would take on him to substitute the 
 sprinkling of a few drops in the place of this univer- 
 sal washing ? 
 
 But I do n<rf admit the reasoning, that, from this 
 passage, concludes that ^nwri^w signifies to wash, al- 
 though no instance can be produced more plausible 
 in favour of that opinion. This passage is a complete 
 illustration of my canon. The two words, Xouw and 
 jSaiTTi^u are here used interchangeably, yet they are 
 not of the same signification. Not of the same signi- 
 fication! it may be asked, with surprise. Elisha com- 
 mands him to wash ; he obeys by baptizing him- 
 self; must not baptizing, then, be washing? I 
 think none of my opponents will wish a stronger state- 
 ment of their objection than I have made for them. 
 But my doctrine remains uninjured by the assault. 
 The true philologist will not find the smallest diffi- 
 culty in reconciling this passage to it. The words 
 X«uu and /3a*ri^tj have their own peculiar meanings 
 even here, as well as every where else, without the 
 smallest confusion. To baptize is not to wash ; but 
 to baptize in a river or in any pure water, implies 
 
THE MODE 
 
 washing, eui^ 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 maise the very same use of our modal word 
 dip, that the Greeks made of their ^arcri^oi. No man 
 Vy^ho 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 1 or did you bathe this morning 1 To 
 dip may apply to the defiling of any thing, as well as 
 to washing. It expresses no more than the mode. It 
 is the situation in which it stands, and the word with 
 which it is construed, that determine the object of the 
 application of the mode. To dip in pure water, is to 
 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 em- 
 ployed by writers on this subject. 
 
 The error in this criticism is that which I have be- 
 fore exposed. It supposes that, if in any circum- 
 stances two words can be used interchangeably, they 
 must signify the same thing ; and that controver- 
 sialists 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 resources. There is 
 a, speciousness in it that has imposed on lexicogra- 
 phers, critics, and commentators. They have unit 
 versally, 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 ex-» 
 actly determines the meaning of jScufn^oi^ 
 
OF BAPTISM. 89 
 
 " Thou mayest be dipped, bladder ! but thou art 
 not fated to sink." 
 
 The remark of Vossius and Turretine upon this is : 
 " Hence it appears that ;8a*Ti^Eiv is more than s*i*oXa?6iv, 
 which is to swim hghtly on the surface, and less than 
 Svvm, which is to go down to the bottom, so as to be de- 
 stroyed." In the latter part of this distinction, they are 
 certainly mistaken, as to both verbs. /Sairn^siv may 
 be applied to what goes to the bottom and perishes ; 
 and Suvsiv very frequently applies to things that sink 
 without destruction. It is the usual word applied to 
 the setting of the sun or its apparent sinking in the 
 ocean ; and it is the word which Homer applies to 
 the sinking of the marine deities who live in the bot- 
 tom of the sea. Indeed the word has no more de- 
 struction in it than ^cmm-i^u itself, which is occasion- 
 ally 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 cir- 
 cumstances in which it is used. If /3air«iv is applied to 
 a ship going to the bottom, its destruction is known 
 without being expressed by this word : if 5uv6iv is 
 applied to Neptune, Thetis, or a sea nyraph^ it is in 
 the same way known that there is no destruction. 
 The obvious and characteristic distinction between the 
 word is, that Suvsn is a neuter verb, signifying to sink, 
 not to cause soistething else to sink. But a thing that 
 sinks of itself, will doubtless sink to the bottom, if 
 not prevented ; and if it is subject to destruction by 
 such sinking, it will perish. It is therefore character- 
 istically applied to things that sink to the bottom. 
 But ^(MfTi^siv signifies merely to dip, without respect 
 to depth or consequence, and is as proper to the im- 
 mersion 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 ap- 
 plied to the same thing indifferently, but in their cha- 
 racteristic meaning, as in the above verse, they are 
 opposed. The expression in this verse is allegorical, 
 
90 THE MODE 
 
 literally referring to a bladder or leathern bottle, 
 which, when empty, swims on the surface : if suffi- 
 ciently filled, will dip, bat 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 ex- 
 pression might have, which is very suitable to the am- 
 biguity of an oracle. " You may yourselves destroy 
 the state, otherwise it is imperishable." A leathern 
 bottle mi^ht be so filled, as to force it to the bottom, 
 though it would never sink of itself Nothing can 
 more decisively determine the exact characteristic im- 
 port of I3aif<n^siv than this verse. It is dip, and no- 
 thing but dip. 
 
 Mr. Ewing's learned friend, in remar"king on this 
 word, falls into an error opposite to that of Vossius 
 and Turretine. They make the word denote to dip, 
 without going to the bottom : he makes it to dip, so 
 as to continue under water. " Our Anti-paedo-bap- 
 tist friends," says he, " when they contend, that from 
 the examples adduced by them, immersion is the only 
 sense in which ^a*ri^u, in its literal acceptation, was 
 employed, do not seem aware that almost all of these 
 examples imply, not a mere dipping, or immersion im- 
 mediately followed by an emersion, but a continued 
 and permanent immersion, a continuance under wa- 
 ter." Now upon this I remark, firs^that if there is 
 one example in which it applies to an immersion, fol- 
 lowed by an emersion, it is as good as a thousand to 
 determine that it may apply to such immersions. I 
 observe in the second place, that not one of the exam- 
 ples imply a continuance under water. When the 
 word is applied to a drowning man or a sinking ship, 
 it no more implies the permanence of the immersioa 
 than when Plutarch uses it to signify the dipping of 
 the hand in blood. The word has no reference to 
 what follows the immersion ; and whether the thing 
 immersed lies at the bottom, or is taken up, cannot 
 be learne(i from the wpifd, but from the cqnnQ^ioa 
 
OF BAPTISM. 
 
 91 
 
 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 designates it. But if 
 this argument had any foundation, what does the 
 gentleman mean by it 1 Does he think that baptized 
 persons ought to be drowned 1 This is surely 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 un- 
 der the water, perhaps they will not make conscience 
 of lying at the bottom. 
 
 The example referred to by Hammond is also irre- 
 sistible : It is said of Eupolis, that being thrown into 
 the sea, Ega^Ti^sTo, he was baptized. This baptism 
 surely was immersion. This example shows 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 im- 
 mediately up after the dipping. The baptism spoken 
 of by Plutarch, must also be immersion, ^aicndov rfs eig 
 SaXarfrfav : Baptize yourself into the sea. 
 
 The expression quoted by Hedericus from Heliod. 
 b. V. is equally decisive. iSafn^tiv sig rigv \ni.vii}v, to 
 baptize into the lake. And that from ^sop, rijs 
 vBiiis xivSuvsuoutfris /3aii'Ti(^e(j'^ai, the ship being in danger of 
 sinking. If a ship sinking in the ocean is baptized, 
 baptism must be immeraon. 
 
 But the language of no writer can have more autho- 
 rity on this subject than that of Josephus. A Jew 
 who wrote in the Greek language in the apostolic 
 age, must be the best judge of the meaning of Greek 
 w^ds employed by Jews in his own time. Now 
 this author uses the word frequently, and always in 
 the sense of immersion. He uses it also sometimes 
 figuratively with the same literal reference. Speaking 
 of the purification from defilement by a dead body, he 
 says, ^a-ifridavTSs rs xai Ty\s rscp^as raurrij S'S ifniyriv s^f aivow : 
 " and having dipped some of the ashes into spring 
 
92 THE MODE 
 
 water, they sprinkled," &c. Here we see the charac- 
 teristic distinction between /3a*T(^w and jaivu. The 
 one is to dip, the other to sprinkle. Antiq. 1. iv. c. 4. 
 p. 96. 
 
 On this example, Mr. Ewing's friend remarks ; — 
 " Now, upon looking into the Levitical law upon this 
 particular point, (Numb. xix. 17,) we find the direc- 
 tion was, ' They shall take of the ashes, anA running 
 water shall be put thereto.' Here, then, ihe'putting run- 
 ning water to ashes, is expressly termed l3a«Tt(favrss this 
 vscpgas." Let the gentleman look a httle more closely, 
 and he will see that his observation is not correct. It 
 is true that Numb. xix. 17, and the above passage 
 from Josephus, refer to the same thing ; but they do 
 not relate it in the same manner. The Septuagint 
 directs, that water shall be poured upon the ashes into 
 a vessel ; Josephus relates the fact as if the ashes were 
 thrown into the water. Now, this might make no dif- 
 ference as to the water of purification, but it was a dif- 
 ference as to the mode of preparing it. Nothing, then, 
 can be farther from truth, than that the putting of the 
 water on the ashes, according to Numb. xix. 17, is 
 ■called by Josephus, the baptizing of the ashes. If Jo- 
 sephus speaks of the baptizing of the ashes, he repre- 
 sents the ashes as being put into the water, and not 
 the water as being poured on the ashes. He uses the 
 verb sviriii.1 as well as I3a,im^u. According to Josephus, 
 then, the ashes were dipped or put into the water; 
 though, according to the Septuagint, the water was 
 poured out into a vessel on the ashes. 
 
 Speaking of the storm that threatened destruc- 
 tion to the ship that carried Jonah, he says, xai otfov 
 ourw fisXXovroff I3a/ifri^sii6ai rov (Sxoupovs, " when the sj|ip 
 was on the point of sinking, or just about to be bap- 
 tized." What was the mode of this baptism. 1 1. ix. c 
 10. p. 285. 
 
 In the history of his own Ufe, Josephus gives an ac- 
 count of a_ remarkable escape which he had in a voy- 
 age to Rome, when the ship itself foundered in the 
 
OF BAPTISM. 
 
 93 
 
 midst of the sea : ^aifTKthvrog yag ■JifJtuv rou wXoiou xara. 
 (tso'ov Tov A(Jfiav. " For our ship having been baptized 
 or immersed in the midst of the Adriatic sea," &c. Is 
 there any doubt about the mode of this baptism ■? p. 626. 
 
 Speaking of the raurderof Aristobulus, by command 
 of Herod, he says, " The boy was sent to Jericho by 
 night, sxsi Ss xar svrtiky)v uiro ruv FaXaruv /3a*ri^o(i£vof 
 sv xoXu(*§»lfl|a TEXsura, and there by command having 
 been immersed in a pond by the Galatians he perish- 
 ed." Jewish War, Book I. p. 696. The same trans- 
 action is related in the Antiquities in these words ; 
 jSajouvTSf aEi xai ^a*Ti^ovT£j, ug sv irai8ia vijj^ofiSKiv oux avrjxav 
 tug xai tavraiftiiiv a*o*vigai. " Pressing him down al- 
 ways, as he was swimming, and baptizing him as in 
 sport, they did not give over, till they entirely drowned 
 him." Can any thing be more express and exact than 
 this 1 Here the baptizers drowned the baptized per- 
 son in the pool, where they were bathing, p. 458. 
 
 Describing the death of one Simon by his own hand, 
 after he had killed bis father,, mother, wife, and chil- 
 dren, lest they should fall into the hands of the enemy, 
 he says, oXov sig rriv saurou tfcpayijv eScLirngs to |i(poff. " He 
 baptized or plunged his sword up to the hilt into his own 
 bowels." The mode here is not doubtful ; the sword 
 was dipped in his body. We have previously seen 
 I3a«<ru used in like circumstances, and sS«4.8 would 
 have been equally proper here, according to the ob- 
 servation already made, that words which have a cha>i 
 racteristic distinction, may, in certain sitiiations, be 
 interchangeable. ESairTirfs, he caused it to dip, may 
 denote a greater eifort than sSa-vj^s, dipped it. Jos. 
 Bell. Jud. 1. ii. p. 752. 
 
 A httle afterwards, he applies the word to the sink- 
 ing of a ship : ftST-a 6s rriv KstfTiou dvfupo^av woXXoi tuv e*i- 
 (pavwv Iou5aiwv, udiTS^ /3a*Ti^o(ji.Evr)f vsuf a,i(svrf)(ov<ro Trig woXajj^ 
 " After this misfortune of Cestius, many of the JeVs 
 of distinction left the city, as people swim away from 
 a sinking ship." Here a sinking ship is supposed to 
 be baptized by sinking, p, 757, 
 
94 THE MODE 
 
 He applies the word to the immersion of the ships 
 which carried the people of Joppa, after being driven 
 out of the city by the Romans : ^irsugos Msga^^eig o 
 xXuSoiv sQaicricfev. " The wave high raised, baptized 
 or sunk them." Here is a subhme baptism. The 
 surge, rising hke mountains over the ships, immersed 
 and sunk them to the bottom. The surge is the bap- 
 tizer, the ships are baptized, and this baptism is the 
 sinking of them to the bottom. Joseph. Jewish War, 
 Book iii. p. 737. 
 
 Towards the end of the same book, he thus speaks 
 of those who perished in the lake of Gennesareth, 
 having jfied from the city of Tarichaea : dm avrois s§a*- 
 Ti^avTo cfxoupsifi. " They were baptized or sunk with the 
 ships themselves," p. 792. Here the Roman soldiers 
 were the baptizers ; and in executing this duty, they 
 sunk both ships and rnen. 
 
 Hippocrates uses this word sometitoes, and always 
 in the sense for which I contend. We have seen that 
 he uses ^aicru very often : I have not found fSaifn^u 
 more than four times; This circumstance sufficiently 
 proves, that though the words are so nearly related, 
 they are not perfectly identicarin significatiori. The 
 first occurrence of it is in p. 254. /SaTrn^siv iraXn sg 
 yaXa yuvaixof xai fiM^ov aiyvKrtov. " Dip it again in breast 
 milk and Egyptia^. ointment." He is speaking of a 
 blister which was first to be dipped in the oil of roses, 
 and if when thus applied, it should be too painful, it 
 was to be dipped again in the manner above stated. 
 The first dipping, as we have seen from a preceding 
 quotation, is expressed by /3a.-^as. This shows that, 
 in the radical signification of dipping, these words 
 are perfectly of the same import : and that though 
 they have their characteristic distinction, there are 
 situations in which they are interchangeable, where 
 thP characteristic difference may be expressed, but is 
 not necessary. 
 
 The same writer gives us the clearest insight into 
 the meaning of this word, by twice comparing g. pe- 
 
OP BAPTISM. 95 
 
 culiar kind of breathing in patients, to the breathing 
 of a person after being immersed : avsrfvesv us ex tou 
 /Ssgaifntf^ai avainviautfi. " He breathed as persons breathe 
 after being baptized," p. 340. The same comparison 
 occurs again, p. 357, hi the following words : avsifvst, 
 oiov ex TOM j8£§a*Ti(i'^ai ava'Tveoiifl'i. Surely unbelief must 
 be obstinate, if this does not remove it. The breath- 
 ing of persons under the disease referred to, is like 
 the breathing of a person after baptism. Can any 
 thing, then, be more obvious, than that baptism is an 
 immersion in water, even an immersion over head, so 
 as to stop the breath till it is over 1 
 
 Hippocrates applies the word also to a ship sinking, 
 by being overburthened : m ye'KcuSu rov tijv v>)a "roXXoirfi 
 (pogTioitfi iSaifTirfovra, sitol (j.6|ji.<pofji.svov rr) SaXarrii on xaTS- 
 S\i6i(isv aurriv ifXiijii. " Shall I not laugh at the man 
 who baptizes or immerses his ship, by overlading it ; 
 then complains ot the sea, that it ingulfs it with its 
 cargo 1" p. 532. What sort of baptism was this 1 Is 
 it possible that a mind really thirsting for the know- 
 ledge of God's laws, can resist such evidence ? Here 
 we see jSaiert^^u not only most definitely signifying to 
 immerse, but contrasted with another word, which 
 signifies this with additional circumstances. Ba^n^w 
 is used to denote that immersion that takes place 
 when a ship is weighed down by its burthen, so as to 
 be completely under water : xa^aMvh^u signifies to 
 make to go down into the abyss. Yet we have more 
 than once met with instances in which ^own^w itself 
 is applied to a ship going to the bottom. But as 1 
 obsei-ved in such cases, it is not from the word itself 
 that it is known that the ship goes to the bottom, but 
 from the circumstances. It does not, by virtue of its 
 own intrinsic meaning, denote going to the bottom, 
 but to dip or immerse, without reference to depth. It 
 may, then, be applied when the operation is extended 
 to the bottom, as well as when it is confined to 
 the surface. But when it is so applied, it does not 
 definitely distinguish the idea of depth. When this 
 
96 TBE MODE 
 
 is intended to be expressed, another Word, as iti the 
 present case, is employed : xaraSvii^u definitely ex' 
 presses going down into the abyss. 
 
 This word is found in Polybius, in circumstances 
 that leave no doubt of its signification. He applies 
 it to soldiers wading through deep water, and ex- 
 pressly limits its application to that part of the body 
 which was covered with water : c.oXi£ ewf rwv t^a^wv oi 
 *E^oi /3a*Ti^ofji,svoi diifiaivov. " The foot soldiers passed 
 with difiiculty, baptized or immersed up to the 
 breast." Polyb. iii. c. 72. Does not this decisively 
 determine the meaning of /Sa^n^u "? They were not, 
 indeed, plunged over head ; but for this reason, a 
 limitation is introduced, confining the application of 
 the Word to that part of the body which was under 
 water. That only was baptized which was buried. 
 
 The same author gives us another example equally 
 decisive ; Autoi u*' auruv ^a^riJofASvoi xm xaraduvovTSs SV 
 Tois TsXfAatfiv. " They are of themselves baptized or 
 immersed, and sunk in the marshes," v. c. 47. Here 
 /3a*T)^o(jLai is coupled with xaraSuvu, as a word of simi- 
 lar import, though not exactly synonymous : the for- 
 mer denoting simple immersion ; the latter, the sink- 
 ing of the immersed object to the bottom. 
 
 Dio also affords evidence decisive of the same mean- 
 ing : ■iravTsXus /SaiTTi^ovrai. " They are entirely bap* 
 tized, sunk, overwhelmed, or immersed," xxxviii. 
 p. 84. 
 
 He applies it, as we have seen it employed by 
 others, to the sinking of ships : x^'f*"" toiouto? sfai(pv>]ff 
 rijv x"f "" airatfav xuTSdxsv uiStb — ra irXoia ra, sv tw Ti^s^iSi-^ 
 ^a.tKTi<S&r\vM, " So great a storm suddenly arose through 
 the whole country, that the boats were baptized or 
 sunk in the Tiber," xxxvii. What then is baptism 
 but immersion ? 
 
 He applies it in the same way, L. 492 : *us (xev av 
 ou^' u*' auTou TOM 'jt'Kr\^ms ruv xwfsuv l3aifTi(ikir\> " How 
 could it escape sinking, from the very multitude of 
 rowers." We see, then, that the classical writers in the 
 
OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 Greek language, without exception, know nottiing of 
 this word in any other signification than that of im- 
 mersing. They never apply it to any other mode. 
 They no more apply it to pouring or sprinkling, 
 &.C. than to warming or cooling. Such significations 
 have been conjured up by profane ingenuity, endea- 
 vouring to force the words of the Spirit of God into 
 agreement with the long established practices of men, 
 in perverting the ordinances of God. 
 
 Porphyry applies the word to the heathen opinion 
 of the baptism of the wicked in Styx, the famous river 
 of hell i oTav de xar'»)yo^ou(ji,svo£ EiriS»i, avaiut^T7]Tos f^sv uv 
 <iSeus ^'EfX^''^'''^' "0(i' '''^'' /ovaruw sj^uv to vSug, aft^agruvSe, 
 oXiyov legoSag ^a-XTt^srai fisxi' '«e(paXrig-, " When the ac- 
 cused person enters the river, if he is innocent, he 
 passes boldly through, having the water up to his 
 knees ; but if guilty, having advanced a little, he is 
 plunged or baptized up to the head." De Styge, p. 
 282. The baptism of Styx, then, is an immersion of 
 the body up to the head. The part not dipped, is ex- 
 pressly excepted. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus applies the word to the sinking of 
 beasts carried away by a river : T&w Ss j^s^tfaiuv Siifiwv ra 
 ■ffoXXa (i£v u*o roll iforafiou *£|iXi]<pdsvTa Siacpisigsrai /3a*Ti^o- 
 fi,eva, Tna 8e iig TOMS fhSTSu^vs sxcpevymTa roirovs Smsu^srau 
 " The most of the land animals being caught by the 
 river, sinking or being baptized, perish ; but some es- 
 caping to the higher grounds, are saved." I. p. 33. 
 Here, to be baptized, is to sink in water. This exam- 
 ple, also, confirms my observation, that though when 
 sinking to the bottom, or sinking in the great deep, is de- 
 signed to be distinguished from simple immersion, 
 /SoMTTi^tj could not suit the situation ; but another 
 word, such as xamSmu, xaaraSu^i^u, xara.ifo\iri^u, &c. is 
 used ; yet /Saim^u will apply to the deepest immer- 
 sion, and to destruction by immersion, when there is 
 no contrast, and when the depth and destruction are 
 known from other words or circumstances in the con- 
 nexion Bairrt^u denotes simple immersion, yet it 
 
 9 
 
98 THE MODE 
 
 may be used in circumstances when that immersion 
 is certainly Jinown to be going to the bottom, and being 
 destroyed. 
 
 There are instances in which the word is by some 
 translated wash, and in which the general meaning 
 may be thus well enough expressed in a free version. 
 Still, however, the word, even in such situations, 
 does not express the idea of washing, but has its own 
 peculiar meaning of mode, the idea of washing being 
 only a consequence from the dipping. There are some 
 cases in which it is pretended that it must apply to 
 purification by sprinkling, &c. Now, as I am pledged 
 to show, that the word does not signify to te,ash in any 
 manner, I am still more bound to show that it does not 
 denote purification by sprinkling. I shall therefore 
 now attend to this part of the subject. 
 
 In Ecclesiast. xxxiv. 30, it is said, " He that wash- 
 eth himself because of a dead body, and toueheth it 
 again, what availeth his washing V Now, as /3air- 
 T)i^o(Asvos is the word here used, and as from Numb. 
 xix. 18, we learn that such a person was to be puri- 
 fied by sprinkling, does it follow that fSatm^u mast 
 signify to sprinkle, or to purify by sprinkling? He that 
 wishes to see this objection honestly stated in all its 
 strength, and refuted in the most triumphant manner, 
 may consult Dr. Gale's Reflections on Dr. Wall's His- 
 tory of Infant Baptism. But the answer must be 
 obvious to every person who consults Numb. xix. 19, 
 which shows that sprinkling was but a part of that 
 purification, and that the unclean person was also 
 bathed in water. It is this bathing that is effected by 
 baptism. The passage in question ought to be trans- 
 lated, — " He that dippeth or baptizelh himself because 
 of a dead body, and toueheth it again, what availeth his 
 dipping or baptism ?" The word jBa-jcn^w has here its 
 appropriate meaning, without the smallest deviation. 
 
 Besides, had there been no immersion or bathing of 
 the whole body enjoined in Numbers, I would utterly 
 despise this objection. Though God had not made 
 
or BAPTISM. 99 
 
 bathing of the body a part of this purification, might 
 not the traditions of the elders have made the addi- 
 tion 1 And would not this have been sufficient autho- 
 rity for the author of this Apocryphal book to make a 
 ground of his reasoning- ? When I have proved the 
 meaning of a Greek word, by the authority of the 
 whole consent of Greek hterature, I will not surrender 
 it to the supposition of the strict adherence of the 
 Jewish nation, in the time of the writing of the Apo- 
 crypha, to the Mosaic ritual. We know that they 
 made many additions, and that these were esteemed 
 as of equal authority with the rites of Moses. 
 
 For a very full and interesting discussion of Luke 
 xi. 38, and Mark vii. 4, let the reader consult Dr. 
 Gale, p. 125. Here he will find a triumphant an- 
 swer to every quibble from Dr. Wall. But as the text 
 itself is perfectly sufficient for my purpose, I shall not 
 swell my volume with quotations from that learned 
 writer. In our version, Luke xi. 38, sgairTirf^ri is trans- 
 lated wash. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
 velled that he had not first washed before dinner." 
 The objection is, does not (Saim^u, then, sometimes 
 denote te loash 1 Nay, farther, as the Jews washed the 
 hands by having water poured on them, and as this 
 passage respects the washing of the hands, is there 
 not here evidence that the word in question some- 
 times signifies to wash by 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 wash. 
 Dipping is the thing expressed : washing is the conse- 
 quence, 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 1 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- 
 
100 THE MODE 
 
 dantly sufficient for my purpose. The possibility of 
 tliis is enough for me ; but Dr. Gale has proved from 
 Dr. Pococke, 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 Ho- 
 mer 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 body. When a part only is dipped the part is 
 mentioned, or some part is excepted, as is the case 
 with Xouu. The passage, then, ought to have been 
 translated, — " And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
 velled that he was not baptized, or dipped before din- 
 ner." 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 considered 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, for the 
 practice of the Jews. We have here the authority of 
 the Holy Spirit for the Jewish custom. He uses the 
 word jSacTTii^u, 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 inexplicable difficulty 
 in this case would not affect the certainty of my con- 
 clusions. 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 ^mti^u here signify to wash ? I answer no. 
 
■OT BAPTISM. 101 
 
 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 
 translated, "except they dip themselves, they eat 
 not." In the preceding context, we are told that in 
 ordinary they do not eat without washing their hands. 
 Here we are told that when they come from market, 
 they eat not till they are dipped or baptized. Dr. 
 Campbell's notion, that vwtu and jSaifn^w here both 
 refer to the hands, the one to washing by having wa- 
 ter poured on them, and the other by dipping them, I 
 do not approve. For, though ^aim^u 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 con- 
 ceit, without any authority from the practice of the 
 language. Nwtu 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 vmtu. Now, if the 
 words both refer to the washing of the hands, the first 
 will be the best washing, which is contrary to Dr. 
 Campbell's supposition. Dr. Campbell, indeed, with 
 Pearce and Wetstein, understands revyfur] of a handful 
 of water. But they produce no example in which 
 irv/^kt] has this signification, and therefore the opinion 
 has no authority. Indeed, there is a self-contradic- 
 tion in the opinion of these learned writers on this 
 point, nu/fjiii, they properly consider as signifying 
 the fist, or shut hand ; and from this, suppose that the 
 Avord here denotes as nriuch water as may be held in 
 the hollow of the hand, with the fingers closed. But 
 a fist will hold no water ; and the hand with the fin- 
 gers closed so as to hold water, is no fist With as lit- 
 tle reason can it be supposed to signify, as Dr. Camp- 
 bell suggests, that •trvyfi.-yi denotes the manner of wash- 
 ing, with reference to the form «f the hands when 
 they wash, each other. In such circunctstances, nei- 
 
103 THE MODE 
 
 ther of them is a fist, but still less the washing 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 approbation, the remark of 
 Wetsteiin : /Sa^rj^erf^ai est manus aquae imraergere, 
 vwrsrftei manibus affundere." But the former does 
 not signify to dip the hands, except the regimen is ex- 
 pressed ; and though the latter applies to pouring wa- 
 ter on the hands, it will equally apply to washing out 
 of a bason. Parkhurst, indeed, translates the phrase, 
 " to wash the hands with the fist, 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 fist, is not an expres- 
 sion which would be likely to be chosen to express 
 the operation of washing the hands. The palm of 
 one hand is applied to the palna 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 former. Besides, the 
 inside hand is seldorn closed into a fist. I prefer, 
 therefore, the explanation of Lightfoot, which is both 
 most agreeable to the meaning of •sruyfi*], and to the 
 Jewish traditions. He understands it as denoting the 
 hand as far as the fist extended. This is agreeable to 
 the definition of the word by Pollux : " If you shut 
 your hand, the outside is called iruy(A*i :" and it is 
 agreeable to the Jewish traditions, one of which he 
 shows, enjoins such a washing. The contrast, then, 
 here, is between the washing of the hands up to the 
 wrist, and the immersion of the whole body. Dr. 
 Campbell, indeed, remarks, that " it ought to be ob- 
 served, that (3a«Tigu)irai is not in the passive voice, but 
 the middle, and is contrasted with vi4.uvTai, also in the 
 middle, so that, by every rule, the latter must be 
 understood actively as well as the former." But, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 though I understand ^armtfuvrai in the middle voice, 
 I do not acknowledge that this is necessarily required 
 from a contrast with vi-^uvrou. 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, xu^iaxov 
 Ssiitvov (payoutfi, xai ^aim^ovrai. They eat the Lord's 
 Supper, and they are baptized. The contrast between 
 vi-^mrai and fia.tt<rt<SmTa{ in the passage referred to, 
 does not require the same voice. Niv^wtfi, the active 
 itself, might have been used, and ^aimamrai in the 
 passive. I understand it in the middle, not because 
 vi^^wvrai 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 •iruyfATi, is liable to the objections 
 of Dr. Campbell, which I need not here repeat. Mr. 
 Ewing surely should have obviated them. Besidesi' 
 neither Mr. Ewing, nor any other, so far as I know, 
 has produced one example, in which *u/(ji.ii confessedly 
 signifies oft. Without this the translation has no autho- 
 rity. Mr. Ewing translates xai and even, for which 
 there is no authoiity. 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 re- 
 verses the true meaning. Defilement certainly was 
 understood to be increased by the market. Mr. 
 Ewing indeed endeavours to give a turn to this, but 
 it is a complete failure. " And in order to show how 
 strictly they hold this tradition," he says, " they ob- 
 served it, not merely on their more solemn occasions, 
 
104 THE MODE 
 
 but even when they had just come from places of 
 pubUc resort, and from the ordinary intercourse of 
 life." But where did Mr. Ewin^ find their more so- 
 lemn occasions ? This is apocryphal, and like the 
 Apocrypha, it contradicts the genuine 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 baptism after marliet, then, must have 
 been a greater or more extensive purification. Mr. 
 Ewing supposes that the word baptize is used here to 
 show that the washing was not for cleanliness, but 
 was a religious custom. But this is shown suffi- 
 ciently, 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 washing was not 
 by other circumstances known to be a religious cus- 
 tom, this would not have been known by the word 
 /Sa^Ti^u more than by vi-ktu. Besides /Sairrio'cjvrai does 
 not here explain or limit vi->|..uvTai. If the latter could 
 not, with the words construed with it, be known to 
 designate a religious observance, it can receive no as- 
 sistance from the former. Mr. Ewing understands 
 both words as referring to the same thing, washing 
 the hands by water poured on them. Why then is 
 vi* 7u changed for I3aim^u i Surely the change of the 
 word intimates a change of the meaning in such cir- 
 cumstances. " They eat not, except they wash 
 their hands. And after market, they eat not, except 
 they baptize." Surely no person, who has not a pur- 
 pose j,o serve, would suppose that baptize here meant 
 the very same thing with wash the hands. But if it 
 is insisted that baptize here is distinguished from 
 viifru as a religious washing, then how will it deter- 
 mine that viirru here refers to a religious washing 1 
 If it is here so distinguished from \nifru, then the 
 washing denoted by vw™ cannot be a religious wash- 
 ing. This would import, that the washing of the 
 barids first spoken of by vwru was not a religious 
 
OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 washing ; and that the latter washing was distin- 
 guished 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 reli- 
 giously." 
 
 But as respects my argument, I care not whether 
 ^armduvrai here refers to the hands or the whole 
 body ; it is perfectly sufficient for me, if it here ad- 
 mits 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 objection ; for 
 this obvious reason, that if it is not proved, it is nei- 
 ther argument nor objection. Now if I choose to 
 bring this passage as an argument, or as additional 
 evidence, I must prove its meaning. In this way I 
 have viewed it as having weight. But if I choose to 
 give Up its evidence, and stand on the defence, my 
 antagonist is bound to prove his view of it as a ground 
 of his objection, and my cause requires no more of 
 me than to show that the word in such a situation is 
 capable of the meaning for which I contend. For it 
 is evident, that if it may have such a meaning, it can- 
 not be certain that it has not that signification. Many 
 a passage may contain the disputed word in such cir- 
 cumstances as to afford no definite evidence. It can- 
 not, 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 required 
 to prove. It will also assist the inquirer to arrive at 
 truth. Now in the present case, except Mr. Ewing 
 proves that ^a/ifTiduvrai must here signify the pouring 
 of water upon the hands, or that it cannot refer to the 
 dipping of the hands or the body, he has done nothing. 
 
106 THE MODE 
 
 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 significa- 
 tion. These oi)servations I state as self-evident truths. 
 The man who does not perceive their justness cannot 
 be worth reasoning with. 
 
 But why should it be thought incredible, that the 
 Pharisees immersed themselves after market 1 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 af- 
 ter the pollution of the market 1 
 
 Dr. Gale, however, on the authority of the Syriac, 
 Arabic, Ethiopic, 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 bap- 
 tism on the Scriptures, but I will imphcitly submit my 
 mind to the mode that God has appointed. I have 
 not a wish on the subject, but to know the will of 
 Christ. 
 
 What our version, Mark vii. 4. calls the washing, 
 &c. the original calls /Sai'no'/j.ous, 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 wash- 
 ing, yet dipping and washing are not the same thing. 
 The washing is not expressed, but is a mere conse- 
 quence of the dipping. 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 appointed by the law, Levit. xi. 32. to be aflfected 
 by being put under water. But with respect to the 
 
OP BAPTISM. 107 
 
 khmi, or beds, Mr. Ewing asserts that the translation 
 dippings would be manifestly absurd. Now what is 
 manifestly absurd cannot be true. If this assertion 
 then is well founded, Mr. Ewing has opposed a barrier 
 which the boldest cannot pass. But why is this ab- 
 surd 1 Let us hear his own words. " The articles 
 specified in ver. 4. are all utensils and accommoda- 
 tions 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 were three 
 only of these beds in one room. Each was commonly 
 occupied by three persons, and sometimes by five, or 
 even more. Three such beds probably accommodated 
 our Lord and his disciples at the last supper. They 
 must have been of such a size, therefore, as to pre- 
 clude 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 su- 
 perstitious Pharisees might not practise it 1 It would 
 indeed be a very inconvenient thing, but what obsta- 
 cles will not superstition overcome t It would be a 
 foolish thing ; but who would expect any thing but 
 folly in will-worship 1 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 im- 
 mersed their couches. Let Mr. Ewiiig beware of 
 using such language. If the Holy Spirit has asserted 
 that the Tharisees baptized their_ couches, and if this 
 word signifies to immerse, Mr. Ewing has asserted that 
 the Holy Spirit has asserted an absurdity. This is 
 no light matter. It is an 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 
 
108 THE MODE 
 
 beds. How is it incredible 1 Is the thing impossi- 
 ble 1 If not its credibility depends on the testimony. 
 But whether or not the Holy Spirit gives the testimony, 
 depends on the meaning of the word. If from other 
 passages we learn that it has this meaning, this pas- 
 sage cannot teach the contrary, if the thing is possi- 
 ble. Upon the principle of interpretation here recog- 
 nized by Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wa'rdlaw, we might re- 
 ject every thing in history not suited to our own con- 
 ceptions ; or explain them away by paring down the 
 meaning of words. This is the very principle of the 
 Neological explanation of the Scripture miracles. The 
 things are thought absurd in the obvious meaning of 
 the words ; and therefore the language must submit 
 to accept a meaning suitable to the conceptions of the 
 critics. Mr. Robinson thinks the common view of 
 the exploit of Samson in killing such a multitude 
 with the jaw-bone of an ass incredible, and he takes 
 away the incredibility of the Scriptural account, by 
 explaining it of the tooth of a rock which Samson 
 pulled down on his enemies. Dr. Wardlaw says, 
 with respect to the immersion of beds, " he who can 
 receive it, let him receive it." I say, he who dare 
 reject it, rejects the testimony of God. This is a most 
 improper way to speak on the subject. If immersion 
 is the meaning of the word, it is not optional to re- 
 ceive or reject it. Whether or not this is its mean- 
 ing, 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 mean- 
 ing to be immersion, the mere difficulty of immersing 
 beds, in conformity to a religious tradition, cannot imply 
 that it haslanother 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 suffi- 
 
OV BAFTISM. 109 
 
 tient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be ad- 
 mitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibility. 
 This is self-evident, for otherwise nothing could ever 
 be proved. If every man's view of abstract probabi- 
 lity were allowed to outweigh evidence, no truth 
 would stand the test. The existence of God could 
 not be proved. The Scriptures themselves could not 
 abide such a trial. If my canon is not self-evident, 
 let no man receive it. But if it is just, it overturns 
 not only this objection, but almost all the objections 
 that have been alleged against immersion in Baptism. 
 Besides, there is hardly any point of theological con- 
 troversy in which it may not be useful. Many who 
 are willing to admit it on the subject of Baptism, 
 may act contrary to it on other subjects. Indeed, 
 there are few who do not in things of small moment 
 overlook this principle. 
 
 In tracing the history of Jesus, we will see how 
 much of the opposition to his claims were founded on 
 the principle which my canon reprobates. When he 
 said that he was the bread that came down from hea- 
 ven, the Jews murmured, and replied, " Is not this 
 Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother 
 we know 1 How is it then that he saith, I came 
 down from heaven 1" John vi. 42. Here was a diffi- 
 culty 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 prejudices permitted them to find 
 it. It was possible, that though born on earth, as a 
 man, he might come from heaven, as he was God. 
 But they were glad to catch at the apparent incon- 
 sistency ; and their prejudices would not allow them 
 to attempt to undeceive themselves. This in fact is 
 the very substance of one common objection to the 
 Deity of Christ. The Arians still collect all the pas- 
 sages that assert the human nature of Christ, and 
 take it for granted that this is a proof that he is not 
 God. Let our bvethren take care that it is not on the 
 
 10 
 
110 THE MODE 
 
 same principle they allege this objection to immer- 
 sion in baptism. Were there no wish to find evi- 
 dence on one side only, would it be supposed that it is 
 absurd or incredible that the superstitious Pharisees 
 immersed even their couches 1 — Another striking in- 
 stance of objecting on this principle we have, John 
 vii. 41, 42. "Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? 
 Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of 
 the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, 
 where David was 1" This would appear to them a 
 noose from which he could not extricate himself — a 
 difficulty that he could not solve. The Scriptures as- 
 sert, that the Christ will come out of Bethlehem, but this 
 man has come out of Galilee. Had they been as will- 
 ing to see evidence in his favour, as evidence against 
 him, they might have perceived that the agreement of 
 these apparent contradictions was not impossible. 
 The knowledge of his real history would have given 
 the solution. But it was not a solution they wanted. 
 In reading the history of Jesus also, it is not unin- 
 structive to remark, that many things which appeared 
 to his enemies decisive evidence against him, had no 
 weight at all with his friends. This discrepancy shows 
 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 reject. Though we have no right to judge one 
 another, we have a right, when God has given a re- 
 velation, 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 
 observation 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 
 accountableness. 
 
 I will state farther, that in proving that a thing is 
 not impossible, there is no obligation to prove, that 
 
OF BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 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 immer- 
 sion are constantly ealhng on us to prove, that there 
 were in such and such places things necessary for dip- 
 ping. Mr. Ewing guages the reservoirs and wells of 
 Jerusalem, to show their insufficiency for immersion. 
 He may then call on me to find a place sufficient to 
 immerse a couch. But I will go on no such errand. 
 If I have proved the meaning of the word, I will be- 
 lieve the Spirit of God, who tells me that the Pharisees 
 baptized their beds, and leave the superstition and in- 
 dustry 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 replying to difficulties started by the 
 deist, the defender of Christianity thinks he has am- 
 ply done his duty, when he shows that the solution is 
 possible, without proving that the possible way of so- 
 lution did actually exist. Indeed, many of the de- 
 fenders of Christianity undertake too much, and lay 
 too much stress on actual proof, with respect to the 
 way in which difficulties may be removed. When 
 such proof can be got, it is always right to produce it, 
 more clearly to confound the infidel. But it is ex- 
 tremely injudicious to lay such a stress on these solu- 
 tions, as if they were actually necessary. It ought 
 always to be strongly stated, that such proof is more 
 than the defence of truth requires. When writers 
 think themselves remarkably successful in this way, 
 they are not disinclined to magnify the importance of 
 their discoveries, and are willing to rest a part of the 
 evidence on their own success. This discovers more 
 vanity than judgment, and more desire for the glory 
 of discovery, than for the interests of the truths de- 
 fended. When this happens, it is not strange that 
 infidels are emboldened to make the unreasonable de- 
 jaand, which their opponents liave voluntarily ren- 
 
112 THE MODE 
 
 dered themselves liable to answer. If I could prove 
 that there was at Jerusalem a pond that could im- 
 merse the High Church of Glasgow, I would cer- 
 tainly bring forward my proof ; but I would as cer- 
 tainly disclaim the necessity. To give an example. 
 In opposition to Dr. Campbell's opinion, that in Mark 
 vii. 4. PaitTi<Suv<roii refers to the dipping of the hands, 
 Mr. Ewing, as his proof, alleges, that " as far as he has 
 observed, there is only one way of washing either the 
 hands or the feetin Scripture, and that is by pouring wa- 
 ter upon them, and rubbing them as the water flows." 
 Now, were I of Dr. Campbell's opinion on this pas- 
 sage, I would grant Mr. Ewing all this, yet abide by 
 my position. It is very possible that all the other in- 
 stances of washing the hands that are mentioned in 
 Scripture may be such, yet a different way have been 
 in existence on some occasions. And if the expres- 
 sion were jScMfridudi rag x^ifas, 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 was ever practised, when 
 the thing does not respect a divine ordinance, but either 
 the ordinary washing, 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 ar- 
 gument. 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 ^a-Kriduvrcu refers 
 to tlie dipping of the hands. Yet I would not use 
 Mr. Ewing'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 Bap- 
 tism, by representing him as resting his opinion on 
 TertuUian among the ancients, and Wetstein among 
 the moderns. Nothing can be more unfaiir. He merely 
 
OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 refers to TertuUian, to show the sense in which the 
 word ^aifn^u was understood by the Latin fathers, 
 and quotes the opinion of Wetstein, with a general 
 approbation of him as a critic, certainly beyond his 
 deserts, and with respect to a criticism which I be - 
 lieve to be false. But Dr. Campbell was not a man 
 to found his views on such authority. When he 
 says, " I have heard a disputant of this stamp, in 
 defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word 
 rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more 
 properly to sprinkle than to plunge ; and in defiance 
 of all antiquity, that the former method was the ear- 
 liest, and for many centuries the most general prac- 
 tice in baptizing," does he not found on his own know- 
 ledge of etymology and use — on his own knowledge of 
 antiquity? Will Mr. Ewing venture to say that Dr. 
 Campbell was not well acquainted with the etymology 
 and use of the word in question 1 From what modern 
 must he receive instruction with respect to the anti- 
 quities of church history 1 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 at- 
 tempted 1 Who would expect that in his situation he 
 could have done more ? Nor is his candour in confess- 
 ing 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 ordi- 
 nance. 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 favour- 
 ite 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 Scrip- 
 ture, totally unconcerned in the controversy. Nay, 
 they are obliged to do violence even to the classics. 
 Popery itself is not obUged, on this point, to make 
 such . havoc of the word of God. It has a happy 
 power of changing Scripture ordinances, and, there-. 
 
 10* 
 
114 THE MODE 
 
 fore, on this point can confess tlie truth without in- 
 jury to its sj'stem. 
 
 I am led to the defence of Dr. Campbell, not from 
 a wish to have the authority of his name on my side 
 on this question. In that point of view, I do not need 
 him. I consider myself as having produced such a 
 body of evidence on this subject, that I am entitled to 
 disregard the mere authority of names. I have ap- 
 pealed to a tribunal higher than the authority of all 
 critics — to use itself. 1 do not hold up Dr. Camp- 
 bell as universally successful in his criticisms. Many 
 of them I am convinced are wrong ; and those who 
 have in all things made our version of the Gospels 
 conform to his, have done no service to the cause of 
 Christ. His judgment is always to be respected, but 
 often to be rejected. On some points of Christian 
 doctrine, lie 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 candour unknown to most 
 theologians. Mr. E wing's censure of Dr. Campbell 
 involves the great body of learned men : It is too no- 
 torious to need proof, that the most learned men in 
 Europe, 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 occu- 
 pied. There is no absolute necessity to suppose that 
 the xXivai, or beds, were the couches at table. . The 
 word, indeed, both in Scripture and in Greek writers, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 115 
 
 has this signification ; But in both, it also signifies 
 the beds on which they slept. Now, if it were such 
 beds that the Pharisees baptized, there is nothing to 
 prevent their immersion. They were such that a 
 man could take up from the street, and carry to his 
 house, Matt. ix. 6. 
 
 Besides, as it is not said how often they purified in 
 this manner, we are at liberty to suppose that it was 
 only for particular kinds of uncleanness, and on occa- 
 sions that did not often occur. Mr. Ewing, indeed, says, 
 " there was, no doubt, a complete observance of the 
 ' baptisms,' of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and 
 beds, at the feast of the marriage in Cana in Galilee." 
 There is no doubt that at that feast there was a puri- 
 fication 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 1 
 The water-pots were, no doubt, for tlie purification 
 usual at a wedding : But this does not indicate all 
 Jewish purifications. 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 purification of some 
 things. If there was any thing to.be purified, which 
 could not be purified in them, it may have been puri- 
 fied elsewhere. It is not said that all things were pu- 
 rified in these water-pots. Besides, it is not said that 
 these water-pots were but once filled during the wed- 
 ding feast. We may therefore fill them as 'often as 
 we find necessary. I do not, therefore, fiod it at all 
 necessary, with Mr. Ewing, to guage these water-pots, 
 in order to settle this question. 
 
 Mr. Bruce informs us, that in Abyssinia, the sect 
 called Kemmont, " wash themselves _^om head to foot, 
 after coming from the market, or any public place, 
 where they may have touched any one of a different 
 
116 THE MODE 
 
 sect from their own, esteeming all such unclean." 
 Is it strange, then, to find the Pharisees, the supersti- 
 tious Pharisees, immersing their couches for purifica- 
 tion, or themselves after market 1 I may add, that the 
 couches might have been so constructed, that they 
 might be conveniently taken to pieces, for the purpose 
 of purification. This I say only for the sake of those 
 who will not believe God without a voucher. For 
 myself, it is perfectly sufficient that the Holy Spirit 
 testifies that the Pharisees baptized themselves before 
 eating, after market ;. and that they baptized their 
 couches. It is an axiom in science, that no difficulty 
 can avail against demonstration ; and with me it is an 
 axiom, that no difficulty entitles us to give the lie to 
 the Spirit of inspiration. 
 
 In Heb. ix. 10, the word /3a*Tirffji,ois is translated 
 washings. Is not this proof that the word signifies to 
 wash ? The reply to this has already been given, in 
 showing the difference between dip and wash. The 
 translation ought to be " different baptisms," not "dif- 
 ferent washings." Dipping is the thing expressed, 
 washing is a consequence. But Dr. Wardlaw observes, 
 " that amongst the ' divers washings' {^aifrKfiiara, 
 baptisms) of the old dispensation referred to, Heb. ix. 
 10, must surely be included all the various modes of 
 Jewish purification ; and consequently the ^avrirffAara, 
 or sprinklings, which were the most numerous," p. 
 172. But how is this certain 1 Why should it be 
 supposed that the baptisms under the law contained 
 all the purifications required by the law 1 This is not 
 said here, nor any where else in the Scriptures. 
 There is no necessity to suppose that every thing en- 
 joined 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 b-e in the carnal 
 ordinances. It is a very convenient way of proving 
 any thing, to take it for granted. Dr. Wardlaw here 
 
OF BAPTISM. 117 
 
 takes for granted the thing to be proved. The phrase, 
 " divers baptisms" must indicate the sprinklings ; 
 therefore baptism must signify sprinkhng, as one of its 
 meanings. But we deny that the " divers baptisms" 
 include the sprinklings. The phrase alludes to the im- 
 mersion of the different things that by the law were to 
 be immersed. The greatest part of false reasoning de- 
 pends on false first principles. Dr. Wardlaw's first 
 principle here, is like that of Nathaniel with respect 
 to Christ : " Can any good thing come out of Naza- 
 reth?" 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 al- 
 leged to prove that /3a*Ti|u sometimes signifies to 
 wash ; but from what has frequently been observed 
 on the like use of the word, with how little reason, 
 will appear in a moment ; and she went out in the 
 night, and baptized herself in the camp at a fountain," 
 xai £Sa*r)^£To sv ti] 5raj'S(/,€oXi] 6*) ttis *']yi5 tou vSaros. ESa*- 
 Ti^sro ought here to have been translated she dipped her- 
 self. Washing was the consequence of dipping in pure 
 water. Homer speaks of stars washed in the sea, (11. E. 
 6.); and Virgil expressing 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 ex- 
 actly equivalent. By the word washing. Homer fixes 
 our attention, not on the mere dipping, but on the ef- 
 fect of it, — the washing of the stars by being dipped. 
 Virgil fixes our attention, not on the washing-of the 
 stars, but on their dipping, with reference to the dan- 
 ger or disagreeableness of the operation. We may 
 say either _^ZZ the pitcher, or dip the pitcher ; but this 
 does not imply that dip signifies to fill. In like man- 
 ner, the word ^a^n^w is used when persons sink in 
 water, and perish. Whiston, in his version of Jose- 
 phus, sometimes translates it drown. But does this 
 
118 
 
 THE MODE 
 
 imply that jSa^rifu signifies to drown, or to perish? 
 The perishing or the drowning, 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 al- 
 ready pointed out the fallacy of that position, which is 
 a first principle with most critics ; namely the suppo- 
 sition, that words are equivalent, which in any cir- 
 cumstances are interchangeable. It is an error plausi- 
 ble, but mischievous. Yet, on no better foundation 
 does Dr. Wall, and innumerable others after him, ar- 
 gue that /Sairri^u must signify to wash in '"general. 
 The verb Xouu is applied to baptism, therefore /3a*Ti^u, 
 it is thought, must signify to wash as well as Xouu. 
 
 Mr, Ewing, indeed, says, " In this case, the wash- 
 ing could not have been by immersion, being done at 
 a spring or fountain of water," But what sort of im- 
 possibility is this ] Was it utterly impossible to have 
 a conveniency for bathing near a fountain 1 On the 
 contrary, 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. 153. 
 
 Ev^a 5' E*' licuTauv *Xuvoi sugssg syyvs sadi 
 KaXo), XaivEoi, o^i si^ara, &c. 
 
 " Two fountains, tepid one, frotn which a smoke 
 Issues voluminous, as from afire; 
 The other, ev'u in surnmerV heats, like hail 
 For cold, or snow, or; crystal stream frost-bound. 
 Beside them may Ije seen the broad canals 
 Of marble scoop'd, iji which the wivesofTroy, 
 And all her daughters fair, were wont to lare 
 Their costly raiment, while the land had rest," &c. 
 
 COWPER. 
 
 We find also a like provision at a river in Phsea- 
 cia, in the Odyssey, lib. vi. 86. 
 
 Ev^ rjroi tXuvoi ijo'av S'TijEravo;, *oXu i5' vSup 
 KaXov vifsxif^o^ssi, &c. 
 
or BAPTISM. 119 
 
 '■- "At the delightful rivnlet arrived, 
 
 Whf re those perennial cisterns were prepared, 
 
 With purest crystal of the fountain fed 
 
 Profuse," &c. Cowper. 
 
 Why, then, may not such a provision have been at 
 the fountain referred to, especially as it was in a camp 1 
 Is it likely, that in such a place there would be no con- 
 venience for bathing 1 Indeed, nothing is more com- 
 mon in our own country, than where there is no ri- 
 ver, to have a vessel, or contrivance of some kind, for 
 bathing, near a well. But I produce this evidence as 
 a mere work of supererogation. Nothing more can 
 be required of me, than to show that the thing is not 
 impossible. Even were.it certain, that at this foun- 
 tain there was no such provision, might not some per- 
 son have supplied her with a vessel 1 To argue as 
 Mr. Ewing does here, is to reason without first princi- 
 ples. He takes it for granted, that a thing is impossi- 
 ble, which is so far from being impossible, that it is 
 not improbable. Were this a lawful mode of reason- 
 ing, it would be an easy thing to disprove every 
 thing. 
 
 I shall now try what evidence can be found to de- 
 termine the literal meaning of the word /BavTi^u, from 
 its figurative applications. When a word is used 
 figuratively, the figure is founded on the literal mean- 
 ing ; and therefore, by examining the figure, we may 
 discover additional evidence with respect to the literal 
 meaning. And here I would first observe, that some 
 instances of figurative use may not be decisive, as well 
 as some instances of literal use. It is enough that 
 every instance of both literal and figurative use will 
 explain fairly on the supposition of the meaning for 
 which 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 circum- 
 
120 THE MODE 
 
 Stances are oppressive, or even destructive, the word 
 is very frequently used in profane writers." In oppo- 
 sition to this, I assert that not one of all Mr. Ewing's 
 examples necessarily refer to pouring 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 characteristically expressed by 
 xKv^u. To this, some of the figurative occurrences 
 of /3a*Ti,^oj have a reference; and here there is a 
 real immersion. The overwhelming water baptizes or 
 sinks the person or thing baptized. Some of the in- 
 stances in which the word' is translated overwhelm, 
 may well enough be so rendered, as a free transla- 
 tion ; 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 oveY the object, or the object is supposed to 
 sink in the water, there is not a single figurative oc- 
 currence of the word, which does not imply that the 
 object was completely covered with the water. Now, 
 this kind of baptism would be little rehef to Mr. 
 Ewing. The man who is covered by the tide, while 
 he lies on the shore, by the edge of the sea, is over- 
 whelmed ; 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 bap- 
 tism, till the person baptized should be entirely 
 drenched, it would afford no relief from immersion. 
 Not one, then, of the examples of figurative use ad- 
 duced by Mr. Ewing, countenances his own favourite 
 mode of baptism. 
 
 Let us now take a look at Mr. Ewing's examples, 
 in which the vs^ord is used figuratively : ^sSa-jmaSat rs 
 Tu ax^ciru. " 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 
 
op BAPTISM.- 121 
 
 by pouring or sprinkling, the translation is not defi- 
 nitely exact. Literally, it is immersed in wine. 
 
 In order to determine whether pouring or immers- 
 ing is the ground of the figure, let us examine what 
 is the point of likeness. It must be a bad figure, if 
 the point of resemblance in the objects is not obvious. 
 Now, let it be observed, that there is no likeness be- 
 tween 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. Ew- 
 ing, indeed, supposes that there is an excessive pour- 
 ing, 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. Be- 
 sides, if the word /3a*«i?6j 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 there is not in drinking moderately ; and that 
 the design of this application of the word ^aim^w is to 
 designate this ; I reply, that the mode of drinking a 
 small glass isasmucli/)OMrmg, as the drinking of the cup 
 of Hercules. Indeed, there may be something of pour- 
 ing in the action of putting a small quantity of liquid 
 into the mouth, which there is not in drinking a large 
 goblet. But if the word (Smm^u, in expressing drunk- 
 enness, 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 ^a.«Tt?^u was taken in them literally. He sup- 
 poses 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. 
 
 11 
 
122 THE MODE 
 
 This might be true, if the wine was put into him as 
 men administer a drench to a horse. But the drunk- 
 ard administers the wine to himself. What is the 
 sense of the expression he is poured with wine, which 
 on this supposition is the Uteral meaning ] 
 
 But when /3airTi^w is appUed to druakenness it is 
 taken figuratively ; and the point of resemblance is 
 between a man so completely under the influence of 
 wine, and an object completely subjected to a liquid 
 in which it is wholly immersed. This is not only ob- 
 vious from the figure itself, but from the circumstances 
 with which the figure is sometimes conjoined. ■ Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus employing the same figure, says, 
 ^a'jTTii^on.svoi SIS u*vov, baptized into sleep, through drunk- 
 enness. Now, baptized into sleep, is exactly our 
 figure buried in sleep, which is an immersion ; and bu- 
 rial is the thing represented by Christian baptism. Is 
 there any likeness between pouring and sleeping ? Is 
 not the likeness between complete subjection to the 
 influence of sleep, and the complete subjection of an 
 object to the influence of a liquid when immersed in 
 it i The same Father applies the word jBaicn^mdi to 
 those who give themselves up to fornication. This 
 is just our own figure when we speak of plunging 
 headlong into debauchery. 
 
 This view is fully confirmed by the same figure in 
 other languages. All figures that are founded on 
 nature, and obvious to the observation of all nations, 
 will be in all languages the same. Figurative lan- 
 guage is a universal language. Now, when we exa- 
 mine this figure in the Latin language, our view of it 
 is put beyond all doubt. Virgil says of the Greeks 
 taking Troy, 
 
 Invadant urbem gomno vinoque sepultatn. 
 "They invade the city buried in sleep and wine." 
 
 Here burial is applied both to sleep and wine. Bap- 
 tized therefore 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 
 
OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 the Greek needed a commentary, this niust be an au- 
 thoritative one. There can be no pretence for taking 
 pouring 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, therefore, must be the 
 best commentary on that of the latter. Vices are not 
 supposed to be poured upon the vicious person, but he 
 sinks in them. We ourselves speak in this manner. 
 We speak of a man who sinks in vice. Martial's figure 
 — La-na sanguine conchae ebria — " wool drunk with 
 the blood of the shell-fish" — also affords a comment- 
 ary on the Greek figure. Here wool dipped in a 
 liquid, is said to be drunk with that liquid from being 
 completely soaked with it. Schwarzius, indeed, sup- 
 poses, that Shakspeare's figure, — " then let the earth 
 be drunken with our blood," countenances the suppo- 
 sition that ^a*Ti^£o, though it primarily signifies to 
 dip, sometimes signifies pouring or sprinkling. But 
 what is the ground of this opinion % Why, it is this. 
 Bairri^u sometimes is figuratively applied to drunken- 
 ness, and drunkenness is sometimes figuratively ap- 
 plied to the earth drenched with blood. Therefore 
 since the earth is drenched with blood by pouring or 
 sprinkling, jSaifn^u must sometimes signify pouring or 
 sprinkling. This states the evidence as fairly as any 
 can desire. But there is a multitude of errors here. 
 If one word may figuratively be applied to an object 
 literally denoted by another word, does it follow that 
 they mark the same mode 1 Is there any likeness be- 
 tween the mode of drinking, and that of the falling 
 of blood on the earth 1 The earth is here said to be 
 drunk with blood, not because there is a likeness be- 
 tween the manner of drinking wine, and that of the 
 falling of blood, but from being completely drenched 
 v/ith 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, 
 
124 THE MODE 
 
 and the mode of drinking, the above expression is the 
 clearest proof that the expression 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 drunk with blood," implies a proof 
 that /3a*T(^u signifies to dip ; because arrows are be- 
 smeared with blood by being dipped in the body. But 
 this would be false criticism. God's arrows are sup- 
 posed 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 show how ill Mr. Ewing's 
 explication wUl apply to them. Oivu &e *oXXu AXsg- 
 av5^ov ^aicndaia, " having made Alexander drunk with 
 much wine." This, according to Mr. Ewing's expli- 
 cation, would be, " having poured 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. 
 BeSaii'Tio'fjisvov eif avaiu'^iifl'iav xai xi<itvo\i u*o Tijff ^t.sdris, literally 
 "baptized into insensibility, and sleep under drunk- 
 enness." Now, a baptism into sleep, we have already 
 seen, is an immersion. Immersed or buried in sleep is 
 a phrase that is warrantable ; but what is the mean- 
 ing of being poured into sleep and insensibility "? Here 
 it is not supposed that sleep ia poured out on the per- 
 son, but if ;8s€a*Tici'(ji,svov signifies pouring, the person 
 must have been poured out into sleep. 
 
 The words (Juvajjiis /SsSa^ntfjASvi) sv rw /Sa^si tou tfufiaros, 
 Mr. Ewing translates, " a force infused into, {or dif- 
 fused in,) the inward parts of the body." This trans- 
 lation, however, is not only unwarranted by the origi- 
 nal, but is as unsuitable to the supposition that /3a*- 
 ri^w signifies to pour, as that it signifies to immerse. 
 To infuse into would not be /3a*Ti,?£iv sv, but /Siwti^siv 
 eis Does Mr. Ewing mean to say, that the parea- 
 
OP BAPTISM. 125 
 
 thetical words are explanatory, and that diffused in, is 
 equivalent to infused into ? or does he mean that they 
 are two different meanings, of which the text is 
 equally susceptible 1 A strange thing, indeed, if the 
 same phrase can equally signify infused into, and dif- 
 fused in ! In English these things are very different. 
 Greek, it seems, has a wonderful fertility of meaning. 
 When a controversialist indulges himself in a li- 
 cense of this kind, he may indeed very easily prove 
 or disprove anything. He has nothing to do but make 
 the text speak what he wants. This gives ^(mtti^u a 
 new meaning, to diffuse. This is the most wonderful 
 word that was ever found in any language. It can 
 with equal facility in the very same phrase denote 
 opposite things. To diffuse is surely the opposite of 
 infuse. It is very true, that the same word com- 
 pounded with different prepositions, may do so, as is 
 the case with infuse and diffuse. But let it be ob- 
 served, that it is the very same phrase that Mr. Ew- 
 ing makes equally susceptible of these opposite mean- 
 ings. This surely is philological legerdemain. Let 
 it be observed also, that Mr. Ewing supposes that the 
 word /Batri^u itself in these examples signifies to pour 
 upon, or to pour into. Now, where does he find the 
 force of these prepositions in the Greek word 1 If it 
 signifies to pour, it does not signify to pour into, or to 
 pour upon. The additional idea which varies the word 
 so materially, must be obtained by a preposition prefixed 
 or following : The literal translation of the above ex- 
 ample is, " a force or power immersed in the depth of 
 the body. To immerse in the depth is a congruous ex- 
 pression, but to pour in the depth is altogether incon- 
 gruous. 
 
 The example from Plutarch will suit my purpose 
 well enough in Mr. E wing's translation; "for as 
 plants are nourished by moderate, but choked by ex- 
 cessive watering, (literally wafers,) in like manner, the 
 mind is enlarged by labours suited to its strength, but 
 is overwhelmed (Gr. baptized) by such as exceed its 
 
 11* 
 
126 THE Mode 
 
 power." Mr. Ewing says, "The reference here to 
 the nourishment of planta, indicates pouring only to be 
 the species of watering alluded to in ihe term /3a*Ti- 
 ^STtti.'' But in this figure there is no reference at all 
 to the mode of watering plants. The reference is to 
 the quantity of water. The mode is not mentioned ; 
 but even were it mentioned, it would be merely a cir- 
 cumstance to which nothing corresponds in the thing 
 illustrated. What critic would ever think of hunting 
 after such likenesses in figurative language ? There 
 is actually no likeness between the mode of watering 
 plants, and the proportioning of labour to the mind of 
 a pupil ; and Plutarch is not guilty of such ab- 
 surdity. To Plutarch's figure it would be quite the 
 same thing, if a pot of plants was dipped in water, in- 
 stead of having the water poured into it. The pot it- 
 self might be dipped in water without any injury to 
 the plants. The plants are injured when water is suf- 
 fered to lie about them in too great abundance, in 
 whatever way it has been applied. The choking of 
 the plant corresponds to the suffocation in baptism, or 
 immersion. The choking of the powers of the mind 
 is elegantly illustrated by the choking of the vegeta- 
 tive powers when a plant is covered in water. There 
 is a beautiful allusion to the suffocation of an animal 
 underwater. Were Plutarch to rise from the dead, 
 with what indignation would he remonstrate against 
 the criticism that makes him refer to the mode of 
 watering plants, in a figure intended to illustrate the 
 bad effects of too much study ! How loudly would he 
 disclaim the cold, unnatural thought ! Is it not possible 
 figuratively to illustrate something by a reference 
 to the mountains buried under snow, without refer- 
 ring to the manner of its falling, and pursuing the re- 
 semblance to the flakes of feathered snow ? So far 
 from this, I assert, that this manner of explaining 
 figures is universally improper. No instance could be 
 more beautifully decisive in our favour than the above 
 figure of Plutarch. Mr. Ewing makes him compare 
 
OF BAPTISM. 127 
 
 the choking of one thing to the overwhelming of ano- 
 ther. But the author himself compares the choMng 
 of a plant, or the extinction of vegetable life, to the 
 choking or the extinction of the mental powers ; and in 
 both there is an elegant allusion to the choking of an 
 animal under water. 
 
 But even on Mr. Ewing's own system, his explana- 
 tion of this example is most fatal to his popping. 
 Ba*Ti^w here, he makes to signify death by too much 
 water, as opposed to the moderate application of wa- 
 ter. If this is the distinctive meaning of /3a*Ti^6j, it 
 cannot also denote the smallest application of water. It 
 cannot surely designate the opposite extremes- 
 
 The word is frequently applied to overwhelming 
 debt, or oppressive taxation, tous Ss idiurag, Sia rriv ax 
 •rouTUv suiro^iav, ou ^aim^oudi rats Ei(j'<po|aif. This Mr. 
 Ewing very well translates, " on account of the abun- 
 dant supply from these sources, they do not oppress 
 (or overload, Gr. baptize) the common people with 
 taxes." But neither the original nor the translation 
 will bear to be explained by the assertion that they 
 are brought to support, namely, that iSai-n^w some- 
 times signifies to pour upon, or pour into. Taxes 
 are not supposed in this figure to be poured iipon, or 
 poured into, the people who pay them ; and over- 
 whelming taxes are not supposed to be poured, while 
 small taxes are dropped on the people. The people 
 might rather be said to pour their taxes into the trea- 
 sury. If l3a'!fn2,ov(fi here signifies to pour upon, or 
 pour into, as Mr. Ewing supposes, the translation, 
 when literal, will be, " They do not pour the com- 
 mon people with taxes," or rather, " they do not pour 
 into, or pour upon the common people with taxes." 
 If any man can take sense out of this, he will deserve 
 the praise of invention. But in this figure, the rulers 
 are supposed to immerse the people, through the in- 
 strumentality of the oppressive taxes. The literal 
 translation is, " They do not immerse the common 
 people with taxes." The people, in the case of op- 
 
128 THE MODE 
 
 pressive taxation, are not in such figures supposed 
 either to have the taxes poured upon them, nor 
 themselves to be immersed in the taxes, but to sink by 
 being weighed down with taxes. The taxes are not 
 the element in which they sink, but are the instru- 
 mental bapHzers. They cause the people to sink by 
 their weight. This suits the words : this suits the 
 figure : this suits the sense ; this suits every ex- 
 ample which refers to debt : this suits the analogy of 
 all other languages. We say ourselves dipped in debt, 
 drowned in debt, sunk by debt, or sunk in debt. To 
 sink in debt, figures the debt as that in which we sink. 
 It is a deep water in which we sink. To sink by debt, 
 figures the debt as a load on our shoulders while we 
 are in deep water. In this view, it is not the drown- 
 ing element, but the baptizer or droioner. To be dip- 
 ped in debt, supposes that we owe something consi- 
 derable in proportion to our means. But we may be 
 dipped without being droimed. .The last cannot be 
 adequately represented by /3a*ri^u, except when cir- 
 cumstances render the meaning definite. The Latin 
 language recognizes the same analogy. Were we at 
 any loss with respect to the meaning of the figure in 
 Greek, the JEre alieno demersus of Livyisa comment- 
 ary. This supposes that the debtor is plunged or 
 sunk in debt. A man struggling for his hfe in the 
 midst of deep water, and at last sinking by exhaustion, 
 is a true picture of an insolvent debtor. When /3a*- 
 Ti^u occurs in such a situation, the meaning is sub- 
 stantially given ifl English by the word oppress, or 
 overload ; but neither of them is a translation. They 
 convey the meaning under the figure of a load ; the 
 other gives the idea under the figure of immersion. 
 
 The same observation applies to the next example, 
 which Mr. Ewing quotes from Josephus,-p. 302. oi 5^ 
 xai Brxa, Trig graisug v(frsgov sSafrirfocv T7)v vokiv, translated 
 by Mr. Ewing, " those, indeed, even without (en- 
 gaging in) faction, afterwards overburthened or ^op- 
 pressed (Gr. bapti^ied) the city," The original is 
 
OF BAPTISM. 129 
 
 stronger than the translation. It asserts that the rob- 
 bers ruined, or sunk the city. The passage is trans- 
 lated by Whiston, " although these very men, besides 
 the seditions they raised, were otherwise the direct 
 cause of the city's destruction also." The reference 
 is to a ship sinking from being overburdened, and ill 
 managed in the storm, from the dissensions of the 
 crew. In this view the figure is striking and beauti- 
 ful. But how can Mr. Ewing accommodate even his 
 own translation to his definition of the meaning of the 
 word ^aifTi^u in such examples 1 In them, he says, it 
 is used in the sense of pouring upon and pouring into. 
 What did the robbers pour upon or into the city 1 Be- 
 sides, there is neither upon nor into here. If the word 
 ^oMTTi^u signifies to pour, the translation literally will 
 be, " they poured the city." This will not accommo- 
 date to Mr. Ewing's own definition of the meaning of 
 the word more than to ours. Again, even according 
 to Mr. Ewing's own translation of this passage, the 
 word ^aifri^u here denotes something in excess. What 
 aspect has this towards the popping system 1 A few 
 drops of water is not an oppressive load. 
 
 Josephus uses the same figure on another occasion. 
 Speaking of Herod's sons, he says, "rovTo ueite^rsKsuraia 
 SusXX-a ^sifAa^oftsvouf tous vsaviu'xoiiff sifsQaicndiv, p. 704. 
 This is a commentary on the preceding example, and 
 limits the figure to a ship sinking. In the former 
 case, the ship was overburthened, and there was a 
 mutiny among the sailors. Here the ship is attacked 
 by repeated storms, and at last is sunk by a hurricane, 
 The word x6f(A«^''f'^^<"'S imports, that the young men 
 had a winter voyage, in which they were attacked by 
 many storms, and at last were plunged into the abyss by 
 an overwhelmingblast. Whiston, who has no purpose 
 to serve, translates it thus : " and this it was that 
 came as the last storm, and entirely sunk the young 
 men, when they were in great danger before." Where 
 is popping now % What has pouring to say here 1 It 
 may be observed, that in the last example, the word 
 
130 THE MODE 
 
 is compounded with s*i- Tiiis must be designed to 
 render the failure more graphic, and represents the 
 storm as pressing on them, while they sink under it. 
 
 The very next example which Mr. Ewing quotes 
 in the sense of overwhelming by being overburthened, 
 definitely refers to sinking in water : auros sif^i ruv 
 fSsSa.irTKf^svuv wxo Tou ^EyaXou xxiy^aros sxsivov, " I am one 
 of those who have been overwhelmed by that great 
 wave of calamity." Now what allusion is there here 
 to pouring upon, pouring into, or pouring of any kind ? 
 Yet this is one of the examples brought by Mr. Ewing, 
 to prove that the word /Sa^Tij'w sometimes signifies to 
 pour upon, and pour into till mind and body are over- 
 whelmed. What was poured upon or poured into 
 this person? Is it supposed that the wave gradually 
 poured on him till it sunk him 1 Nay, verily. He is 
 said to be baptized under the wave. Indeed, -a wave 
 does not cover by pouring, but hy flowing, dashing, or 
 sweeping horizontally. In the overwhelming by a 
 wave, there is no likeness to pouring or popping, and 
 the object is as completely covered by the wave, as 
 when it is dipped. Besides, the person is here sup- 
 posed to be forced down into the water below, by the 
 weight of the superincumbent wave. The Wave is 
 the baptizer, not the thing in which he is baptized. 
 He is baptized under the wave. And can there be a 
 stronger proof that baptism is immersion. Let Mr. 
 Ewing perform baptism according to his own transla- 
 tion of this passage, and he will act as differently from 
 his own mode— as from ours. Let the baptized per- 
 son be overwhelmed with water, and he will be buried 
 in water. 
 
 Another example of this figure from the same au- 
 thor, is entirely decisive in our favour. O Se (aoXij a vuv 
 (ps^si (ps^uv uiro (Aix^as av fSatrighirj if^oaSrixris, Liban. Ep. 
 310. "He who bears with difficulty the burden he 
 already has, would be entirely overwhelmed (or 
 crushed) by a small addition." Is it possible to 
 squeeze the idea of pouring out of the word in this 
 
Olf BAPTISM. 131 
 
 occurrence 1 A burden is not poured on the shoul- 
 ders. Besides, it is not the putting of the burden on 
 the man, that is here called baptism. The baptism 
 is efl'ected by the burden, after it is put on. The bur- 
 den causes the man to sink. 
 
 The example which Mr. Ewing quotes from Plu- 
 tarch, is already decided, by the evidence produced 
 with respect to the allusion when the figure respects 
 debt: ifevraxirf^ciXiuv (au^ikSuv o^XrifAatfi jSeSa's'Tio'jj.svoi. "Op- 
 pressed by a debt of 5000 myriads." This debt was 
 not poured upon him, nor poured into him ; but, op- 
 pressed by it as a load, he sunk or became insolvent. 
 The figure does not represent the mode of putting the 
 debt on hini, for in this there is no likeness. It repre- 
 sents the debt when on him, as causing him to sink. 
 
 The example from Heliod. ^Ethiop. lib. 4, can, by 
 no ingenuity, be reconciled to the assertion which Mr. 
 Ewing brings it to support : xai rri rfufjupo^a ^sSatcng^i.svov. 
 " And overwhelmed with the calamity. " If ^aiTTi^u 
 is supposed to signify to pour, this passage must be 
 translated, "and poured by or with the calamity." 
 The calamity is not poured upon him, but the calamity 
 pours him. But to be immersed, or to sink, by cala- 
 mity, is good sense, and a common form of speech. 
 This also is baptism by immersion, and can be nothing 
 else. What is more common than to speak of sink- 
 ing under misfortunes 1 
 
 In like manner, Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 72. 
 speaks of persons as delivered from the difficulties in 
 which they were /Sa^Ti^oj^svous, immersed. But the ob- 
 servation of Schelhornius, renders the reference in this 
 figure entirely definite. After quoting a number of 
 examples in which the word is applied figuratively to 
 calamities, he observes, with great sagacity, that the 
 same sentiment is expressed in the same author by 
 the word /Sudi^srf^ai, which determines his meaning 
 when he uses the word jSaicni^u to express the same 
 thing. *Xs;ovi xXvSuvi xaxuv /SsSu^itfjAevoi. Literally, 
 " Sunk into the deep by a greater wave or tide of mis- 
 
132 THE MODE 
 
 fortunes." Now, that ^v^i^u deaotes to cover, to sink in 
 the abyss, there can be no doubt. It is a verb formed 
 from the appropriate name of the great abyss. jSairTi^w, 
 then, as expressing the same thing, must agree with 
 it in the general idea, though it characteristically dif- 
 fers from it in strength of expression. In some cir- 
 cumstances, they may both refer to the same thing, 
 while in others they have a characteristic difference. 
 No evidence can be more satisfactory in determining 
 the meaning of a word, than this. It is indirect, and 
 would be hid from the ordinary reader ; but when sa- 
 gacity points it out, no candid mind can reject it. 
 This also confirins an observation which I have made 
 on another example, namely, that to be baptized by a 
 wave, does not import that the baptism was in the wave, 
 but under it ; and that the wave is the baptizer, or 
 power that sinks the baptized person under it. Here 
 the great jcXu^wv not only covered the person itself, but. 
 sunk him below itself into the deep. 
 
 The Septuagint renders Isaiah xxi. 4, *i avopia (jte 
 /3a*<n^ri, translated by Mr. Ewing, "iniquity over- 
 whelms me." " Here," says Mr. Ewing, " the idea 
 of plunging into is excluded. The subject of baptism 
 is viewed as having something poured or brought upon 
 him. He is not popped into the baptizing substance, 
 but it pops upon him." An4 pray, Mr. Ewing, who 
 pops this iniquity upon the baptized person 1 Is iniquity 
 itself the popper 1 Is not iniquity the thing with which 
 he is popped ? Is it both popper and popped ? But if ini- 
 quity pops him with itself, does not this i-epresent 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 bypoppmg- or dipping, 
 either by pouring or sprinkling ; but that his sin, which 
 originated in himself, and never was put on him in any 
 mode, sunk him in misery. Our iniquities cause us to 
 sink in deep waters. This example is, with all others 
 in which the word occurs, either in its literal or figu- 
 
of BAPTISM. 133 
 
 t^ative use, completely in our favour. Iniquity is the 
 baptizer, and instead of popping the subjects of its 
 baptisrti, would sink them eternally in the lake that 
 burneth with fire and brimstone, were they not deli- 
 vered 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 
 cannot fairly be explained inperfect accordance with the 
 literal meaning which we attach to it, while many of 
 them can bear no other meaning. So farfrom all being 
 explicable with an allusion topouring, there is not one 
 of them, which taking all circumstances together, can 
 fairly be explained in that meaning. There is not one 
 instance in which Mr. Ewing can show, that the refer- 
 ence must necessarily be to pouring. All languages 
 employ corresponding words in the same figurative 
 meaning for which we contend in the above exam- 
 ples. No evidence can be more entirely satisfactory. 
 
 The figurative baptism of our Lord, is quite in ac- 
 cordance with those examples in which the word is 
 used for afiiictions. Mat. xx. 22, Mark. x. 37. In 
 accordance with this view, also, he is represented in 
 the prophetical parts of the Old Testament, as im- 
 mersed 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, 1 4. In like manner, the afiiictions 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 im- 
 mersion 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 ffifts and influences, and the sanctification of the 
 
 12 
 
134 THE MODE 
 
 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 behever 
 by the Holy Spirit, through faith in the atoning blood 
 of Christ, is figuratively called an immersion or a bap- 
 tism.- But this and the preceding figure I will meet 
 again, in the examination of the theory of Mr. Ewing. 
 
 Examination of Mr. Ewing's System. 
 
 Having considered the evidence for the meaning of 
 this word from its occurrences in Greek writers, I 
 shall now examine the new theory proposed by Mr. 
 Ewing. This writer pretends to have discovered the 
 signification of ^a*Tw, by reducing it to its radical let- 
 ters ; and by interchanging labials and vowels, he 
 forms the word pop, from the sound. For an admira- 
 ble exposure of this fancy, I refer the reader to Dr. 
 Cox. But the very attempt is absurd and ludicrous. 
 It could not succeed on any subject, or with respect to 
 any word. It is entitled to no more consideration, than 
 an attempt to decide by an appeal to the cry of birds. 
 The thought of 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 existing as a word in the lan- 
 guage, whose meaning can be learned from its use. 
 To trace a word to a more remote ancestry, is to re- 
 late fable for history. 
 
 2. When etymologists go farther, they do not pre- 
 tend to give a meaning to a word which it is not found 
 to have by use, nor to reject any meaning which use 
 
OP BAPTISM. 135 
 
 has assigned. They do not pretend to regulate lan- 
 guage by assigning meanings from origin, but from a 
 comparison of actually ascertained meanings, to as- 
 sign 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 which they analyze, but from the light which 
 they reflect on the philosophy of language, and the 
 science of mind. So far from having authority in the- 
 ological controversy, their researches have no autho- 
 rity in criticism, with respect 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 primary mean- 
 ing. But without this authority, the primary mean- 
 ing can never be ascertained by the mere sound of 
 radical letters. It may be true that particular radical 
 letters are found in words that designate a common 
 idea, but that this is the case, and how far it is the 
 case, depends on ascertaining from use the actual 
 meaning of the words. If the meaning of words may 
 lawfully be ascertained from the radical letters which 
 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 by 
 this philological chemistry. Mr. Ewingnot only fails 
 in this instance of analysis, 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. 
 
136 THE MODE 
 
 3. Were the origin of ^airra to be" traced, even 
 with the utmost 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 em- 
 brace ideas not originally implied. 
 
 4. In analyzing any word, the etymologist must be 
 guided not merely by the consideration that the letters 
 that compose it have the appearance of indicating a 
 certain origin, but, especially as a groundwork, that 
 such an origin corresponds to its known and acknow- 
 ledged meaning. And when we have found such an 
 origin to a word, it is of no authority in argument, as 
 it takes the meaning of the word for granted. If pop 
 were the ascertained and acknowledged meaning of 
 I3a'!rru, the etymologist might employ his art to reduce 
 the one word to the other. But even then, the evidence 
 that the one was the parent of the other, would de- 
 pend on the fact that the meaning was ascertained 
 by use, and could not rest on the coincidence of 
 sounds. That rain comes from ^aivw, to sprinkle, and 
 plunge from *Xuvu, &c. depends on the fact that the 
 meaning of the one word is known by use to corres- 
 pond to the meaning of the other. Were there no 
 such correspondence in known signification, the cor- 
 respondence in sound would be no foundation for de- 
 rivation. Many words correspond as nearly in sounds • 
 which have no relation. In deriving a word, there- 
 fore, by reducing it to its radical letters, the etymolo- 
 gist, if he acts agreeably to the sound principles of his 
 art, must have all the meanings of the derived word 
 previously ascertained, as a groundwork for his con- 
 clusions. 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 doubtful meaning. If 
 the word ^mtu has not from use all the meanings, 
 
OF BAPTISM. 137 
 
 which Mr. Ewing assigns to it, no etymological pro- 
 cess can give any of these meanings to it, for they 
 must be all taken for granted as a foundation for his 
 deductions. 
 
 5. This theory assigns to jSaicru as its primary 
 meaning, a signification which use has not given it in 
 a single instance. Indeed, though the author endea- 
 vours to conform the examples to this primary accep- 
 tation, 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 cor- 
 respondence to the other meanings. That jSafru has 
 such a primary meaning, there is no evidence. Ifpop 
 really embraced all the significations assigned by Mr. 
 Ewing to jBatfTu, 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 ^aieru, it never signifies pop. 
 
 6. To prove that any meaning is sanctioned by use, 
 it is not suflftcient that there are examples of its occur- 
 rence, which will explain on this meaning. There is 
 no word of frequent occurrence, which in some situa- 
 tions might not bear a false translation, or explain in 
 a sense which it really never has, without making 
 nonsense. Nay, a false translation of a word may, in 
 many situations, make good sense, and even express a 
 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 which 
 the word must 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 occur- 
 ring frequently in the language is never to he taken arbi- 
 trarily in a sense which it cannot he shown incontestahly to 
 have in some other passage. An acknowledged sense is 
 necessary as a foundation on which to rest the supposi- 
 
 12* 
 
138 » THE MODE 
 
 tion, 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 contested pas- 
 sage, which it is not proved to have in some other 
 place. It may have this authority, and fail ; but with- 
 out this it cannot succeed. A meaning not so proved 
 has no right to be heard in controversy. I have li- 
 mited 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 Tes- 
 tament, cannot be now exactly and confidently ascer- 
 tained 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 seldom in what remains of any lan- 
 guage, and in such circumstances as cannot definitely 
 determine its meaning, nothing can be legitimately 
 rested on it in controversy. Now this canon sweeps 
 away not only Mr. Ewing's theory, but all other sys- 
 tems that give a meaning to /Baifn^u, different from 
 that for which we contend. There is not one instance 
 in all the Greek language in which it necessarily sig- 
 nifies to pour, sprinkle, &c. Our opponents have not 
 an acknowledged foundation on which to rest the opi- 
 nion, that with respect to the ordinance of baptism, 
 the word jSairm^u may have the meaning for which 
 they contend ; for in no instance can it be proved to 
 have such a meaning. On the contrary, even Mr. 
 Ewing himself, the boldest of all the critics on that 
 side of the question, does not deny that this word 
 sometimes signifies to dip ; nay, he himself gives 
 many examples in which it must ha.ve this significa- 
 tion. 
 
 7. I will state another canon equally self-evident, 
 and equally fatal to the doctrine of Mr. Ewing, and 
 all our opponents. Jl word that applies to two modeSy 
 can designate neither. The same word cannot express 
 Afferent modes, though a word not significant of 
 
OF BAPTISM. 139 
 
 mode may apply to all modes. Wash, for instance, 
 may refer to the action designated by it, in whatever 
 mode it may be performed. Whether it is done by 
 dipping, or by pouring, the word wash does not assert. 
 It is indifferent as to mode, although even here one 
 mode is more common than another. Stain, in like 
 manner, asserts nothing of mode, but applies to all 
 modes. A thing may be stained by sprinkling, by 
 pouring, or by dipping. Wet also applies to all modes. 
 A thing may be vsretted by dipping, by pouring, by 
 sprinkling, by the insensible distillation of the dew, by 
 damp. The word expresses the effect only, and says 
 nothing of the mode. But it would be both false and 
 absurd to say that these words signify all these modes. 
 They express nothing of mode. Modes are essen- 
 tially different from one another, and have nothing in 
 common. One word then cannot possibly distinguish 
 them. The name of a mode is the word which ex- 
 presses it as distinguished from other modes. But it 
 is impossible for the same word to express the distinc- 
 tion of two modes. It might more reasonably be 
 supposed, that the word black may also be employed 
 to signify the idea denoted by white, as well as the 
 idea which it is employed to designate, because black 
 and white admit of degrees ; but there are no degrees 
 in mode. Without reference then to the practice of 
 the language, on the authority of self-evident truth, 
 I assert that ^aicroi cannot signify both dip, and pour 
 or sprinkle. I assert, that in no language under hea- 
 ven can one word designate two modes. Now we have 
 the confession of our opponents themselves, that ^a*- 
 Ti^w signifies to dip. If so, it cannot signify also to 
 pour or sprinkle. 
 
 8. The various meanings that Mr. Ewing assigns 
 to this word, will not derive from pop. His theory, 
 then, has not the merit even of consistency, which a 
 false theory may have. He asserts, indeed, that all 
 the meanings which he admits, may easily be re- 
 duced to this word ; and that each holds of it, inde- 
 
140 THE MODE 
 
 pendently of all the rest. But how does he make 
 out this assertion 1 By making as many compounds 
 of pop, as /3a*Tw is supposed to "have meanings. In 
 each of these meanings, it becomes, in fact, a different 
 word. Pop in, pop out; pop up, pop doton ; pop 
 backward, pop forward, &c. are different compound 
 words, as much as diffuse is different from infuse. 
 Now if the word jSa-itru signifies merely to pop, it can- 
 not signify to pop up, to pop down, &c, by its own 
 power. It must have something added to give it such 
 a meaning. It is false then to say that ^aitru has all 
 these significations. But if /3a*Tu signifies to pour, it 
 does so without the aid of any other word : if it sig- 
 nifies to sprinkle, it must do so by itself. It signifies 
 to dip, without the aid of any other word. It is true, 
 indeed, that ^awTij^u admits composition with preposi- 
 tions, but this is not to enable it to signify to dip ; for 
 if this were the case, it could never have that signifi- 
 cation without the preposition in composition. But it 
 has this signification where there is no such composi- 
 tion. Indeed, there are but few of its occurrences in 
 which it admits the composition. It was indeed a 
 conceit of the great Dr. Owen, that /Sa^n^u cannot 
 denote to dip, except in composition with sv or eig. 
 But this is contradicted by use, and by the analogy 
 of other words, as is well remarked by Mr. Booth. 
 Besides, if /3a*7-u signifies to pop, and if pop can 
 apply to none of the meanings which ^cmtui is said to 
 have, without the aid of a preposition, then it cannot 
 be said that ^avru signifies to pour or sprinkle. It 
 only signifies a part of that idea. 
 
 Again, when the compound is formed, it will not 
 produce the meanings contended for. To pop upon 
 doesnot signify to sprinkle, forthere msiyhe a. popping 
 upon, when there is no sprinkling, though spi'inkling 
 may be performed hj popping upon. In the very 
 example alleged by Mr. Ewing, there is popping 
 upon without sprinkling. 
 
 " A fellow finding somewhat prick him, popped his 
 
OF BAPTISM. 141 
 
 finger upon the place." Did he sprinkle his finger 
 upon the place ? But if there is popping upon with- 
 out sprinkling, then popping upon will not signify 
 sprinkling without something to limit it still farther. 
 Granting then that ^a*Tw signifies to pop, for this 
 very reason it cannot signify to sprinkle. 
 
 In the same manner it may be proved, that if 
 ^atTu signifies to pop in or into, it does not signify to 
 pour. For there may be popping in or into without 
 pouring. Mr. Ewing's own example proves this. 
 
 " He that killed my king, 
 Pept in between the election and my hopes," 
 
 There was no pouring here. But a word that does not 
 necessarily imply pouring, cannot signify pouring. 
 
 Even with the addition of the word water itself, 
 the idea is not made out. If we substitute water for 
 finger in the above example, we will fail in the attempt 
 to express sprinkling. The fellow might pop water 
 upon the place without sprinkling. In like manner, 
 there may even be popping into water, without im- 
 mersion. When a boy pops a duck into the water, 
 she does not sink. Mr. Ewing then has failed in 
 every point of view. Even the expression, " he 
 popped water into his turned up face," Mr. Ewing's 
 favourite expression for baptizing, does not express 
 either pouring or sprinkling. So far from necessa- 
 rily implying that the water was poured or sprinkled, it 
 naturally implies that the water was cast by a jerk or 
 slight dash, and not by drops, or by a stream. Instead 
 then of accounting for all the meanings attached by 
 Mr. Ewing to the word jSa-irru, it does not account for 
 any one of these meanings. 
 
 Still less will this derivation account for dyeing as a 
 meaning of ^atTu. How is it possible, that if i$a.irrui 
 primarily signifies to pop, it could also receive the sig- 
 nification to dye ? Mr. Ewing answers this, by sup- 
 posing that a thing may be dyed, by having the co- 
 louring liquor popped upon it, and by the supposition* 
 
142 THE MODE 
 
 that the art of dyeing was suggested by the accidental 
 staining of things by the juice of fruits. But this 
 account is totally unphilosophical. All thiff may be 
 true, yet be insufficient to account for the fact. Acci- 
 dental and infrequent union cannot originate a mean- 
 ing founded on such union. It is not priority of the 
 mode of doing any thing, but the frequency of doing 
 in a mode, that will confer the name of the mode on 
 the thing effected in such mode. This is the voice 
 both of philosophy and of fact.* I have already ex- 
 emplified the thing in many instances. Ba*Tu, to dip, 
 comes naturally to signify to dye, from the frequency 
 of dyeing by dipping. But there never was such a 
 frequency of dyeing by sprinkling, as would, on philo- 
 sophical principles, give the name of the mode to the 
 thing effected in that mode. Besides, if IBaieru pri- 
 marily signifies to pop, and if it came to signify to dye, 
 because dyeing was usually performed by popping, 
 then dyeing must have been performed neither by 
 pouring nor sprinkling, for popping, as I have shown, 
 is different from both. It is impossible philosophi- 
 cally to account for dyeing as a meaning of iSiwru on 
 any other principle, than that this word primarily sig- 
 nifies to dip. 
 
 Again, if ISarfra came to signify to dye, because 
 that the art of dyeing was suggested by the accidental 
 stains from tlife bruising of fruits, why did not pop ac- 
 company its relative in this signification ? Why did 
 not Milton say, " colours popped in heaven," instead 
 of " colours dipped in heaven ?" There is no end to 
 the absurdity of this fantastic theory : It is a mine of 
 inconsistency that never could be exhausted. This is 
 the necessary condition of all false theories. How- 
 ever plausible they may be made by the ingenuity of 
 their inventors, they must contain inconsistency, that 
 will sometimes pop out its head, and show itself even 
 
 * Thus cano, to sing, came to signify to foretell, because prophets 
 uttered their predictions ia song. This principle operates very exten- 
 sively in language. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 143 
 
 to the most indolent readers. But truth is consistent ; 
 and although many apparent difficulties may at first 
 sight occur, they will giadually disappear, as light is 
 cast on the subject by inquiry. Even when its de- 
 fenders, by inadvertency, couple it with something 
 extrinsic, tliat tends to obscure and mar its evidence, 
 the ingenuity of opponents will only have the good 
 effect of separating the chaff from the wheat. 
 ■• But no absurdity can vie with that of supposing 
 that a word of so peculiar and restricted a meaning 
 as j?oj9 is represented to be, should be accounted so 
 generic, that it becomes the liege lord of innumera- 
 ble different significations, that do not arise the one 
 out of the other, but hold immediately of itself. Nay, 
 according to Mr. Ewing's philosophy, it might be- 
 come the liege lord of half the language. Instead of 
 originally representing a very generic idea, it is sup- 
 posed primarily to signify a particular sound, — a 
 small smart quick sound. It is said to be a word 
 " formed from the sound." All its applications agree 
 to this ; and pop itself never came to have the accep- 
 tations that Mr. Ewing supposes fiaicru to have. We 
 never find this word applied to any things, but such as 
 are of a trifling or playful nature. We never hear of 
 a shipwreck as a popping of the ship into the deep. 
 This would be ludicrous. Pop, instead of being a ge- 
 neric word, is as specific a word as can be imagined ; 
 and never was actually extended to serious or import- 
 ant things, except to burlesque them. Indeed, instead 
 of being a liege lord, conferring ample and separate 
 territories on many great vassals, it is so very confined 
 in its own territory, that it has a domain hardly suffi- 
 cient for a walk, to give it an airing. To enable it to 
 go a little into the world, it is obliged to take assist- 
 ance from the prepositions. Mr. Ewing himself can- 
 not send it abroad, without escorting it with up or 
 down, backwards or forwards, in or into, off or upon, &c. 
 A word so limited in its own territories, is ill fitted to 
 become, as liege lord, proprietor of a great part of the 
 
144 THE MODE 
 
 language,— nay, of every language ; for Mr. Evving% 
 chemistry must extract the same thought from all 
 languages. The author, indeed, while he declares 
 that each of the vassals is independent of all the rest, 
 and holds immediately of the liege lord, inconsistently 
 gives it a process from the particular soimd originally 
 denoted by it, to " the noise caused by the agency of 
 body in motion upon body, and that in any direction 
 whatever." Here we have a process, that by gradually 
 dropping particularities, and encroaching on territories 
 not originally included in its kingdom, gives it a ge- 
 neric meaning. Here every step in the process is 
 connected with that which precedes and depends 
 on it. But let us look at the generic meaning which 
 we have found by this process. It is so generic, as to 
 disclaim all kindred with pop, according to the use of 
 that word in the English language. Mr. Ewing's 
 definition assigns this word to express " the noise 
 caused by the agency of body in motion upon body." 
 Now, has pop actually so generic a meaning 1 If so, 
 we may speak of the popping of a cart, when we mean 
 to express the creaking of its wheels ; for this is "noise 
 caused by the agency of body in motion upon body." 
 In short, every noise from motion may be called pop- 
 ping. But with all the impudence of this little playful 
 word, it has never had the boldness to pop itself into 
 such a province. 
 
 Again, if /3a*Tu signifies primarily to pop, and if pop 
 signifies primarily to make " a small smart quick 
 sound," and if all the various meanings of ^cMrta 
 hold of it in this signification, then they must all be 
 reducible to the primary signification, namely, " a 
 small smart quick sound," without any relation to one 
 another. The signification to dye must be referred 
 immediately to this particular sound, and not to the 
 accidental bruising of fruits. Mr. Ewing inconsist- 
 ently makes the various meanings hold of pop in its 
 generic meaning, acquired by process, instead of its 
 primary particular motion. Nay, he absurdly makes 
 
OF BAPTISM. 145 
 
 the various meanings of ^w*tu hold of the English 
 pop, and that in a meaning far removed from its pri- 
 mary meaning. No matter that it was as true that 
 pop had the generic meaning acquired hy process 
 from a particular one, as it is manifestly false, this 
 would say nothing to the processes of ^aitru. Instead 
 of tracing the progress of pop from " a small smart 
 quick sound," to a " sound caused by the motion of 
 body in motion on body," let Mr. Ewing trace the 
 progress of ^aitru itself. It is with this the contro- 
 versy is concerned, and not with the mutations in the 
 meaning of an English word. Let him show such a 
 primary meaning in fSoMru, and then let him trace it 
 through all the rivulets derived from the fountain. 
 Can any thing be more obvious, than that if /3a*Tw 
 primarily signifies to pop, and if pop primarily signi- 
 fies to make a small smart quick sound, $a.irru cannot be 
 admitted as proprietor of any other territory, till it is 
 proved by use to possess it 1 Is the harmony between 
 ^atru} and pop like that of the monads of the soul and 
 body, according to the system of Leibnitz, that the 
 one must necessarily accompany the other in all its 
 most fantastic movements 1 Can any thing be more 
 absurd, than to squeeze pop out of ^(fgru, on the au- 
 thority of sound and primary acceptation, yet in the 
 theory founded on this, to reason not from the primary 
 meaning of pop, but from a meaning acquired by pro- 
 cess % Can any thing be more absurd than to pretend 
 to determine the different meanings of a Greek word, 
 by the mutations of meaning in the English word de- 
 rived from it ^ 
 
 9. If pop originally denoted "a small smart quick 
 sound," as is very likely, then there is no reason to 
 extract pop. out of ^airTu, for jScmtu never denotes such' 
 a sound, — nor any sound. Mr. Ewing himself, does 
 not pretend to allege one example in which ^airru has 
 the meaning which pop originally implied. On the 
 authority, then, of the coincidence of primary mean- 
 inar, no relation can he found between them. 
 
 13 
 
146 TfiE MODE 
 
 10. The construction of the words in connexion 
 with /Saifru, 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 popped 
 upon or into him." Very true, but the same syntax 
 will not pop him into water, that will pop water upon 
 or into him. According to Mr. Ewing, to pop into 
 water, is to dip. If so, the examples of dipping, as 
 denoted by this phrase, are innumerable. Let any 
 person examine the number which I have produced. 
 But can Mr. Ewing produce out of all Greek litera- 
 ture, a single example of the phrase popping water 
 upon a person or thing, when the verb is /3a*ru 1 Bap- 
 tizing water upon a person or thing, is a phrase that 
 never occurs. This would be the baptism of the 
 water, not of the person. To pop water upon a man, in 
 Greek would be ^a^TEiu vSug sir' avAguirov, [{jSaifreiv 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 ^a^Ti^u is ap- 
 plied to great, serious, and terrific objects, contradicts 
 this theory. Mr. Ewing, indeed, has foreseen this 
 storm ; and to prevent his theory from being over' 
 whelmed by it, has invented a groundless distinction 
 between 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 ap- 
 ply to the vast and the terrible, if it does not either in- 
 clude the vast and the terrible in its primary mean- 
 ing ; or by forsaking its primary meaning, 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 instance, at first 
 denoted a utensil of wood ; it now denotes the utensil, 
 without respect to the material of which it is com- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 147 
 
 posed : But it has forsaken its ancient meaning alto- 
 getlier. 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 materi- 
 als. 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 poiot out any philosophical principle that would 
 lead /3a*Ti^oj from such a primary sense as he contends 
 for, to the secondary sense which he here assigns. Is 
 there any principle to conduct the operation in extend- 
 ing the word pop-gun to signify a cannon 1 He does 
 not pretend that this process has been verified in the 
 term pop. To employ pop in this way, would be ludi- 
 crous. The same must be the case with jSa^xriAi, if it 
 signifies to pop. 
 
 But if there were any principle to lead to this pro- 
 cess, 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 naturally conduct this process. Let 
 him point out any example in any language, in which 
 a word at the same period of its history has such pri- 
 mary and scondary meanings. 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 ter- 
 rific nature? If it has the one meaning, it cannot have 
 the other. There is no philosophy in this distinc- 
 tion. 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 overwhelming 
 flood." But he might have added, that this could 
 not be said in any language, employing a word corres« 
 
148 THE MODE 
 
 ponding 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 corres- 
 pond to pop in all languages. 
 
 Mr. Ewingcallsthis secondary sense, " a figurative, an 
 exaggerated, rather than a proper and natural sense." 
 But if it is a secondary sense, it is not a figurative 
 sense, for a secondary sense is a proper sense ; and a 
 figurative acceptation of a word is no sense of the word 
 at all. When a word is used hyperbolieally, it still 
 retains its proper sense, and from this circumstance 
 the figure has its beauty. When the Psalmist repre- 
 sents the mountains as leaping, the word leaping still 
 retains its proper meaning, but the motion of a moun- 
 tain in an earthquake is elegantly figured 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 severe 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 absurd to speak of the ex- 
 aggerated or diminished meaning of a word. The 
 exaggeration or the diminution is not in the words at all. 
 I have already pointed out the true distinction be- 
 tween /SaiTTu and ^a*Ti^w. The former signifies to 
 dip, the latter to cause to dip. Now, these significa- 
 tions equally apply to small objects, and to great. 
 But while the latter may be applied to the smallest 
 object, it is peculiarly fitted to denote the immer- 
 sion of objects greater than can be lifted in the 
 hand. Accordingly we find that /3a*Ti^u, while it 
 is sometimes applied to the smallest objects, is much 
 more usually than (Saifru applied to large objects. It 
 more exactly applies to the immersion in baptism, 
 because the baptized person is not taken up by 
 the baptizer, but caused to sink into the water by 
 the force impressed. It is /3airTi^w ^lao, as any one 
 
OP BAPTISM. 149 
 
 may see by a look at the examples which I have 
 quoted, that is applied to the sinking of ships, and the 
 destruction of things not lifted out of the water. This 
 is a distinction philosophical, intelligible, useful, and 
 agreeable to fact. Mr. Ewing's distinction has nothing 
 10 recommend, it but the necessity of his theory. Jo- 
 sephus speaks as literally when he designates the 
 sinking of a ship by the word ^aim^cj, as when he 
 speaks of the immersion of the smallest object. 
 
 12. Mr. Ewing mistakes the effect that preposi- 
 tions have in composition with the verbs. He seems 
 to suppose, that they always modify or give direction 
 to the action of the verb as simply as the English pre- 
 positions. But a slight examination of this subject 
 will convince any one that they have a variety of 
 power unknown to our language. Let us take one 
 or two examples : eira &s^(ji,ous ctgrovg e| oivou (*sXavos xou 
 sXaiou a'iroSairrwv. Here it is obvious owro does not di- 
 rect its force in conjunction with the verb, upon the 
 object of the verb ; but either marks the distance of 
 the agent from the object in the performance of the 
 action, or rather the departure of the object from the 
 thing in which the action was produced. The lat- 
 ter is without doubt the effect of the preposition after 
 the verb, e| oivou, out of wine. It is not " dip the loaves 
 into the wine," but " dip them out of the wine." The 
 point to which our attention is here called by the ex- 
 pression, is the departure of the object out of the thing 
 in which the action of the verb was produced. This 
 implies that it was in the wine, but does not express 
 it. Now, the preposition in composition may unite 
 with the . preposition after the verb, as is frequently 
 the case, when the same preposition that is used in 
 composition is also used after the verb, as EfAgowr'riJ^tj 
 eij ^aXaddriv, and ourown phrases, the tyrantwas expelled 
 out of the kingdom, — he ijafused courage into the sol- 
 diers, &e, &c. 
 
 Whatever is the meaning of the participle in the 
 above example, the preposition in composition with it 
 13* 
 
150 THE MODE 
 
 cannot exert its influence on the object of the verb. 
 We could not say popping from the loaves out of the wine. 
 The expression is on the same principle that operates 
 in the phrase /Sa^-si tov Saxn'Kov a^o rov sXimou, " shall 
 dip his finger /rom the oil," Lev. xiv. 16. and a^o tou 
 aij]i,a.ros, "from the blood," Lev. iv. 17. 
 
 Eis and sv occur very frequently in composition with 
 this verb ; but their effect is quite obvious ; a^o is less 
 frequent, because it is only on the above principles 
 that it applies. E*i is still less frequent, and as Kara 
 denotes a deep dipping, so Eiri denotes great exertion in 
 producing- the effect of the verb. It does not mean 
 that the action of the verb is produced upon the object, 
 but that the force of the agent is exerted in producing 
 the action of the verb. It does not direct the actioH of 
 the verb to the object, but directs the energy of the 
 agent to the production of the action. Es Trjv E^sr^iSa 
 y>]v uy^ijv, )cai Xnjv rST^ifi^^i^svrjv xai p^Xia|7]v, Siti^a-^as o^ovio« 
 XsifTov, " dipping a piece of fine linen into moist Ere- 
 trian earth," &c. Here the effect of s*i is to show the 
 force necessary to press the object into the moist earth. 
 
 Now this is Mr. Swing's favourite compound for 
 denoting baptism. To pop upon must mean to pop 
 the water on the person. But let the verb be trans- 
 lated as he will, it cannot comport in this example 
 with this view. The Eretrian earth was not to be 
 popped upon the linen, for it was a mass of moist earth ; 
 and it is not said that the linen was to be baptized 
 upon with the earth, but into the earth. Now Mr. 
 Ewing supposes that when the verb is compounded 
 with E*', the baptizing substance is preceded by with, 
 " He popped upon me with an overwhelmingflpod." But 
 this is not the syntax Iti any of the examples in which 
 this compound word occurs. It is not baptize withy 
 but baptize in or into. This is a capital mistake,, and 
 the detection of it leaves him. without aid from Ijiis fa., 
 vourite compound. To baptize upon, in the eonstruCr 
 tion in which it always stands, is as ineonsistent with 
 popping, as inlQ would have been^ lodeed, intQ is ia 
 
OF BAPTISM. 151 
 
 this example expressly used before the baptizing sub- 
 stance. If the linen was to be baptized upon moist 
 earth, it was also to be baptized into the earth. 
 
 The expression in Josephus in which this com- 
 pound is used, to which Mr. Ewing seems to refer, is 
 as little in unison with his doctrine : touto udirsg teXeu- 
 Taia SuaXXa XEi(Ji.ai?o(j,Evouff rovgvsavKfxovs s^sSoLifridsv. " This, 
 as the last storm, immersed the youngmen," &c. Here 
 the storm is not the baptizing substance, but the bap- 
 tizer; and it did not pop itself upon them, for the verb 
 is in the active voice. If then it signifies io pop, the 
 popper must pop something on them. What is it then 
 that the storm pops on them different from itself? To 
 express Mr. Ewing's meaning, the syntax must be 
 quite different. Some popper must "pop the young 
 men with a storm," &c. or it must be,, " the young men 
 were popped upon with a storm." but instead of this 
 the storm itself is the baptizer, and as their baptism 
 was their destruction, it must have been immersion. 
 Eifi then cannot here import, as Mr. Ewing's doctrine 
 supposes, that the baptizing substance was popped 
 upon the baptized ; for the baptizing substance was 
 the sea in which they perished, and the storm was the 
 baptizer that sunk them. Mr. Ewing's own transla- 
 tion of the passage cannot give him relief. " This, 
 as the last storm, epibaptized or overwhelmed the young 
 men, already weather-beaten." Now, what did the 
 storm baptize upon themi With what did it over- 
 whelm them 1 With itself, Mr. Ewing may say. I 
 answer no. The verb is in the active voice, but to 
 express this meaning would require the middle. If 
 the storm popped them, it must have popped them 
 with something different from itself. Besides, the al- 
 lusion is evidently to a ship sinking in the sea by a 
 storm. The sea is the baptizing substance,- the storm 
 is the baptizer, and the effect of such a baptism is de- 
 struction. E*! then is evidently intended to mark 
 the violence of the pressure of the storm on the ship^ 
 
153 THE MODfi 
 
 as the force of the agent in effecting the action of the 
 verb. 
 
 Again, if epibaptize signifies to pop upon, how is it 
 that it here imports to overwhelm? Can any two 
 ideas be more inconsistent than that of popping upon, 
 and that of overwhelming? Can two extremes meet 1 
 How does overwhelm hold of pop ? I have already 
 shown that no process can account for two meanings 
 so discordant, and that no figure will justify it. This 
 is contrary to a canon as clear as any in language, — 
 That which designates one extreme, cannot at the same 
 time designate the other. As I have observed in another 
 place, many words may apply to both extremes, but 
 this can never happen except when they designate 
 neither. To dip, for instance, applies to an immersed 
 world, and it applies to an immersed insect. But it 
 designates neither. How ludicrous is the expression, 
 the storm popped upon the young men ! Even were 
 we to grant for a moment, that pop should enlarge 
 its signification so as to apply to the most violent 
 storm, still it would express only the force of the storm, 
 and not its effect. The translation would then be, 
 "The storm rushed on them with tremendous vio- 
 lence ;" but this would not import the effect of the 
 storm, as issuing in their destruction. In many ways 
 they might escape from the greatest storm ever known. 
 Jonah was even cast into the sea, and yet escaped. 
 Even when the whistle becomes a tempest, it wi not 
 serve Mr. Ewing. 
 
 The same observations will apply to the other ex- 
 ample from Josephus ; E'ri§a*Ti(r£iv ya| aurov tjiv ffoXiv, 
 " That he would baptize or sink the city." How is it 
 that Mr. Ewing has translated this as if the verb was 
 in the passive voice, and as if Josephus himself was not 
 supposed the baptizer 1 " for the city." says Mr. Ew- 
 ing, " must be epibaptized or overwhelmed." Do not 
 the people, in their expostulations with Josephus, in 
 order to dissuade him from leaving them, tell him that 
 
OP BAPTISM. 153 
 
 if he should depart, he would himself sink or epibap- 
 tize the city 1 His desertion of the city would be the 
 means of its ruin. He is then represented as doing 
 the thing that would be the consequence of his de- 
 parture. 
 
 But how is this, as Mr. Ewing says, an overwhelm- 
 ing by rushing or pouring upon? Did Josephus by 
 popping off from the city, pop upon it with such vio- 
 lence as 10 overwhelm it 1 This surely implies the 
 mysteries of transubtantiation. Josephus popped no- 
 thing on the city by leaving it, nor did he rush or 
 pour on it with violence by flying from it. E«, then, 
 in this compound, can afford no countenance to the 
 supposition, that in baptism the water is popped or 
 poured upon the baptized person. To suit the exam- 
 ple to ihis purpose, Josephus must have been repre- 
 sented as pouring the baptizing substance on the 
 city. 
 
 Upon the whole, Mr. Ewing labours under a 
 capital mistake when he supposes, that the preposi- 
 tions prefixed to this verb, necessarily relate to the 
 direction of the action of the verb. The Greek pre- 
 positions have a much more extensive and varied 
 power iu composition than ours have, in such com- 
 pounds as pop in, pop out, &c. Epibaptize, which he 
 supposes expressly to imply that the water is poured 
 on the baptized, does not in one instance occur in 
 syntax suitable to his interpretation, even although 
 the meaning of the verb were doubtful. 
 
 13. Iq this theory of Mr. Ewing, we have the 
 strongest evidence that our opponents are not them- 
 selves satisfied with any mode of defence hitherto de- 
 vised. We have Mr. Ewing's own virtual acknow- 
 ledgment, that the ground on which pouring has till 
 his time been held for baptism, is not firm. Can there 
 be a more certain sign that he himself was dissatisfied 
 with the usual view of the subject, than his having 
 recourse to so extravagant a theory 1 If he has taken 
 to gea in this bark of bulrushes, must he not have coa- 
 
154 THE MODE 
 
 sidered the ship which he left as being in the very 
 aot of sinking ] I call on the unlearned Christian to 
 consider this circumstance. What must be the ne- 
 cessities of a cause, that requires such a method of 
 defence 1 This theory is not only unsound, and un- 
 supported by the Greeis: language, but it is ludicrous 
 in the extreme. Since the heavens were stretched 
 over the earth, there has not been such a chimerical 
 scheme embodied under the name of criticism. The 
 thought that the ordinances of Christ could be 
 squeezed out of the radical sounds contained in vi^ords, 
 or that the actual meaning of words may be authori- 
 tatively determined by such a species of etymology, is 
 frightfully fanatical. Sober criticism can lend no 
 ear to such dreams. What, then, must be the despe- 
 rate situation of that cause, that takes aid from such 
 a theory as that of Mr. Ewing ! 
 
 The passages which Mr. Ewing brings forward in 
 support of his theory, are already mostly considered. 
 I shall, therefore, only touch on a few of his observa- 
 tions on them. There is one rule of interpretation 
 which Mr. Ewing prescribes to us, at which I am 
 beyond measure astonished. Though he does not 
 formally state it as a canon, yet he reasons on the 
 supposition that we are obliged to find an exact pa- 
 rallel for immersion, with all its circumstances, in the 
 purifications of the heathens or of the Jews. Having 
 quoted the passage from Herodotus, which is so de- 
 cisive in our favour, he endeavours to lessen its value 
 in the following words. "After all," says he, " there 
 is one very manifest point of difference. The person 
 who adopts this summary method of purification, per- 
 forms the operation for himself. The immersion of 
 one person by another, for any purpose except that of 
 medical treatment, or that of murder, I can discover 
 in no writings whatever, sacred or profane." And does 
 Mr. Ewing really think that any such authority is 
 necessary to determine the meaning of this word? 
 Must we seek for a model for Christian baptism, either 
 
OF BAPTISM. 155 
 
 among" Jewish or heathen rites 1 I care not if there 
 never had heen a human being immersed in water 
 since the creation, if the word denotes immersion, and 
 if Christ enjoins it, I will contend for it as confidently 
 as if all nations, in all ages, had been daily in the 
 practice of baptizing each other. Whether I am to 
 immerse myself in baptism, or be immersed by ano- 
 ther, I am to learn from the Scripture accounts of the 
 ordinance, not either from the meaning of the word or 
 the practice of nations. The demand of Mr. Ewing 
 is unreasoQable beyond any thing that I recollect to 
 have found in controversy. If it could not be accounted 
 for by the strength of prejudice, it would indicate a 
 want of discernment that no man will impute to Mr. 
 Ewing. The man who demands, in order to the 
 proof of immersion in baptism, that a complete model 
 of the ordinance be found in Jewish or heathen puri- 
 fications, must either labour under the influence of the 
 strongest bias, or be strangely deficient in the powers 
 of discrimination. "For any purpose except that of me- 
 dical treatment, or that of murder" ! ! ! And is not any 
 of these cases as authoritative as an immersion for pu- 
 rification ? Is not the immersion of a man for medical 
 purposes, as much an immersion, and as authoritative 
 to show the meaning of the word, as an immersion for 
 superstitious purposes. Examples are useful to settle 
 the meaning of the word, not as a model for the ordi- 
 nance. The dipping of the flea's foot in Aristophanes, 
 is as authoritative as the immersion of a Pharisee for 
 purification. But what heightens the extravagance 
 of this demand is, that while Mr. Ewing calls for a 
 complete model for Christian immersion in the purifi- 
 cations of Jews and heathens, he is so easily satisfied 
 with evidence on his own side of the question, that he 
 has found popping water on the turned up face to be the 
 baptism of the New Testament. Here he has the. 
 .eyes of a lynx, for he has seen what I believe no other 
 man ever pretended to see in the Scriptures. 
 
 But it seems, that even a complete model in hea- 
 
156 THE MODE 
 
 then purifications would not serve ns. Nay, if we 
 have been condemned for want of a heathen pattern 
 for baptism, we are also condemned for having it. 
 " There is also," says Mr. Ewing, " a point, not of 
 difference, but of resemblance, between this example 
 and an Anti-psedo-baptist's baptism, which seems to 
 have very much astonished the historian, namely, the 
 person's plunging himself, auToirfi ([Aarioio'i, 'with his 
 very clothes on.' It was evidently regarded as a sin- 
 gular and monstrous sort of purification by this hea- 
 then writer ; and we sha,ll meet with abundant evi- 
 dence that it was never so seen in Israel." Here we 
 are condemned for observing baptism according to the 
 model, as we were before condemned for coming short 
 of the model. Surely I may answer such reasoning 
 in the language of Christ : " We have piped unto you, 
 and ye have not daxteed ; we have mourned unto you, 
 and ye have not lamented." As long as the mind is 
 in a state to make such objections, it would not yield 
 though one should rise from the dead. A heathen 
 thought purification with the clothes on singular and 
 monstrous. Must Christ's ordinance conform to hea- 
 then notions of purification 1 But, Mr. Ewing, how 
 can you assert that Herodotus regarded this as mon- 
 strous 1 There is no such thing said, nor implied. 
 The historian does not mention the circumstance as 
 monstrous, or in any degree improper, but as an evi- 
 dence of the abhorrence that the Egyptians have for 
 swine, and the deep pollution contracted by their 
 touch. The thing that was singular and strange is, 
 that the person touching the swine, supposed the pol- 
 lution to affect his very garments, or that it was as ne- 
 cessary to baptize them as himself. The polluted Egyp- 
 tian baptized himself, with his very clothes, that he 
 might purify his clothes, which he considered to be 
 defiled as well as himself. The Christian is baptized 
 with his clothes on, not indeed to imitate the example 
 of the Egyptian, but for the sake of decency. Had 
 Christian baptism been like Egyptian baptism, an or- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 157 
 
 dinance in which every believer was to baptize him- 
 self, there would have been no need to baptize with 
 the clothes on. The thing then that is strange and sin- 
 gular in the Egyptian baptism, is not strange in Chris- 
 tian baptism. It would be strange if persons bathing 
 alone in a retired place should encumber themselves 
 with a bathing dress ; but it would not be strange to 
 find them using a bathing dress on a crowded strand. 
 A little discrimination under the influence of candour 
 would have taken away all monstrosity from this 
 example. There is nothing in the historian that in 
 the remotest degree gives ground for Mr. E wing's as- 
 sertion. Is this a candid or a Christian way of repre- 
 senting evidence 1 If men will indulge themselves in 
 such liberties with the documents on which they 
 found their report of antiquity, no credit could be 
 given to history. Mr. Ewing here represents Hero- 
 dotus as regarding this circumstance as monstrous, 
 without the smallest authority from his words. Is 
 not this bearing false witness 1 The intention, I am 
 convinced, is not to misrepresent evidence. Yet evi- 
 dence is misrepresented, where nothing but bias could 
 discover the supposed meaning. Well may a Roman 
 Catholic sec all the doctrines of popery in the Scrip- 
 tures, when Mr. Ewing can find the circumstance of 
 bathing with the clothes on designated as monstrous in 
 the language of Herodotus. If, in all the passages 
 which I have considered, I have made one such mis- 
 representation, let me be put to shame. I may inis- 
 take the meaning of my author, but a mistake that in- 
 dicates a bias, I hope no man will be able to find in 
 my criticism. I would let Baptism and the Bible it- 
 self sink, rather than force evidence. What I demand 
 from my antagonist, I will grant" him in return. I 
 will not lay down one law for him, and walk by ano- 
 ther myself. I will do all in my power to save the 
 Israelitish spies, but if this cannot be done without a 
 falsehood let them perish. 
 
 The same uncandid and unreasonable mode of rea- 
 14 
 
158 THE MODE 
 
 soning is again resorted to in the following language. 
 Formerly he had complained that the examples im- 
 plying immersion, do not respect cases in which one 
 person baptized another, hut each baptized him- 
 self. " Here," he says, " it must be confessed, that, 
 in some of the cases, there are dippers as well as dip- 
 ped." Now, if there is, in any instance, the model 
 he requires, why does he complain, that in some in- 
 stances it is not to be found 1 Does he suppose that 
 every instance must contain the full model, or that 
 one instance is not sufficient for the purpose, even 
 were it necessary to produce such a model from hea- 
 thenism ? If, in one case, he finds a dipper, is it not 
 enough to show that the word may be applied to the 
 ordinance of Christian immersion'? But whether a per- 
 son dips himself, or is dipped by another, has no more to 
 do with the meaning of this word, than the name of the 
 baptized person has. Nor can an example from 
 heathen or Jewish purification, that would coincide 
 in every particular with the external form of the ordi- 
 nance, be of more authority as a model, than an ex- 
 ample of plunging a pick-pocket in the mire. To 
 speak in the above way, then, is totally to misconceive 
 the nature of the evidence on which a just conclusion 
 can be founded. 
 
 Mr. Ewing complains, that, " the other cases also, 
 are not those of voluntary plunging, but of fatal sink- 
 ing." But is not immersion immersion, whether the 
 immersed person rises or sinks 1 We want no aid from 
 these examples but what they can give, what they 
 cannot refuse to give, and what our opponents admit 
 that they give. The examples in which the word ap- 
 plies to sinking, prove that the word implies dipping. 
 This is all we want from them. That the baptized 
 person is not to lie at the bottom, but id rise up out of 
 the waters, we learn not from the wotd, but from the 
 accounts of jthe ordinance. We wish no model in 
 heathenism as an authority for the ordinance of bap- 
 tism. This we have in the Scriptures. We are in- 
 
OP BAPTISM. 159 
 
 debted to the heathen writers only for the meaning of 
 the word. It is altogether astonishing that a man like 
 Mr. Ewing can indulge in such trifling. If all his 
 requirements were necessary, no ordinance of Christ 
 could be proved. Bui happily his requirements are 
 only for his opponents. They do not regulate his own 
 conduct. He relaxes from his rigour wherever his 
 popping scheme comes to the trial. If one instance 
 could be brought, in which this disputed word neces- 
 sarily signifies to pour or sprinkle, though it related 
 to a person sprinkling himself, what would he say, 
 should I object that this was no authority for one per- 
 son to sprinkle another ! Very true, he would doubt- 
 less say, but it proves that the word signifies to 
 sprinkle. I have other ways of learning whether 
 baptism is a sprinkling of one's self, or a sprinkling of 
 one by another. In like manner, the examples of in- 
 voluntary immersion prove to me the meaning of the 
 word. From Christ and his apostles I learn that 
 Christian immersion is neither involuntary nor fatal. 
 It is a grievous thing to be obliged to notice such rea- 
 soning. 
 
 Mr. Ewing exclaims, " Is this the pattern of bap- 
 tizers and baptised ?" 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 
 show the meaning of the word. Had Mr. Ewing 
 produced one instance in which the disputed word 
 signifies to sprinkle 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 ]" Would he not pounce upon us with the 
 reply: " This determines the meaning of the word, 
 which is all any examples 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 
 
160 THE MODE 
 
 Mr. Ewing, " by the work of providential destruction, 
 or that of murderers'?" We shall determine the mean- 
 ing of the word by such examples. Nothing more 
 can be done by any examples from antiquity. No- 
 thing more do we 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 ex- 
 pressed in the authority which he gives to the exam- 
 ple of heathen aud Jewish purifications. While he 
 complains of us for establishing the meaning of the 
 word by documents that apply the word to involun- 
 tary 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 immedi- 
 ately followed by an emersion ; but a continued and 
 permanent immersion, a remaining under water." 
 Now, is not this mode of reasoning perverse and un-» 
 just? If some examples are found, in which this 
 word is applied to the dipping of things taken imme- 
 diately up, is not this sufficient to establish the pro- 
 priety 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 authori- 
 tative 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 neither taking 
 up nor lying 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 destruc- 
 tion, the word ^aitriX^u never expresses this. Whether 
 the thing is taken up, or is allowed to remain is not 
 
OF BAPTISM. 161 
 
 expressed by the word, but is implied by the circum- 
 stances. The word, without one exception, signifies 
 simply to dip. 
 
 In the following extract, the reasoning is more plau- 
 sible. The author seems to think that it is demon- 
 stration. 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 expre ss 
 the emersion, 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 importance. The immersion and the emer- 
 sion are both of them parts of this symbol ; the first 
 representing the death, and the second the resurrection 
 of Christ. Now, if this be the case, the word /3a*Ti^£j 
 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 our- 
 selves out of this tremendous gulf? 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 ^aicn^oi, even applied 
 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 explanation of the im- 
 port of the ordinance. If there was nothing said in 
 Scripture about the import of baptism, I would learn 
 nothing on the subject from the word that designates 
 it. I would learn as little of its being a symbol of the 
 death of Christ, as of his resurrection. I learn neither 
 
 14* 
 
162 THE MODE 
 
 from the word ; for it is possible that this word might 
 have been used, without teaching any thing on tlie 
 subject. I learn both from the Scripture explanations 
 of Christ's institution. 
 
 But it may be said, if the word signifies immersion, 
 it may be a symbol of Christ's burial ; but it is not 
 fitted to be such a symbol, unless it also signifies to 
 emeri^e. — 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 immersion, 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 
 Christ's resurrection and ours, I would as soon anoint 
 with oil and spittle, as deduce it from the meaning of 
 the word, even though the word had expressed both 
 immersion and emersion. The ordinance is as fit to 
 represent emersion as immersion, though the word bap- 
 tism expresses the latter only. The symbol consists 
 in the thing, not in the name. There is no necessity 
 that the name should designate every thing contained 
 in the ordinance. But even granting that this is ne- 
 cessary, what would follow 1 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 will be so obstinate as 
 to reject the half of the edification of the ordinance. 
 
 Mr. Ewing says, " Now, if this be the case, the 
 word ^orKTi^u 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 ordi- 
 nance is explained by the institutor as containing 1 
 This is not necessary ; nor do Scripture ordinances at 
 all recognize the authority of such a principle. Is it 
 not strange that Mr. Ewing should have forgotten 
 one of the names of the Lord's supper which is liable 
 to the like objection? It is called the breaking oj 
 
OF BAPTISM. 163 
 
 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 Spirit is a figurative expression, 
 explicable on the principle of a reference to immer- 
 sion. This represents the abundance of the gifts and 
 influences of the Spirit of God in the enlightening and 
 sanctification of believers. That which is immersed 
 in a liquid, is completely subjected to its influence, 
 and imbued with its virtues ; so to he immersed in the 
 Spirit, represents the subjection of soul, body, and 
 spirit, to his influence. The whole man is sanctified. 
 It is objected that the Holy Spirit is said to be poured 
 out, and therefore to represent the pouring of the 
 Spirit, baptism must be by pouring. This is the grand 
 resource of our opponents, and is more specious to the 
 illiterate, than any thing that has been said. A very 
 considerable part of the language of Scripture, in the 
 representation of the gifts of the Spirit, is founded on 
 the figure of pouring ; and readers who have no dis- 
 crimination, or who are under the influence of bias, 
 at once conclude that this pouring is the baptism of 
 the Spirit. This argument is drawn out in formida- 
 ble array by Mr. Ewing ; and is relied on with the 
 utmost confidence by Dr. Wardlaw. But it is no- 
 thhig but a careless confusion of things entirely dis- 
 tinct, and is founded on an egregious blunder, as will 
 appear by the following considerations. 
 
 First, The word, in its literal sense, must guide all 
 its figurative applications. The explanation of the 
 figure must conform to the literal meaning, but the 
 literal meaning can never bend to the figurative. The 
 latter, indeed, may assist us in ascertaining the for- 
 mer ; but when the former is ascertaiaed, the latter 
 must be explained in accordance with it. But the 
 
164 THE MODE 
 
 literal meaning of this word is ascertained to be that 
 of immersion, by a strength of evidence, and a multi- 
 tude of examples, that cannot be exceeded with re- 
 spect to any word of the same frequency of occur- 
 rence. 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, be- 
 cause 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 clipping, the pretensions of pouring, as the figu- 
 rative 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. Pouring cannot be the figurative 
 baptism, because baptism never literally denotes pouring. 
 Secondly, This opinion is founded on the egregious 
 error which teaches that God is material, and that 
 there is a literal pouring out of his Spirit, which may 
 be represented by the pouring of water. Our oppo- 
 nents understand the baptism of the Spirit to be a lite- 
 ral baptism, and the pouring out of the Spirit to be a 
 literal pouring out of Him who fs 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 Spirit 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 weie pouring, could not 
 represent the pouring of the Spirit, because the Spi- 
 rit is not litevally poured. Baptism, whatever be the 
 mode, cannot represent either the manner of convey- 
 ing the Spirit, or his operations in the soul. These 
 
OF BAPTISM. 165 
 
 things cannot be represented by natural things. There 
 is no likeness to a Spirit, nor to the mode of his ope- 
 rations. It would be as easy to make a likeness of 
 God creating the world, and attempt to represent by a 
 picture the divine operations in the formation of mat- 
 ter, as to represent by symbols the manner of the com- 
 munication of the Holy Spirit, and his operations on 
 the soul. If Christians were not infatuated with the 
 desire of establishing a favourite system, so gross con- 
 ceptions of God could not have so long escaped detec- 
 tion. This error is as dishonourable 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 figura- 
 tive expression, to which there is nothing resemblant 
 in the manner of the divine operations. What, then, 
 it may be asked, is the resemblance 1 Why is the Spi- 
 rit said to be poured, if the pouring of water does not 
 resemble it 1 The foundation of the figure is the very 
 reverse of what is supposed. The Spirit is said to be 
 poured out, not because there is any actual ^ownng, 
 which is represented hy pouring out water in baptism, 
 but from the resemblance between the effects of the influ- 
 ences of the Spirit and those of water. Between the 
 Spirit itself and water there is no resemblance, more 
 than between an eye or a circle and the divine nature. 
 Nor is there any resemblance between the mode of the 
 operations of the Spirit, and that of the influences of wa- 
 ter. The Holy Spirit is said to be poured, because his 
 influences or effects are like those of water, and because , 
 he is supposed to dioell above. The Holy Spirit is re- 
 presented as poured out, on the same principle on 
 which God is said to have come down from heaven^ 
 or to look down from heaven, or to have hands and 
 arms. It is in accommodation to our ways of think- 
 ing and speaking, not as expressive of reality. The 
 Holy Spirit is figured as water, not to represent any 
 hkeness in him to water, just as God is figured as a 
 man. The Holy Spirit is said also to be as dew. Does 
 
166 THE MODE 
 
 this imply that there is a Ukeness to the falling of dew 
 and the manner of the communication of the Holy- 
 Ghost] Our Lord represents the Spirit as a well, the 
 waters of which spring up, John iv. 14. Is there 
 also a likeness in the manner of the communication of 
 the Spirit to water rising up out of the ground, as well 
 as to water poured out from above? The Holy Spirit 
 is also 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 represented in accommodation to 
 natural things, and natural things are not accommo- 
 dated to it. The effects of the one resembk the effects 
 of the other, but as to manner, there is no likeness. 
 A particular manner is given to the operations of the 
 Spirit, to suit the manner of the communication of the 
 natural object. Therefore it is that the Spirit has 
 ascribed to it all the various modes mentioned above. 
 The Spirit, in every figure, takes the manner of the 
 resembling object ; but the resembling object never 
 takes the manner of the Spirit, because nothing is 
 known of his manner. Of 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 man- 
 ner is pouring, it cannot be like deio, nor like rain, nor 
 like a river, nor like a spring-well. But if the like- 
 ness 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 wa- 
 ter 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 un- 
 der all these modes, each of them might claim an or- 
 dinance as well as pouring. Baptism might as well 
 represent water rising out of the earth, distilling in dew, 
 running in a stream, ox falling in rain, as pouring out of 
 a cup. Each of these represents the blessings of the 
 Spirit, by conforming the language about the opera- 
 
OP BAPTISM. 167 
 
 tions of the Spirit to a particular state of the water ; 
 none of them represents the mode of these operations. 
 The Holy Spirit is said to fall ; why then should not 
 baptism represent falling 1 The Holy Spirit is repre- 
 sented as wind ; why then is there no blowing in 
 baptism ? The Holy Spirit is represented by fire ; 
 why is there no fire used in this ordinance 1 The gift 
 of the Spirit was represented by the breathing of Jesus 
 on the Apostles ; why is there no breathing in baptism ] 
 The influences of the 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 1 
 
 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. Drinking is equally an emblem 
 of blessings and curses, because it is the one or the 
 other according to the qualities of the liquid. In the 
 judgments of God on the wicked, there is no likeness 
 to the manner of the divine operations. Why, then, 
 should such a likeness be supposed when pouring re- 
 spects blessings ? Baptism, then, cannot 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 re- 
 ference it has a real application, a true likeness, and 
 the most important use. Of the immersion of the Spi- 
 rit, I will say the same as of the pouring of the Spirit, 
 that it cannot represent the operations of the Spirit, or 
 the mode of his conveyance. 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 
 
168 THE MODE 
 
 soaked in a fluid, and the sanctification of all the 
 members of the body, and faculties of the soul. The 
 common way in which the pouring of the Spirit has 
 been explaitied, is inconsistent both with sound taste 
 a-nd 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 figura- 
 tive Baptism, to which there cannot be a likeness in 
 literal Baptism ; yet as respects the transactions on 
 the day of Pentecost, there was a real Baptism in the 
 emblems of the Spirit. The disciples were immersed 
 into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts ; and 
 they were literally covered with wind and fire. The 
 place where they met was filled with a rushing mighty 
 wind, 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 wind 
 and fire, by the catachrestic mode of speech which I 
 before explained, they are said to be immersed. This 
 is a process exemplified 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 inhabit- 
 ants, we say that they are buried in its ruins. A ge- 
 neral will threaten to bury the inhabitants in the ruins 
 of their city. The word bury with us strictly con- 
 veys 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. Bu- 
 rial usually is performed by both operations, but here 
 the thing is performed by one ; and therefore the word 
 that designates both is elegantly assigned to that 
 which serves the purpose of both. Just so with re- 
 spect to being covered with a fluid. Immersion de- 
 notes that the thing immersed is put into the immersing 
 substance; yet when the same effect is produced 
 
OP BAPTISM. 169 
 
 without the manner of the operation, the usual name 
 of the operation is catachrestically given to the result. 
 Virgil's expression, Pocula sunt fontes liquidi, Georg. 
 III. p. 529, is an exact parallel. " The liquid foun- 
 tains are their cups," &c. Now, fountains are not 
 cups, more than the thing referred to is immersion, yet 
 they are called cups, because in the instance referred 
 to they serve the purpose of cups. This poet supplies 
 innumerable examples of the operation of the princi- 
 ple here illustrated. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that the principle which I 
 have now illustrated is at all akin to that unfounded 
 fancy of Mr. Ewing, with respect to the supposed ex- 
 aggerated meaning of /3a*Ti^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 lite- 
 ral ; and agreeably to his doctrine it must, in the hy- 
 perbolical meaning, hold directly, and immediately, 
 and independently, of the primary meaning. The 
 principle which I have explained is not of this para- 
 doxical kind. I give but the one meaning to the 
 word, and even when there is no literal immersion, I 
 maintain that the word never drops its characteristic 
 meaning. Indeed, the beauty of the figure is that the 
 word suggests its own peculiar meaning, even when 
 it does not literally apply. It professedly calls a thing 
 by a name which literally does not in all respects be- 
 long to it, to gratify the imagination. Why does Vir- 
 gil call fountains by the name of cups ? Not because 
 they were really cups, nor because cup signifies fountain 
 literally, but because the human mind by its constitu- 
 tion is delighted in certain circumstances by viewing a 
 thing as being what it is not, but which in some respects 
 it resembles. The process for which I contend, I can 
 vindicate by the soundest philosophy, — I can trace to 
 its origin in the human mind, — I can illustrate by 
 parallels without number. Mr. Ewing has not at- 
 tempted to illustrate his figure, nor is it in his power 
 to show its foundation in the human mind, or to sanc- 
 tion it by corresponding examples. 
 
 15 
 
170 THE Mode 
 
 Mr. Booth, with a truly critical judgmeMt and cor- 
 rect taste, illustrates this mode of speech by alluding 
 to the electrical bath, " so called," says the writer 
 whom he quotes, " because it surrounds the patient 
 with an atmosphere of electrical fluid, in which he is 
 plunged." Here the writer to whom he refers, scru- 
 ples not to say that the patient is plunged into the fluid 
 which is brought around him. Indeed, the very term 
 electrical bath is an exemplification of the operation 
 of the same principle. Bath properly refers to a ves- 
 sel of water in which persons are bathed. But by a 
 catechresis 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 argu- 
 ment. It confounds things that are different. Water is 
 poured out into a vessel in order to have things put 
 into it. But the pouring out of the water, and the 
 application of the water so poured out, are different 
 things. Water is poured into a bath in order to im- 
 merse 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 ground- 
 lessly conclude, that the pouring is the Baptism. 
 A foreigner might as well contend that, when it 
 is said in the English language, " Water was j^owred 
 into a bath, and they immersed themselves," it is im- 
 plied thai.t pouring and immersing are the same thing, 
 
 ' Then taking the resplendent vase 
 
 Allotted always to that nse, 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 the baptism of the Spirit, as the infusion of the 
 water into the bath, is different from the application 
 of the water to the object in the bath. 
 
 Now, let us apply these observations to Mr. Ewing's 
 
OP BAPTISM. 171 
 
 reasoning. Dissection is not a pleasant work, either 
 to the operator or the spectators ; but it is impossible 
 to make an anatomist without it. General observa- 
 tions must be applied to the subject in detail, that all 
 may thoroughly understand their appUcation, and per- 
 ceive 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 ordi- 
 nance 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 elements are uniformly represented as poured^ 
 inspired, and made to fall from above." Very true, but 
 is this pouring, inspiring, falling from above, called Bap- 
 tism? 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 ?" But the fire 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 will al- 
 low himself to indulge so wild a fancy in deriving em- 
 blematical instruction from his own creations, and 
 that he so obstinately refuses to take that edification 
 from the import of Baptism, which is obviously con- 
 tained in the apostolical explanations of the ordinance? 
 
 He says that baptism " consists in a representation 
 
173 THE MODE 
 
 of all the elements employed in our first creation." 
 I have remarked that there was no fire employed in 
 our first creation ; and Christian baptism has no re- 
 presentation either of fire or air. Nor has the water 
 of baptism any allusion to the water that moistened 
 the clay in the creation of man. These mysteries are 
 akin to those that the Romish church so'piously finds 
 in the oil and spittle used in baptism. 
 
 He says that the promise of the baptism with the 
 Holy Spirit and with fire " was given to all the dis- 
 ciples." Then the promise has not been fulfilled. 
 Wind and fire are not used in the baptism of all disci- 
 ples. 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 gracious influence, a,nd as it 
 regards miraculous inspiration." 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, were previously baptized into water as be- 
 ing born again. It could not respect their progressive 
 sanctification, else it might be repeated as often as the 
 Lord's Supper, and every disciple would equally need 
 the wind and fire literally. Nor have all disciples the 
 promise of miraculous gifts. This interpretation might 
 suit Miss Mary Campbell : but I have not heard that 
 Mr. Ewing has adopted the Row heresy. Mr. Ew- 
 ing, however, is contented with a diminished sense of 
 the promise. JWiraculous inspiration he] understands 
 as applying to all believers only in the sense of their 
 being " built on the foundation of fthe apostles and 
 prophets, that is, their faith is founded on the autho- 
 rity 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 screen 
 
OP BAPTISM. 17S 
 
 him, if ever he comes to trial before the General As- 
 sembly. The Row heresy would turn out a very in- 
 nocent thing, if the claim of miraculous gifts imports 
 no more than faith in the doctrine of Christ. Now, 
 were I to propagate in Ireland that Mr. Ewing be- 
 lieves that every Christian has a promise of miracu- 
 lous 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 expression, " born from above," John iii. 
 But /rom above, merely designates that God is the au- 
 thor of this birth, without respect to any emblem ap- 
 pointed to represent it, though baptism is, in ver. 5, 
 referred to as its emblem. Born from above, is per- 
 fectly synonymous with born of God. 
 
 As little can be built on the emblem, John xx. 23, 
 The breathing on the disciples was not a baptism, nor 
 is it called a. baptism. 
 
 Mr. Ewing says, that "the mode of the baptism. 
 Acts i. 5, is explained, v. 8." But ver. 8. says no- 
 thing of the mode of that baptism : " But ye shall re- 
 ceive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon 
 you." The coming is not the baptism. The influence 
 of the Spirit when come, not the coming of the Spirit, 
 is the baptism. 
 
 The author observes, 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 
 15* 
 
174 THE MODE 
 
 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 justij&able. 
 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 lan- 
 guages. 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 the flame, 
 but in their being under it. They were surrounded 
 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 
 which the house is said to have been filled with the 
 wind on the day of Pentecost, is no more pouring 
 than it is dipping. The wind is not said to be poured 
 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 argu- 
 ment's sake, allowed to be pouring, this would not 
 relieve Mr. Ewing. The whole house was filled 
 with the sound of the wind — theemblem of 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 com- 
 pletely 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, j,this passage teaches us 
 that the baptized person must be totally covered. 
 
 Speaking of our Lord's baptism, Mr. Ewing asserts, 
 " the meaning of the ordinance, and the very mode of 
 its administration, confirmed the truth that the Holy 
 
OP BAPTISM. 175 
 
 Spirit was about to be given." But how did the 
 meaning and mode of Christ's baptism confirm this 
 truth 1 Does not this take for granted that Mr. Ew- 
 ing's meaning of the mode and import of this ordi- 
 nance is just 1 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 ew the influences of the Holy Spirit, "visibly 
 descending from on high, and abiding upon him." The 
 influence of the Holy Spirit did not visibly descend. 
 It was the emblem of the Spirit that descended visi- 
 bly. The appearance of a dove descended visibly, and 
 abode upon him. But was this Christ's baptism ? 
 The baptism was over before the emblem descend- 
 ed. Besides, the descending of the Spirit, could 
 not be the baptism of the Spirit. Jesus is not here 
 said to be baptized with the Spirit. This baptism 
 was Uteral baptism. This extraordinary communica- 
 tion might indeed have been called a baptism, just as 
 in the case of the disciples, but it is not so called here. 
 And if it were so called, it would not be the descent of 
 the Spirit that is the baptism, but the communication 
 of it after its descent. If the baptism consisted in the 
 descent, the baptism was over when the dove reached 
 Jesus. Is it possible that there is any one who has so 
 little of the powers of discrimination, as not to be able 
 to distinguish between bringing water from afountain, 
 and the use of that water when it is brought — be- 
 tween pouring water into a bath, and bathing in the 
 bath 1 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 is poured into thy lips," 
 &c. What has this to do with baptism 1 The Spirit, 
 indeed, is here said to be poured, but did any man ever 
 deny this 1 But let it never be forgotten, that such 
 language does not imply the strange notion, that 
 
176 THE MODE 
 
 there is any literal pouring in the ^ving of the Spi- 
 rit, or that an ordinance is appointed to represent this 
 pouring. It is quite useless, then, to refer to each of 
 the passages which Mr. Ewing alleges to prove a de- 
 scent. The descent is not the baptism, and cannot re- 
 present any real movement in the Spirit. The same 
 answrer will serve for all. But Mr. Ewing says, that 
 " John supposed Jesus to receive the symbol of the 
 Holy Spirit's descent, and presently he was seen, by 
 miracle, to receive the reality." And is it possible 
 that Mr. Ewing can say, that what was seen after the 
 baptism of Christ was the reality ! ! ! The appearance 
 of a dove seen to Ught on the head of Christ, the reality 
 of the communication of the Spirit! ! ! Surely, surely, 
 the dove itself was but the emblem, not the reality 
 represented by an emblem of baptism. 
 
 But was the dove poured out of heaven 1 Is not 
 the .Spirit said to descend from heaven, in conformity 
 to the dove, the emblem ? This shows that the de- 
 scent of the Spirit is spoken of in language always 
 suited to the emblem under which he is represented. 
 When water is the emblem, his descent is spoken of 
 as pouring, or as falling like dew, &c. When the 
 dove is the emblem, the descent is spoken of, not as 
 pouring, but as the descent of a bird. Such varied 
 language is suited to the various emblems, and not to 
 any reality in the manner of the communication of 
 the Spirit. Let any Christian attend to this observa- 
 tion, and he will be ashamed of the childish explana- 
 tion of this language, that implies that the Godhead is 
 matter. Pouring is most frequently used for the send- 
 ing of the gifts of the Spirit ; but I have shown that 
 the same thing is spoken of with reference to a foun- 
 tain springing up, — a running stream, — the rain that 
 is said to fall, — or the dew that distils. And here the 
 same thing is exhibited as the descent of a bird, in 
 conformity to the dove, which is the emblem employ- 
 ed. Let us hear no more then of baptism as pouring, 
 in order to represent the pouring of the Spirit. We 
 
OF BAPTISM. 177 
 
 may as well make baptism a flying, to represent the 
 descent of the dove ; or a blowing and a blazing, to re- 
 present the wind and fire on the day of Pentecost ; or 
 a stream, to represent the river that supplies the city 
 of God ; or a jet, to represent the springing of a foun- 
 tain ; or a distillation, to represent the gentle falling 
 of the dew ; or a shower-bath, to represent the falling 
 of the rain. 
 
 But if we are so obstinate as to resist the passages 
 which Mr. Ewing has alleged above, the most incre- 
 dulous will doubtless surrender to the " view expressly 
 given (Acts ii. 16-21, 33, 38, 39.) of baptism with 
 water, in consequence of the performance of the pro- 
 mise of baptism with the Spirit." " I will pour out of 
 my Spirit," &c. " He ha.thpoured out this, which ye 
 now see and hear." " For as yet he was fallen upon 
 none of them." " The Holy Ghost fell upon them 
 all." The reply I have given will equally apply to 
 this. The pouring is not the baptism, though the Spi- 
 rit was poured out, that they might be baptized in it. 
 The descent and the pouring are over, before the bap- 
 tism takes place. But it may be alleged. Is it not 
 said (Acts xi. 15, 16, 17.) that the Spirit's falling on 
 them brought to remembrance the promise of the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit 1 Does not this import that the bap-' 
 tism of the Spirit is the same thing with the falling of 
 the Spirit 1 — It implies, indeed, that the baptism of 
 the Spirit fulfilled the promise : but it does not imply 
 that the baptism was the falling. The falling pre- 
 ceded the baptism. Rain falls to moisten the earth. 
 The moistening of the earth is not the falling of the 
 rain, the falling is a previous process. Suppose that 
 in a drought, a man skilled in the signs of the wea- 
 ther should foretell that on to-morrow the earth will be 
 moistened with water, would we not consider the pro- 
 phecy fulfilled- when we saw rain falling? Yet fall- 
 ing is not expressed by the word moistening. Just so 
 with the pouring and the baptism of the Spirit. Let my 
 opponents bring to the subject a small portion of dis- 
 
178 THE MODE 
 
 crimination, and they will instantly discern that the 
 falling of the Spirit on the disciples fulfilled the pro- 
 mise of the baptism of the Spirit, though falling and 
 baptism are two very different things. Is not falling 
 itself different from pouring 1 They are modes as dif- 
 ferent as pouring and dipping. But every thing will 
 serve Mr. Ewing that pops down. Yet strange, though 
 he argues with equal confidence from every mode of 
 descent, he comes at last to the confident conclusion, 
 that no mode of descent will answer, but that of pour- 
 ing. Though falling and .flying will serve him in 
 opposing immersion, yet he unceremoniously dismisses 
 them all, when through their means he has gained 
 the victory. Even decent and innocent sprinkling, 
 that has held joint and unquestioned possession with 
 its sister pour for so long a period, he turns out of doors 
 with every mark of indignity. 
 
 But with respect to the falling of the Spirit on the 
 disciples in the house of Cornelius, how did Peter and 
 the rest perceive the descent ? Was there any, thing 
 visible 1 No ; they knew that the Holy Spirit fell on 
 them, because they saw the effect of his influences, 
 Acts X. 46. The influences, then, of the Spirit, and 
 not the falling, was the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 Mr. Ewing concludes with all the confidence of de- 
 monstration. " Is it credible," says he, " that a word 
 which signifies the motion of body upon body, in any 
 direction, should, when applied to represent both the 
 figure and the reality of a descent prom above, be 
 meant to be understood of motion in an opposite di- 
 rection," &c. Stop a little, Mr. Ewing. You have 
 said that the disputed word signifies the motion of 
 body upon body, but you have not proved this. Nor 
 is this word employed to represent the descent from 
 above in any instance which you have brought for- 
 ward. Why does Mr. Ewing substitute the word bap- 
 tize here for the word descend ? In his premises, the 
 words are pour, descend, fall, &c. ; in his conclusion, 
 they become baptized. This is a trick in slight of hand 
 
op EAtTISM. 179 
 
 which we will not admit. It is utterly unlawful to 
 reason from words that denote'descent, and then draw 
 the conclusion from /Sairnj'oj. So far from its being 
 fact that ^awTi^w, in the passages referred to, is ap- 
 phed to represent both the figure and the reahty of a 
 descent, the words that are applied for this purpose, 
 do not represent the baptism, but a process previous to 
 the baptism. Whether the water, or the wind, or the 
 fire, descends from above, or ascends from below, is 
 nothing to the baptism. The baptism is the same, in 
 whatever manner the baptizing substance is conveyed 
 to the place of baptizing." 
 
 The authority of Milton is utterly valueless on this 
 subject. I notice it merely to show the boldness and 
 the rashness of Mr. Ewing's criticism. " Because 
 Milton speaks of baptism as dispensed in a river," 
 says Mr. Ewing, " it has been supposed that he fa- 
 voured the mode of immersion ; but I am inclined to 
 think this is a mistake. He says, indeed, of our 
 Saviour's commission to his disciples, 
 
 -' To them shall leave in charge 
 
 To teach all nations what of him they learn'd 
 And his salvation ; them who shall believe 
 Baptizing in the profluent etream, the sign 
 Of washing them from guilt of sin to life 
 Pure ; and in mind prepar'd, if so befall, 
 For death, like that which the Redeemer died.' " 
 
 Well, reader, what do you think of this 1 What 
 was Milton's view of the mode of baptism 1 If our 
 Saviour commanded them to baptize disciples in the 
 profluent stream, must not baptism be immersion ? 
 What hardihood must that man possess, who will dare 
 to criticise in this manner! But, says Mr. Ewing, 
 " According to this account, baptism is the sign of, 
 not immersing, but washing in a river." What egre- 
 gious trifling! Baptism is iiot the sign of immersin ■ 
 That is, immersing is not the sign of immersing. V * 
 true ; for how could a thing be the sign of itself? T /**" 
 of what is baptism a sign, according to Milton ' '^ 
 
180 THE MODE 
 
 washing in a river! So then Milton makes baptism a 
 sigQ of washing in a river ! Then the sign and the 
 thing signified are the same. Washing in a river is 
 the sign of washing in a river ! Alas I poor Milton ; 
 here thou hast a fool's cap. Illustrious bard ! thou 
 wast a heretic, but thou wast not a fool. Immersion 
 in a river, thou hast said, is the sign of washing from 
 guilt. Oh, that thou hadst known the reality as well 
 as thou didst know the figure! Hadst thou known 
 the Saviour as well as thoir hast known the mode of 
 this his ordinance, thou wouldst have been great 
 indeed. 
 
 Speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, Milton indeed 
 uses the phrase " on all baptized." But this may be 
 accounted for by his using the word baptize as it is 
 generally used in English. Using the word in its 
 most common acceptation, I would not scruple to say, 
 baptized with the Spirit, when there was no need for 
 accuracy of distinction. Milton, also, from not closely 
 considering the phraseology, might fall into the vul- 
 gar error, that the baptism of the Spirit was pouring, 
 because the Spirit is said to be poured out, though 
 water baptism was by unmersion. This way of ex- 
 plaining the apparent inconsistency, I believe, is not 
 uncommon. I hope I have made it unnecessary to have 
 recourse to this resource. 
 
 Mr. Ewing quotes a passage from which it has been 
 
 concluded that Milton was opposed to infant baptism, 
 
 but from which Mr. Ewing himself concludes that the 
 
 poet was a friend both to pouring and the baptism of 
 
 infants. I need not quote the whole passage ; the 
 
 marrow of it is found in the expression, " When ye 
 
 had laid the purifying element upon his forehead." 
 
 Now, both this and the whole passage may agree with 
 
 either of the opinions, and consequently can neither 
 
 >;-<rove nor refute either. Mr. Ewing is well founded 
 
 '*^' supposing that the disparagement may not respect 
 
 ^% sprinkling ; but he has no atithority to conclude 
 
 *h^it Milton approved either of sprinkling as the mode, 
 
OP BAPTISM. 181 
 
 or of infants as the subjects of baptism, because he 
 calls the water Itrid on the foreheads of infants, 
 a purifying elemenU Water is a purifying element, 
 even when applied in the holy water of the Church 
 of Rome. The nature of the water is the same, 
 whether it is used superstitiously, or according to 
 the appointment of God. But Milton might have 
 gone much farther, without giving ground for Mr. Ew- 
 ing's inference. Many Protestants would speak of 
 the baptism of the Church of Rome, with all its trum- 
 pery, as true baptism. I am not sure that Mr. Ew- 
 ing himself would re-baptize a convert from Popery. 
 I refer to this note with respect to Milton, — not from 
 any desire to have him on my side, but to manifest 
 the utter unreasonableness of Mr. Ewing's criticism. 
 No evidence could withstand the torture of such an 
 inquisitor. I doubt not but Mr. Ewing could make 
 Milton as orthodox on the subject of the Trinity as on 
 baptism, if he would as zealously set about the work. 
 We have a delicious morsel of criticism in Mr. Ew- 
 ing's explanation of the figurative baptism that was 
 fulfilled in the suffering's of Christ. Mr. Ewing is at 
 no loss to find edification in his mode of this ordi- 
 nance. He does not need the apostles as commissa- 
 ries to find provision for the house of God. He gives 
 us much edification in his explanation of this ordi- 
 nance, not to be found in the Scriptures. "We are 
 led to conceive of baptism," says Mr. Ewing, "as the 
 pouring out of water from a cup on the turned up face 
 of the baptized ; and whether he be adult or in in- 
 fancy, it may thus not only wet the surface as a 
 figure of washing, but be drunk into the mouth, as 
 the emblem of a principle of new life, and of continual 
 support and refreshment, — of a source of spiritual and 
 heavenly consolation, and of a willingness given, or to 
 be given, to the baptized, to receive whatever may be 
 assigned them as their portion." Here surely is a 
 discovery. Here is edification unknown to all former 
 ages. Had the ancients perceived this in the import 
 
 1.6 
 
182 THE MODE 
 
 of sprinkling or pouring, there would have been no 
 need of the honey and milk at baptism. Mr. Ewing 
 can obtain the same thing from the manner of putting 
 the water on the face, Mr. Ewing considers the 
 drinking of part of the water poured on the turned up 
 face, as an emblem. If so, then this drinking is es- 
 sential to true baptism ; and if any baptized person 
 happen not to receive a part of the water into the 
 mouth, he is not properly baptized. He wants some- 
 thing that belongs to the ordinance. If this is the 
 case, a very great number are not truly baptized. Nay, 
 it is not only essential to receive some of the baptismal 
 water into the mouth, but it is necessary to drink it. If 
 the child by suffocation makes an involuntary effort to 
 throw out the water, it is unbaptized. I think the pro- 
 bability is, that not one of a thousand actually drink 
 any part of the water. I am convinced also, that very 
 many who baptize by pouring water on the face, so 
 far from being aware of the virtue of drinking a part 
 of the element, endeavour to avoid giving pain to the 
 child by pouring the water into the mouth. If this is 
 a part of the emblem of baptism, the nature of the oi- 
 dinance is yet unknown to the great body of those 
 who practise infant baptism, and the bulk of those 
 called Christians are unbaptized. 
 
 But this drinking is not only an emblem, it is an 
 emblem pregnant with mysteries. An emblem of a 
 principle of new life — of continual support and re- 
 freshment — of a source of spiritual and heavenly 
 consolation — of a willingness given — aye, and of a 
 willingness to be given, &c. What a striking em- 
 blem of this willingness, is a child screaming and 
 coughing to eject the water that falls into its mouth 1 
 With what a keen appetite does its thirsty soul drink 
 down this agreeable beverage ! What pity that the 
 apostles were ignorant of all these mysteries in bap- 
 tism ! What pity that Mr. Ewing's book was not writ- 
 ten till the nineteenth century ! — Ah, shame ! Can 
 it be possible that the minister of an independent 
 Church, should indulge his fancy in finding myste- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 183 
 
 ries in an ordinance of Christ, which are no where 
 explained by the^^apostles as included in it ! Where is 
 the passage of Scripture that explains baptism as con- 
 taining these mysteries 1 Where is this drinking found? 
 The very foundation of these mysteries is not once 
 mentioned in the word of God. Where is the turned 
 up face 1 For any thing that the Scriptures contain 
 on the subject, it might as well be the turned up foot 
 Another might find mysteries in the foot, as well as 
 Mr. Ewing has found them in the face. 
 
 Mr. Ewing, however, says, "We are led to this 
 conception of baptism, by various passages of Scrip- 
 ture which it will be found to explain." But to justify 
 such an explanation, it is not enough that it will illus- 
 trate various passages of Scripture. Some passage 
 of Scripture must explain the ordinance in this sense. 
 There is no rite of superstition that might not, by a 
 wild imagination, be alleged to illustrate some passage 
 of Scripture. 
 
 We are not yet at the end of the mysteries in the 
 mode of baptism. "Thecup,"says Mr. Ewing,"which 
 I refer to, is the '\3, the cup of nature, that is, the hol- 
 low of the human hand." Though the word of God says 
 nothing at all about the hand in the administration of 
 this ordinance, Mr. Ewing finds it under the desig- 
 nation of a cup. He gives us the full process in the 
 following words : " From this cup, the baptizer so 
 pours it out on the baptized, that it shall run down 
 his face, as the ointment did from the head of Aaron, 
 and even to the skirts, rather to the upper border or 
 collar, of his garment, Ps. cxxxiii. 2." Not only, 
 then, must some of the water be received into the 
 mouth, some of it must also run down- on the gar- 
 ments. What nice adjustment is necessary, in the 
 position of the person to be baptized, that all these 
 mysteries may be accomplished 1 Would it not be an 
 improvement if a little oil was added to the ceremony'? 
 
 Mr. Ewing next proceeds to caution "against taking 
 offence at the simplieity of oriental manners, and to just- 
 
184 THE MODE 
 
 ify, by examples, this drinking out of the cup of nature. 
 But all this is unnecessary. Could Mr. Ewing show 
 from Scripture that we are to drink water out of the 
 hollow of the baptizer's hand, we would submit with- 
 out a murmur. He himself might have a lesson from 
 his own admonition. It is very applicable to his ob- 
 jections to immersion. But because it was customary 
 to drink out of the hollow of the hand, does it follow 
 that baptism must be such a drinking? There is no 
 connexion between the premises and the conclusion. 
 
 Let us not, however, be too rash in asserting that 
 Mr. Ewing has no Scripture for his mysteries. He 
 alleges several passages. Was ever the Church of 
 Rome at a loss for Scripture allusions to countenance 
 its rites and mysteries 1 In no instance is it less suc- 
 cessful than Mr. Ewing. He alleges 1 Cor. xii. 13, 
 "baptized into one body ;" and " made to drink into 
 one Spirit." But does this imply that baptizing and 
 drinking are the same emblem 1 Does it imply that 
 these two figures are taken from a process in baptism 1 
 What reason is there to suppose that the last respects 
 that ordinance 1 The two figures are totally uncon- 
 nected, — as unconnected as any two figures that in 
 conjunction are applied to the same object. That the 
 last has a reference to drinking in baptism, is as arbi- 
 trary a conceit as any thing in the mysteries of 
 popery. 
 
 Mr. Ewing adds, "There is perhaps a more intimate 
 connexion between a ' cup' and a ' baptism,' as belong- 
 ing to one allusion, than some readers of Scripture have 
 as yet remarked. Mat. xx. 22," &c. These figm-es 
 both respect one object, but they have not, as Mr. 
 Ewing asserts, one allusion. They are figures as in- 
 dependent and as distinct, as if one of them was found 
 in Genesis, and the other in Revelations. One of 
 them represents the sufferings of Christ as a cup of 
 bitterness or poison, which he must drink ; the other 
 represents the same sufferings as an immersion in wa- 
 ter. When the Psalmist says, " the Lord God is * 
 
OP BAPTISM. 185 
 
 sun and shield," is there one allusion in the two 
 figures 1 Both the figures represent the same object, 
 but they have a separate and altogether independent 
 allusion. The sun is one emblem, a shield is another. 
 In like manner, when the Psalmist says, " we went 
 through _^re and through water," have the_^re and the 
 water one allusion ] This criticism is founded on a 
 total misconception of the nature of figurative lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Again, if the drinking of the cup and the baptism 
 have one allusion, that is, if they both allude to the 
 ordinance of baptism, why are both expressions used ? 
 Is not this the same as to say, are you able to sioffer as 
 I suffer, and to be baptized with my baptism ? It gives not 
 two illustrations of the same thing, but merely two 
 names. If drinking the cup is baptism, then there 
 are not two figures. We might as well say, the son 
 of Philip king of Macedon, and Alexander the Cheat. 
 But if the drinking of the cup and^ the baptism, con- 
 jointly, represent the same object, each exhibiting a 
 part, then it follows that the baptism is not baptism, but 
 is part of baptism, which is completed by the drink- 
 ing. Besides, this view places the last part of the 
 figure first ; the drinking is before the pouring ovi of 
 the cup. 
 
 It may be remarked, also, that if sufferings are re- 
 presented as the drinking of a cup, in allusion to the 
 cup of nature in baptism, then the ordinance of bap- 
 tism represents sufferings as well as blessings. The 
 drinking in baptism represents not only the reception 
 of the Spirit, but the sufleriflg of afllictions. The 
 figure of drinking a cup, is eijually calculated to re- 
 present either. But both cannot be contained in the 
 same cup. Afflictions might be represented by the 
 drinking of a cup, but not by the cup of Christian 
 baptism, which represents the blessings of the gospel. 
 
 The expression, " I have a baptism to be baptized 
 with ; and how am I straitened till it be finished," 
 Luke xii. 50, Mr, Ewing explams thus : " I have a 
 16* 
 
186 THE MODE 
 
 Clip to drink of, and how am I straitened until it be 
 finislied." But it is utterly without authority to say, 
 that baptism is a cup. This is a new meaning given to 
 the word, with as little foundation as to say that bap- 
 tism is a sword. Mr- Ewing refers to Matth. xxvi." 39, 
 for support to this explanation. But this gives him not 
 a shadow of countenance. The cup there spoken of, 
 refers indeed to the sufferings of Christ, but the cup is 
 not called a baptism. These figures respect the same 
 thing, but they do not respect the same likeness. 
 What a wild idea, to suppose that two independent 
 metaphors cannot in conjunction illustrate the same 
 object ! A hero is a lion, is a tower, is a rock, is a 
 thousand things ; without sxipposing any identity or 
 relation between the lion, and the tower, and the rock, 
 and the thousand things that represent him. It is re- 
 ally sickening to dissect such criticism. Proofs and 
 illustrations are brought forward and exhibited with 
 an importance that intimates them quite decisive, 
 which have not the most distant bearing on the point 
 in hand. The passages in which the sufferings of 
 Christ are spoken of, under the figure of drinking a 
 cup, are all mustered and paraded, as if the fact that 
 this phrase refers to the same thing with the figurative 
 baptism of Christ, is proof that they are the same 
 figure, or must both refer to baptism. What would 
 we think of the critic who should argue that the phrase 
 sun and shield, in the eighty-fourth Psalm, is one allu- 
 sion, because they both refer to God 1 This is the very 
 criticism of Mr. Ewing. 
 
 Mr. Ewing very justly observes, that in the Old 
 Testament, the punishment of the wicked by God is 
 represented by their being cotnpelled to drink a cup. 
 But, surely, there can be nothing corresponding to 
 this in baptism. We are not compelled to drink a 
 cup of poison, when we drink of the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 " This simplicity, and this littleness of the sign," 
 says Mr. Ewing, "mark its resemblance to all the 
 
OP BAPTISM. 187 
 
 Other symbolical ordinances of God, and distinguish 
 it from those clumsy and unseemly additions, which 
 a superstitious dependence on means, or rather on 
 the show of wisdom in will-worship, has ren- 
 dered men so prone to adopt." If any man adopts 
 immersion from a dependence on means, or as an 
 invention of will-worship, I will give him up to 
 Mr. Ewing's most indignant reprobation. It is the 
 commandment of God I am searching after ; and 
 if I find this, I will never use any reasoning to 
 make the sign either less or greater than it is. " I 
 have as little faith," continues Mr. Ewing, " in the 
 compromise of copious pouring, as in the enormity of 
 immersion baptism." But according to some of the 
 precedents alleged by the author himself, he is not at 
 liberty to have little faith in copious pouring. Even 
 granting that the Pentecost baptism was pouring, it 
 was an immensely, it was an enormously copious pour- 
 ing. It was a pouring that filled the whole house. 
 It is Mr. Ewing's business to reconcile this precedent 
 with his popping. But Mr. Ewing gives us reasons — 
 Scripture reasons, for his having little faith in copious 
 pouring. "A small quantity of blood sprinkled once 
 a year," says he, "by the high priest, with one of his 
 fingers, on a little gold plated seat, was, for ages, the 
 sign to Isiael, of the acceptance in heaven of the sa- 
 crifice of Christ for the whole church." Very true, 
 because a small quantity was sufficient to perfect the 
 figure. A small quantity of water cannot suffifce for 
 the exhibition of the likeness of a burial and resurrec- 
 tion, which are declared by God to be the import of 
 baptism. Had God commanded to sprinkle with a 
 few drops of water, or to pour a little water on the 
 turned up face, for a purpose that such an emblem is 
 calculated to serve, it would have been impious to 
 change this into another ordinance to represent a bu- 
 rial and resurrection. A little blood served the priest 
 for sprinkling ; but a little water did not serve 
 him for his bathing. A "little gold plated seat" served 
 
188 THE MODE 
 
 to receive the sprnikling of the blood ; but a little wa- 
 ter did not serve to fill the brazen sea. " A small 
 morsel of bread, and a sip of wine," &c. No doubt 
 of it ; but this small quantity is as fit to represent the 
 thing figured, as a baker's shop and a wine cellar 
 would be. " The handful of water," says Mr. Ewing, 
 " on the face of the polluted sinner, confirms the good 
 news of the washing of regeneration," &c. If washing 
 only were intended to be represented, this would be 
 true ; but the Spirit of Inspiration has declared, that 
 this ordinance represents the burial and resurrection 
 of Christ, and our fellowship with him in these, by 
 faith in which we are washed. Had not God insti- 
 tuted immersion, and explained its meaning, man 
 could not do either. I disclaim all ordinances of will- 
 worship, and all human explanations of Scripture or- 
 dinances. God only can institute. God only can in- 
 terpret. If Mr. Ewing claims the right of inventing 
 mysteries in the signification of baptism, I believe he 
 will not find a fellow among those on the other side of 
 the question. 
 
 The passageofthechildrenof Israel through the Red 
 Sea is figuratively called a baptism, from its external 
 resemblance to that ordinance, and from being ap- 
 pointed to serve a like purpose, as well as to figure 
 the same thing. " Moreover, brethren, I would not 
 that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were 
 under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and 
 were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea," 1 Cor. x. 1. Here they are said to have been 
 baptized. There can be no doubt, therefore, that 
 there is in their passage through the sea, something 
 that resembles both the external form, and the pur- 
 pose of Christian Baptism. It was a real immersion — 
 the sea stood on each side, and the cloud covered 
 them. But it was not a literal immersion in water, in 
 the same way as Christian baptism. It is, therefore, 
 figuratively called by the name of the Christian ordi- 
 nance, because of external similarity, and because of 
 
OP BAPTISM. 189 
 
 serving the like purpose, as well as figuring the same 
 event. The going down of the Israelites into the sea, 
 their being covered by the cloud, and their issuing out 
 on the other side, resembles the baptism of believers, 
 served a like purpose as attesting their faith in Mo- 
 ses as a temporal saviour, and figured the burial and 
 resurrection of Christ and Christians, as well as Chris- 
 tian baptism. If Christian baptism is a representa- 
 tion of burial and resurrection, — and if the passage of 
 the Israelites is called a baptism, we are warranted in 
 supposing that both have the same figurative mean- 
 ing. It has been argued by some, that the Israelites 
 were baptized by the rain from the cloud, and the 
 spray from the sea. But this is quite arbitrary : for 
 there is nothing said about rain from the cloud, or 
 spray from the sea. It is not in evidence that any 
 such things existed. On the contrary, as they would 
 have been an annoyance, there is reason to believe 
 that they did not exist. The baptism of the Israelites 
 in ver. 2, is evidently referred to their having been 
 under the cloud, and having passed through the sea, 
 as stated in the first verse. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw asks in astonishment, " Are our bre- 
 thren not sensible of the straining that is necessary to 
 make out immersion baptism here 1" Not in the least 
 sensible of any straining, I can assure Dr. Wardlaw. 
 But we do not strain to make out a literal baptism, as 
 respects an ordinance to be performed as an appoint- 
 ment of God. Surely there is no straining, to see in 
 this fact something that may darkly shadow a burial. 
 There is no straining to find in it something corres- 
 ponding to Christian baptism, though in all things it 
 does not identify with it. However ridiculous^ this 
 conceit may appear to Dr. Wardlaw, it is the very thing 
 asserted by the Holy Ghost. The Israelites by being 
 imder the cloud, and passing through the sea, were 
 baptized into Moses. By venturing to enter into the 
 sea, they professed and exhibited full confidence in 
 
190 THE MODE 
 
 Moses as sent of God to lead them out of Egypt to 
 Canaan. 
 
 " A dry baptism !" exclaims Dr. Wardlaw. Be 
 patient, Dr. Wardlaw, was not the Pentecost baptism a 
 dry baptism 1 Christian baptism is not a dry baptism, 
 but the baptism of Pentecost, and of the Israelites in 
 the Red Sea, were dry baptisms. Immersion does not 
 necessarily imply wetting : immersion in water im- 
 plies this. " Would our brethren," says Dr. Ward- 
 law, " consider a man duly baptized by his being 
 placed between two cisterns of water, with a third 
 over his head ]" Certainly not. Nothing is Chris- 
 tian baptism — but the immersion of a believer in wa- 
 ter, in obedience to the command of Jesus. Every 
 thing thrat can be called immersion is not baptism as an 
 ordinance of Christ. Strange, indeed, that Dr. Ward- 
 law should suppose that every thing is Christian bap- 
 tism, which can be denominated an immersion. To 
 be spotted with blood is a sprinkling; would Dr. Ward- 
 law consider this true Christian baptism? In an 
 ordinance of Christ there is something more than 
 mode. Would Dr. Wardlaw consider a man duly 
 baptized, when he is sprinkled with rain, or wet with 
 dew ? The Spirit of God calls the passage through 
 the Red Sea a baptism ; a likeness then it must have 
 to the Christian ordinance of baptism, to which there 
 is an undoubted reference. Surfely it requires less 
 straining to find this likeness from the facts stated, 
 than from fancies supposed. The passage through 
 the sea as much resembles baptism, as the manna 
 does the bread in the Lord's supper. They are figures 
 of the same thing, and therefore, though different, are 
 similar. 
 
 Having examined the testimony of the figurative 
 applications of the word Ba*ri^u, I shall now try what 
 light can be obtained from its syntax, and the circum- 
 stances in which it is found. Matt. iii. 11. Barn^u 
 v|*aj 5v u5«Tj. , "I baptize you in water." It may be 
 
OF BAPTISM. 191 
 
 surprising that, after all that has been said on the 
 subject, I should still lay any stress on the preposition 
 £v, in. I may be asked, Do you deny that it may be 
 translated with ? I do not deny this, yet I am still 
 disposed to lay stress on it. A word may be used va- 
 riously, yet be in each of its applications capable of 
 being definitely ascertained. Were not this the case, 
 language would be incapable of conveying definite 
 meaning. To ascertain its meaning here, I shall sub- 
 mit the following observations : 
 
 1. In is its primary and most usual signification. 
 Even in the instances in which it is translated other- 
 wise, it may generally be reduced to its primary mean- 
 ing, although it is more usual with our idiom to em- 
 ploy other prepositions. There are instances, indeed, 
 in which we cannot trace the primary idea. This, 
 however, is nothing but what happens with our own 
 preposition in, and with all prepositions. If the Greeks 
 say, sv -xsi^i i(fy(}i^oL, we say, they went out in arms. Ev is 
 so obviously the parent of in, that Mr. Ewing says, 
 that " it can hardly be called a translation." He con- 
 siders it merely a change of alphabet. It may be true, 
 that this was the case in the formation of the derived 
 word, but it certainly is a translation in as full a sense 
 as any one word is a translation of another. It is not 
 like baptize, which was not a word of our language. 
 In is an English word, as truly as ev is a Greek one. 
 It is given as an equivalent to sv, not because it was 
 fonned from it, but because in meaning it coincides 
 with it. We adopted the word and its meaning also. 
 
 2. As the instances in the acceptation of this pre- 
 position in which the primary idea cannot be traced 
 are extremely few, so it cannot be admitted in a signi- 
 fication inconsistent with this idea, except when ne- 
 cessity demands it. If the words in connexion admit 
 the primary and usual meaning, it is unwarrantable to 
 look for another. Such a use would render the pas- 
 sage inextricably equivocal. The passages in which 
 it is translated with, are without exception of this cast. 
 
192 THE MODE 
 
 They would not make sense in our idiom, if sv were 
 translated in. Without svich a necessity, no transla- 
 tor would ever think of rendering sv by with. What is 
 more usual than to find, when sv is translated among, 
 &c. critics explaining it as being " literally in." Now, 
 in the instance alluded to, all the words in connexion 
 admit the primary and usual meaning of sv. Even the 
 most extravagant of our opponents admit that Ba^n^u 
 signifies to dip. If then the word also signifies to 
 pour, to use sv in connexion with it, would render it 
 altogether equivocal. We could not from the passage 
 determine its meaning. I contend, then, that though 
 £v may sometimes be translated with, yet it cannot be 
 so used here. For if Baitni^u is allowed to denote dip, 
 and not pour, with is rejected as incongruous : if Bare, 
 ri^oi is supposed to signify either dip or pour, then to 
 use a preposition after it, which usually signifies in, 
 but here in the sense of with, which is rare, would in- 
 evitably be equivocal, or would rather lead to a false 
 meaning. It is absurd to suppose, that such an equi- 
 vocal expression could be used with respect to the per- 
 formance of a divine ordinance, which is to be a pre- 
 cedent for all ages. 
 
 3. I have produced innumerable examples in which 
 svis construed with this'verb incontestably in the sense 
 of dipping. If then we have found the disputed phrase 
 in a situation in which our opponents must admit our 
 meaning of it ; if the examples of this meaning of 
 the phrase are numerous ; and if no example can 
 be produced in which the phrase is used in a 
 situation in which we must confess that it refers 
 to pouring, or any other thing but dipping, — all the 
 laws of language forbid the supposition of pouring. 
 What can forbid the phrase to have its usual meaning] 
 What can authorise a meaning which the phrase has 
 not necessarily in any other passage ? 
 
 4. Even Mr. Ewing's translation of ^aifn^u will 
 not construe with sv in the sense of with. He 
 would not say, I pop you with water, but / pop upon 
 
OF BAPTISM. 193 
 
 you mth water. Now, there is no upon in the verb. 
 Mr. Ewing, indeed, supposeshimselfatliberty to vary 
 his word pop by any preposition he chooses to subjoin 
 to it. But he cannot do so without something in the 
 original to justify the variation. I have shown that 
 to pop, to pop upon, to pop into, &c. are all different 
 words. To consider them all as contained in /Sa^Ti^u 
 and in pop, is to say that a hay-penny is a guinea, be- 
 cause in a guinea there is a portion of copper — or that 
 copper is brass, because brass contains copper as a. part 
 of its composition. 
 
 6. Any translation that can be given of sv is incon- 
 sistent with the supposition that [Sa^Ti^u signifies 
 to pour. We could not say, " I pour you with wa- 
 ter." Pour must be immediately followed by the 
 thing poured, and not with the person on whom any 
 thing is poured. It is not I pour you with water, but / 
 pour water upon you. The syntax then of the word, 
 as well as its acceptation, forbids pouring as the mode 
 of baptism. 
 
 What I have further to observe on this passage,"wiil 
 occur in my remarks on Mr. Ewing's attack on Dr. 
 Campbell's note. 
 
 In admitting ihat sv may sometimes signify with, 
 Dr. Campbell appears to ground the fact on a Hebra- 
 ism. In this sense Mr. Ewing understands him ; in 
 which he coincides. " That the phraseology to which 
 the Doctor refers," says Mr. Ewing, "does not restrict 
 the sense to in, but absolutely recommends the sense 
 of with, appears from the occasional omission of the 
 preposition, (the use of it in such phrases being en- 
 tirely a Hebraism, corresponding with the Hebrew 3, 
 which, as the Doctor owns, signified with as well as 
 in." Now, in opposition both to Dr. Campbell and 
 Mr. Ewing, I maintain that sv in this use is not a 
 Hebraism, either in its meaning, or use. It signifies 
 with in classical Greek, as well as in the Septuagint or 
 New Testament ; and just in the same circumstances. 
 It is also as frequently used with this verb in the hea- 
 
 17 
 
194 THE Mode 
 
 then authors, ag in the Scriptures. To convince any 
 one of this, it is necessary only to look over the exam- 
 ples which I have produced, both with respect to 
 /3a*Tw and /3a*T(^u, which perfectly coincide in their 
 syntax. Was Hippocrates a Hellenistic Jew 1 
 
 Indeed, to enlarge the meaning of a Greek preposi- 
 tion, that it may correspond with a Hebrew preposi- 
 tion, is a thing, which, though the conceit has been 
 sanctioned by Dr. Campbell, and many great names, 
 is a pure absurdity. To do so, would not be to speak 
 the Greek language. To do so, would be to mislead 
 all the Greek nations. There is not one instance in 
 which such a thing is done in the word of God. If 
 the apostles used the Greek prepositions, not as the 
 Greeks themselves used them, but as the Hebrews 
 used theirs, they have not given a revelation of the 
 will of God. This view of the Hebraism of the New 
 Testament is one of the worst things in Dr. Camp- 
 bell's translation; and it is evidently employed to hide 
 or destroy the Sovereignty of God. Whatever may 
 be the extent of the Hebraisms of the New Testament, 
 they cannot, consistently with the honour of revelation, 
 be supposed to affect the sense. This supposition is 
 the resource of those who wish to corrupt the gospel 
 of Christ, or, in some way, to modify a disagreeable 
 doctrine. 
 
 Equally groundless, and even equally absurd, is 
 Mr. Ewing's assertion, that the fact that the preposi- 
 tion is sometimes omitted, recommends the sense of 
 with. If that preposition is sometimes written, and 
 sometimes left out, it is as clear as an axiom, that the 
 passages in which it is admitted, must agree with the 
 passages in which it is written, and must be translated 
 just as if it were present. The meaning of the pas- 
 sages, then, in which it is omitted, must be determined 
 by those in which it is written. When it is not ex- 
 pressed it must be understood. Such an omission, 
 then, can cast no light on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Ewing alleges, that " our English translators. 
 
OP BAPTISM. 195 
 
 at least, being friends of immersion, would have been 
 led by their system, to have patronized the Doctor's 
 translation." But this is a fallacious argument. It is 
 true, as Mr. Ewing says, that on this question our 
 translators were " directly opposed" to him. But 
 what sort of friends were they to immersion ? Just such 
 as Professor Person, and the thousands of learned men 
 who have the candour to confess the truth, though, as 
 they think the matter of little importance, they practise 
 the contrary. There was then no temptation to induce 
 them to testify for immersion. There was the strong- 
 est temptation to induce them to accommodate their 
 translation to the practice of their church, not to their 
 views of the original mode of baptism. Dr. Wall was 
 so far a friend of immersion, that he would have pre- 
 ferred it ; yet how has he laboured to prove that it is 
 not necessary ! Mr. Ewing's strictures, then, on Dr. 
 R's friend, have no weight, for they view the subject 
 in a false light. The authority of our translators in 
 our favour, is the authority not of friends, but of prac- 
 tical opposers ; and, as Dr. Campbell has shown, 
 real opposers, in every case that could, in their judg- 
 ment, admit pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 Dr. Campbell had censured our translators as in- 
 consistent in rendering sv u5ari " with water," while 
 they rendered sv toj lo^Savi\ " in Jordan." How does 
 Mr. Ewing vindicate them from inconsistency 1 Why ! 
 by alleging that the former refers to the act and ele- 
 ments of Baptism, and the latter to the place. Nowj 
 this might vindicate Mr. Ewing, but it does not vin- 
 dicate our translators. Mr. Ewing forgets that the 
 conceit that logSoMri is not the river, but the district in 
 the neighbourhood of the river, is of his own inven- 
 tion. Our translators evidently understood it of the 
 river itself, as every sober reader must do. Our trans- 
 lators, then, remain under Dr. Campbell's censure, for 
 any thing that Mr. Ewing has done to relieve them. 
 
 But let us see if he can justiiy himself in thie busi- 
 ness, I admit that " a difference of connexion" will 
 
196 THE MODE 
 
 justify us in " understanding the same word in a dif- 
 ferent sense." But I see no difference of connexion 
 here. On the contrary the word Jordan, in the sixth 
 verse, as evidently means the river Jordan, as water 
 in the eleventh verse means water. The Jordan ne- 
 ver signifies, as Mr. Ewing supposes, the plain of Jor- 
 dan, 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 correspond- 
 ing example, in which a similar phrase must be so 
 understood 1 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. 
 Ifc requires a hardihood that every man does not pos- 
 sess. An Arian or a Socinian does not require more. 
 No Neological gloss is more extravagant. The Spirit 
 of God tells us that our Lord did many miracles ; the 
 Neologist forces him to say that there was nothing 
 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 Jordan-dale. What a sys- 
 tem is it that compels its abettors to take such liberties 
 with the word of God ! I view such conduct, not only 
 with disapprobation, but with horror. 
 
 But Mr. Ewing says that an Evangelist explains 
 the thing in his sense. This is high authority indeed. 
 I will ask no better. If this is made good, I will bow 
 with submission. " That it was not the water of the 
 river, but the country on its banks, is evident from the 
 fuller and more particular account of the apostle John. 
 What Matthew calls ev lo^SaMi\, in Jorda/n, John calls 
 sv Bs^agafa, and expressly says, it was *5|av roujlo^fovw, 
 beyond Jordan." 
 
 I admit the premises ; I deny the conclusion. Let 
 the two Evangehsts refer to the same thing, yet what 
 the one calls Jordan, the other does not call Betha-. 
 
OP BAPTISM. 197 
 
 bara. 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 particu- 
 lar with respect to the water in which he was baptiz- 
 ing ; it was the Jordan. Corresponding to this, with 
 respect to the same person, one writer might say, 
 " He was baptizing 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 Bethabara ; for if one account may be 
 more particular than another, Bethabara may express 
 the place or part of the river, while Jordan expresses 
 the waterjin which John baptized. 
 
 Let it, however, be supposed that the expression of 
 the one Evangelist exactly corresponds to that of the 
 other — what follows 1 As Jordan signifies Jordan- 
 dale, so Bethabara must not denote the town, but the 
 whole district supposed to be called Jordan-dale. Ac- 
 cording to Mr. Ewing himself, these two words do 
 not correspond. He makes the one to denote the 
 whole country, the other, one town situated in the 
 country. 
 
 Still it may be said, if the two accounts refer to the 
 same thing, as John is said to be baptizing in Betha- 
 bara, 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 ground occupied by the houses. Suppose, for 
 instance, that a man is charged with having commit- 
 17* 
 
198 THE MODE 
 
 ted a breach of the peace, on a certain day of the 
 month in Glasgow. In proving an alibi, he alleges that 
 he was on that day in the town of Belfast. Opposite 
 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? 
 Surely he was in Belfast when he was in the port of 
 Belfast. And is it not the same thing with the town 
 and port of Bethabara 1 When Mr. Ewing changes 
 his views on this subject, and comes over to Belfast to 
 baptize his brethren in that town, it will he asked by 
 some of the people of Glasgow, Where is Mr. Ewing 1 
 The reply will be, " He is in Belfast, baptizing the 
 Independent Church of that town." This reply will 
 be made without any reference to the situation of the 
 water. Might it not also be said, that the people of 
 Glasgow go down to Gourock or Helensburgh to 
 bathe 1 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 1 
 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 httle distance from the margin into the river 1 
 Have I not demolished this stronghold 1 
 
 But I have many other resources, had it been ne- 
 cessary to employ 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 possibihty is all that is ne- 
 cessary to obviate a difficulty. But sober criticism 
 eould never dwell on such things. The common 
 forms of speech utterly condemn such a mode of op- 
 position. Indeed, the houses do not generally extend 
 to the margin of the sea or river- If a town was Ii» 
 
OP BAPTISM. 199 
 
 mited by the houses, the quay itself would often be no 
 part of it. The harbour has as good a title to be in- 
 cluded 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 Betha- 
 bara, 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 Baptist in the water during this discourse. I will 
 endeavour, then, to put him on dry ground. The ar- 
 gument is, that in John i. 23, all the things previously 
 mentioned, are said to have been done in Bethabara, 
 when John was baptizing. Therefore, if he was stand- 
 ing 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 imply 
 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 Newspapers will say, 
 " these things happened in Belfast, when Mr. Ewing 
 was baptizing." Will the people of Glasgow under- 
 stand that the engagement with the Arians was when 
 Mr. Ewing was actually baptizing? Ahl Mr. Ew- 
 ing, what shall I call such a mode of opposing immer- 
 sion ] Shall I call it childish 1 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 impossi- 
 ble. There is not, however, the smallest appearance 
 of such an assertion. 
 
 That Jordan denotes the river, and not the country 
 in the neighbourhood 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, " Aud there went out unto him all the land of 
 
200 THE MODE 
 
 Judea, and they 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, w 
 Tu lo^doMri *oTa(;ttj, 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 *oT-afx,£j is added to it by 
 Mark. Mr. Ewing, indeed, says, that if John i. 38. 
 Matth. iii. 6 — 13. John x. 40, are considered, they 
 will explain Mark i. 5, in his sense. But I hope I 
 have shown that these passages have no bearing on 
 the point. It would be a strange explanation that 
 would explain the river Jordan not to be the river Jor- 
 dan, but something else. This would be a Neological 
 explanation. There is in the passage under consider- 
 ation, other evidence that baptism was performed by 
 immersion. It is said that Jesus, when he was bap- 
 tized, went up straightway /rom the water. I admit 
 the proper translation of a*o is from and not out of; 
 and that the argument from the former is not of the 
 same nature with that which is founded on sx out of. 
 I perfectly agree with Mr. Ewing, that a«o would 
 have its meaning fully verified, if they had only gone 
 down to the edge of the water. I shall not take a jot 
 more from a passage than it contains. The Bible is 
 orthodox enough for me as it is. How then can I 
 deduce dipping from the phrases going down, and com- 
 ing up from ? My argument is this. If baptism had 
 not been by immersion, there can be no adequate cause 
 alleged for going to the river. Can sober judgment, 
 can candour suppose, that if a handful of water would 
 have sufficed for baptism, they would have gone to 
 the river 1 Many evasions have been alleged to get 
 rid of this argument, but it never will be fairly ans- 
 wered. 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 pre- 
 dilection for the neighbourhood of Jordan, and other 
 
OF BAPTISM. 201 
 
 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 1 
 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 1 Mr. Ewing himself says, " I believe, in- 
 deed, 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 great- 
 est 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 1 
 
 But our argument from this passage is not only that 
 they frequented the banks of Jordan ; but that, being 
 there, for the performance of baptism, they went down 
 to the water. Now, if an army encamped on Glas- 
 gow Green in a time of war, were all to be baptized 
 hy popping, would they bring the water from the river, 
 or would they all go to the very edge of the water ? 
 Why did Jesus go down to the water, when the water 
 
202 THE MODE 
 
 might as well have been brought up to him 1 Does 
 Mr. Ewing taCke the infants to the edge of the Clyde 
 when he is popping them "? This answer, then, is but 
 ah evasion. No reason has ever been given, or ever 
 will be given, to account for this fact, on the hypothe- 
 sis of baptizing with a handful of water. 
 
 Mr. Ewing observes that this phraseology is con- 
 fined to baptisms out of doors. Very true, but in Mr. 
 Ewing's baptism, why were there any baptisms out of 
 doors 1 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 conveniency for baptism was found within 
 doors, there was no recourse to a river; and then 
 there could be no going down nor coming up. When 
 a person was baptized in a bath, the baptizer was not 
 in the water at all. 
 
 Mr. Ewing says, "Rebekah went down to the 
 well — and came up." " Does this imply that she im- 
 mersed herself? No. She went down to the we]], 
 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 ar- 
 gument that they should agree ] This illustration fa- 
 vours us, and refutes Mr. Ewing himself. If Rebe- 
 kah went down to the well, she had a good errand to 
 the well — an errand that is not left to be supplied by 
 conjecture, but is expressly specified, namely, to fill 
 her pitcher. Can Mr. Ewing show such an errand in 
 going to the edge of the river for popping? Even the 
 idiot that followed the Armagh coach to 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 Mr. Ewing, "brought 
 down the people unto the water." " Was it to im- 
 merse them. No ; it was to give them an opportunity 
 of drinking." And could there be a better refutation 
 of Mr. Ewing than what he gives himself 1 Gideon 
 
OP SAPTISM. 203 
 
 did not lead the people to the river for no purpose. 
 The object is expressed. Let us have such a reason 
 for John's baptizing at Jordan, and it will suflSce us. 
 Mr. Ewing entirely mistakes the gist of this argu- 
 ment. I observe also, that Mat. iii. 6. Mark i. 5, can- 
 not admit pouring as the sense of l3(M(<n^u. Ega*Ti- 
 (favro Ev rw lojiavr) cannot be rendered they were poured 
 in Jordan, nor with Jordan, nor in Jordan-dale. The 
 water is poured, not the people. If the clumsy ex- 
 pression poured upon could be admitted, it is not to be 
 found. The ttpon is wanting. The people loere poured 
 upon in Jordan-dale, would be a very awkward expres- 
 sion. 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 water : and the eunuch said, See, 
 here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized 1 
 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 com- 
 manded the chariot to stand still : and they went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the ennuch; 
 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 trans- 
 lation of the words as can possibly be made ; and 
 surely it is so plain that the most illiterate man can be 
 at no loss to discover from it the mind of the Lord on 
 the subject. I have written some hundred pages on 
 the mode of this ordinance, yet to a mind thirsting to 
 know the will of God, and uninfluenced 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 un- 
 favourable 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 document. 
 Nay, had I no conscience, I could not as a scholar at- 
 
204 THE MODE 
 
 tempt to expel immersion from this account. All the 
 ingenuity of all the critics in Europe could not silence 
 the evidence of this passage. Amidst the most violent 
 perversion that it can sustain 'on the rack, it will still 
 cry out, immersion, immersion ! 
 
 Philip, in preaching, had shown that believers were 
 to be baptized immediately, yet the eunuch never 
 speaks of being baptized till he came to water. Now, 
 this implies immersion. Had a handful of water 
 been sufficient, this might have been found in any 
 place. Had it been even a desert without water, there 
 can be no doubt that the ennuch would have a sup- 
 ply 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 mere going down and 
 coming up. But it is upon the circumstance that no 
 reason can be given for the going down, but the immer- 
 sion. What would take them to the water, when the 
 water could be more conveniently brought to them ? 
 
 But they not only went down to the water ; they 
 went into the water. What would take them into the 
 water, if a handful of water would suffice 1 
 
 Let it be observed, also, that there is something 
 very peculiar in the' account of their going into the 
 water. It is not only said, " they went into the water ;" 
 our attention is fixed on the fact that they both went 
 into the water. This, we might think, would suffice. 
 Yet the Holy Spirit marks the circumstance still more 
 precisely. He adds, both Philip and the eunuch. Can 
 any one imagine that such a precision, such an appa- 
 rent redundancy of expression, is not designed to teach 
 something that the Spirit of Inspiration foresaw would 
 be denied 1 Had the water been deep enough at the 
 edge, the eunuch only might have been in the water. 
 But in this case, both the baptizer and the baptized 
 went into the water. Now, this determines that the 
 preposition eig must be rendered into, and not unto, as 
 
OP BAPTISM. 205 
 
 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 1 What would take the one 
 down without the other 1 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 th« fact, takes away the ground of per- 
 version. 
 
 It is not only said that they went into the water, 
 but their return 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 up 
 from the water. Here it is out of the water. 
 
 Let us now see how Mr. Ewing attempts to evade 
 the evidence of this passage. Let my readers put their 
 invention to work, and 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. Demon- 
 stration 1 Aye, demonstration. Jesus is said, Matth. 
 iii. 16. to have gone up from the water, not out of 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 with our Saviour, in order to the admi- 
 nistration of baptism. It is reasonable, then, to un- 
 derstand the si£ and the ex of Acts viii. 38, 39, as sig- 
 nifying precisely what is indicated by the cwo 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. Truth is stronger 
 than sophistry. The helmet 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 
 
 18 
 
206 THE MOD£ 
 
 granted that a*o can reach no further 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. A*o signifies the point of departure from an ob- 
 ject, 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 circum- 
 stances, or other information. If the point of depart- 
 ure 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 the hill, we say, it flew 
 from, the river, just the same as if it had commenced its 
 flight on this side. This is the distinction between 
 «*o and SK. The former denotes the point of depart- 
 ure, 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, a*o cannot serve us 
 in Matth. iii. 16, but as little can it injure us. It is 
 indefinite as to tide 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 Saviour. 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 
 performed at the edge ; in others, it may be necessary 
 to advance to the centre. 
 
 But if oMTo could not reach one inch into the water, 
 I would find no difficulty in refuting Mr. Ewing's ai-gu- 
 ment. If our Lord and John were in the water, in re- 
 turning 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 
 
OP BAPTISM. 207 
 
 commences with the edge, it does not deny that there 
 was a previous point of departure. When I say, this 
 friend has come from Edinburgh, all I assert is, that the 
 point of his departure was Edinburgh. It might be 
 the very edge ; but it might be also from the very cen- 
 tre. 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 far- 
 ther. Yet this will not deny a previous point of com- 
 mencement of departure. We started at such an hour 
 from Prince's Street, and at such an hour we arrived in 
 Glasgow. Now, this point of departure cannot be ex- 
 tended an inch, yet it is quite consistent 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 airo, our Lord might have been baptized in 
 the middle of Jordan, yet since aim iiecessarily 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 Bap- 
 tist usually went into the water in baptizing. The 
 striking difference between the accounts of these two 
 baptisms, leads me to conclude that John chose some 
 place on the edge of the Jordan that admitted the im- 
 mersion of the person baptized, while the baptizer 
 remained on the margin. The place of baptizing the 
 eunuch did not admit this, — most providentially, in<. 
 deed, because it affords an example that cannot be 
 plausibly perirerted. 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 ne-- 
 eessity at all to suppose that sis and sx are limited in 
 Actsviii. 38, 39, by a*o in Matth. iii. 16. 
 
 " I am far from saying," says Mr. Ewing, " that stg 
 does not often sigijify i^Of and ex out of." And I am 
 
208 THE MODE 
 
 as far from denying that sif sometimes signifies unto. 
 Its most usual signification, however, is into ; and in 
 general applies when the thing in motion enters within 
 the object to which it refers. There are instances, 
 however, in which the motion ends at the object. It 
 is therefore not of itself definite. But it is evident that 
 there must be some way of rendering it definite in each 
 of its occurrences, else language would be unintelligi- 
 ble. We are not to suppose that when a word is in 
 itself indefinite, we are at liberty, in every occurrence 
 of it, to understand it as we will. The sound critic is 
 able, on all occasions, to limit it by the connexion, or 
 by circumstances. I observe, then, that as this word 
 usually signifies motion tw a place ending within the 
 place, so it is always to be understood in this sense, 
 except circumstances forbid it. I believe the few ex- 
 amples in which the motion does not end within the 
 object towards which the thing in motion is directed, 
 are all of this kind. They are such as cannot cause 
 a moment's hesitation. But if it had such a meaning 
 here, it would evidently be equivocal. It would as 
 readily lead astray as inform. Agreeably to this, in 
 the very examples produced by Mr. Ewing, from Gen. 
 xxiv. 16, Judges vii. 5, where the motion ended at the 
 margin of the river, this preposition is not used. It is 
 not siff, but s<i rrjv icrryriv ; not siff, but *|os TO udwf . Let 
 us also compare the passages in which sis is used 
 with respect to baptism in Jordan, with the immersion 
 of Judith xii. 7. In this latter place, it is not sij r»]v 
 **iyi)v, but Bid Tiie ifij/iis, denoting that she was not 
 bathed in the fountain, but ct it, in something pro- 
 vided for the purpose. Had sis been used, it would 
 have denoted that she went into the fountain. In the 
 case of the baptism of th^ eunuch, I have shown a 
 circumstance that fixes the meaning of sij. 
 i This observation is confirmed by the circumstance 
 that SIS is applied to the river Jordan, when the mo- 
 tion ceases on the banks, in an instance that can 
 create no doubt. 2 Kings vi. 4, " And when they 
 
OP BAPTISM. 209 
 
 came to Jordan," is in the Septuagint, rikdov eij rov 
 Io^5avi)v. Here the object of the journey determines 
 the extent of the meaning of the preposition. 
 
 But I utterly deny such an indefiniteness in the 
 meaning of sx. In opposition to Mr. Ewing's asser- 
 lion, I say that it always signifies out of. I say this 
 while my eye is upon all the examples alleged by him 
 and his learned friend. 
 
 "Now," says Mr. Ewing, "wherever sig and sx 
 correspond to each other, the extent of the one must 
 measure the extent of the other. The point of de- 
 parture to return, cannot be different from the point 
 of arrival in going. In other words, if sig signify to, 
 then sx must, in the same connexion, signify nothing 
 more than^^om." What can be more mathematical 
 than this 1 It is as clear as that twelve inches and a 
 foot denote the same measure. The demonstration 
 is perfect, if the axiom on which it is founded be 
 granted. The demonstration is drawn from the hy- 
 pothetical proposition, " if sis signify to." But I deny 
 that in this instance it signifies to. Mr. Ewing him- 
 self admits that it often signifies into. Why, then, is 
 it taken for granted that it cannot so signify here ? 
 To do Mr. Ewing any service, sis must always sig- 
 nify to. It cannot be employed to measure sx, if 
 it is itself indefinite. It is very true that the progress 
 into the water cannot be less than the progress out. All 
 depends on the distance advanced. Now, though sif 
 might be used, if the advance was only to the margin ; 
 yet as it can be used, if the advance were to the cen- 
 tre, it cannot restrain sx to its own lowest extent. 
 On the other hand, I will reverse the demonstration, 
 on the principle that sx always signifies out of, which 
 I will prove. If sx always signifies out of, as one of 
 these prepositions, when they correspond to each 
 other, must measure the other, then, though sis is in 
 itself indefinite, sx renders it definite in this instance. 
 As sx signifies out of, cs must here signify into. 
 Now, I defy ingenuity to refute my demonstration. 
 18* 
 
210 THE MODE 
 
 If an elastic chain is twelve inches at the stretch, but 
 only ten when relaxed ; and if the same measure is 
 called a foot, in the same connexion, then we are to 
 make the /oo< determine the extent of the chain, in the 
 instance referred to, and not the chain to determine 
 the number of inches in the foot. The definite must 
 limit the indefinite. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw concurs with Mr. Ewing, in think- 
 ing that nothing can be learned from sv, and sig, 
 and sx, the prepositions usually construed with /3a*ri^u. 
 " It is truly surprising," says he, "that so much stress 
 should be laid on the frequently vague import of a 
 Greek preposition." I ask Dr. Wardlaw, what pre- 
 position in any language is perfectly univocal ] Are 
 there many words of any part of speech, except those 
 expressive of mode, which are perfectly univocall 
 Are the above prepositions more vague than the pre- 
 positions that correspond to them in our language 1 
 Does it follow, from a word's having two significations, 
 that no stress can be laid on itself, in determining on 
 the evidence of its meaning in any particular situation? 
 If a word is sometimes used in a sense different from 
 its usual one, are we at liberty to understand it in 
 such unusual signification at random, as often as it 
 may suit our argument 1 Were this the case, every 
 sentence we utter would be a riddle. Every time we 
 open our lips, we use words which are as vague as 
 any Greek prepositions, yet the most ignorant are not 
 misled by the circumstance. It is only when the ob- 
 servation applies to dead languages, that it imposes 
 on those who do not trace arguments to first prin- 
 ciples. Ev may sometimes be translated with; but 
 there must be laws that regulate this matter, else hu- 
 man language could not be suflacient for testimony. 
 Elf, in rare cases, may be translated at or in ; but if 
 this will justify us in assigning these meanings to 
 them when it suits our purpose, nothing could be de- 
 finitely expressed in human speech. Yet this is the 
 resource of Dr, Wardlaw, in evading the evidence of 
 
OF BAPTISM. 211 
 
 immersion ; — a resomce which, if used with respect 
 to English, would expose the critic to derision. I 
 have pointed out some of the laws that determine in 
 such cases ; and whether I have been successful or 
 not, such laws must exist, if human language is an 
 adequate evidence of human thought. This I hold 
 as an axiom. 
 
 But I will venture to appeal still farther to the com- 
 mon sense of my readers. Admitting all that is de- 
 manded for this supposed vagueness, is it not utterly- 
 incredible that, with respect to this ordinance, each 
 of these three prepositions should assume, as it were 
 in concert to deceive us, its most unusual signification 1 
 Can we ascribe such a miracle of delusion to the Spi- 
 rit of truth 1 Now, that in is the most usual significa- 
 tion of ev ; into, the most usual signification of sis; and 
 out of, the most usual signification of ex, I suppose no 
 one will be hardy enough to deny. I could easily 
 prove that the exceptions to this, with respect to the 
 two former, are much fewer than they are generally 
 supposed ; and when I come to Mr. Ewing's appen- 
 dix, I wiU show that with respect to sx, there is no ex- 
 ception at all. But I am here taking for granted all 
 that our opponents demand ; and allowing the vague- 
 ness to be as great as they suppose, is it not absurd 
 to suppose that the Holy Spirit would use the three 
 prepositions all in an unusual sense, when there were 
 other prepositions better suited to the purpose 1 The 
 absurdity is still heightened by the consideration that 
 these prepositions are used in connexion with the verb, 
 which the hardiest of our opponents cannot deny as 
 importiii g, at least in one of its senses, to immerse. The 
 usual sense of the whole three prepositions is in our fa- 
 vour : the verb admits our meaning, even according to 
 Mr. Efring ; but according to the great bulk of the 
 most learned of our opponent?, this is its primary 
 meaning ! judging, then, even from their" own ad- 
 missions, is it credible that the Holy Spirit would use 
 language so calculated to mislead * Could there be 
 
31 2 THE MODE 
 
 any reason to pitch upon such phraseology, except to 
 deceive 1 If pouring or sprinkling had been appointed, 
 there were words which univocally denote these 
 meanings. Why then would the Holy Spirit pass by 
 these words, and pitch upon a word that according to 
 our opponents, has perhaps a dozen of significa- 
 tions 1 If there are prepositions that would, in their 
 usual acceptation, express the meaning our oppo- 
 nents attach to the three prepositions in question, 
 why would the latter be employed in an unusual 
 sense 1 There never was a greater specimen of Jesuit- 
 ism, than that which Dr. Wardlaw here charges on 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But this mode of reasoning carries its condemna- 
 tion in its very face. If the controversy was in a lan- 
 guage of which we are entirely ignorant, and on a 
 subject to which we are utterly strangers, we may 
 hold it as a self-evident truth, that the man who screens 
 himself under the vagueness of words, and argues at 
 random, on the supposition that on any emergency 
 it is fair to take a word in any signification that in any 
 situation he may fiod attached to it, has either a bad 
 cause, or does not know how to defend a good one. 
 As no one will charge our opponents with the latter, 
 the cause which they defend must be incapable of a 
 sound defence. 
 
 But after we have beaten them down the hill, and 
 pushed them to the very verge of the stream ; nay, 
 after we have driven them into Jordan up to the 
 chin, these obstinate enemies of immersion will not 
 pop down their heads into the water, but will pop the 
 water upon the head. Both of these writers declare 
 resolutely that they would not surrender, even in the 
 midst of the river. " Let it be supposed," says Mr. 
 Ewing, " that the baptizer led the person to be bap- 
 tized, not only to the water, but into it, ; the question 
 returns, what did he do with him there 1" Dr. Ward- 
 law also expressly refuses to submit, even were it 
 granted " that the parties were in Jordan when the ce- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 213 
 
 remony was performed." What shall I do now 1 Of 
 what service is all my criticism 1 Can I put them under 
 the water either by the verb or by its syntax ? I will 
 try a little common sense ; for if I cannot succeed on 
 this point, it is in vain to appeal to the laws of language. 
 I admit that it is possible to sprinkle or pour water 
 upon a person in a river, as well as in a church or 
 parlour. But in the awful presence of the living God, 
 I ask Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlaw, if they think it 
 credible that John the Baptist would take into the 
 water the multitudes whom he baptized, for the pur- 
 pose of pouring a little on their face ? If they can an- 
 swer this in the afBrmative, I have no more to say on 
 that point. I must appeal to the common sense of 
 mankind. What other purpose could there be in go- 
 ing into the water, but to be immersed ? Turks, Jews, 
 and infidels, declare your judgment. Every other 
 mode might have been observed, with much greater 
 convenience, out of the water than in it. I know it 
 is possible for Mr. Ewing and Dr. Wardlavv, to take 
 every infant baptized by them, with all the nurses 
 and attendants, down into the river Clyde, and pop 
 them there ; but verily, if I read in the newspapers, 
 that they did this, I should be convinced that they 
 were deranged. Madness or fanaticism would uni- 
 versally be supposed to be the cause. Upon such evi- 
 dence, could the Lord Chancellor refuse an act of lu- 
 nacy against them 1 And shall they ascribe to John 
 the Baptist and the Saviour, conduct that in Great 
 Britain would prove lunacy ? It is useless to reason 
 with persons- so obstinate. Neither argument nor 
 criticism can reach such extravagance. As Dr. 
 Campbell, in reference to the class of first principles 
 which he ascribes to common sense, says, that to deny 
 them, does not imply a contradiction, — it implies 
 only lunacy ; so to assert, that John the Baptist led 
 the multitudes into the river Jordan, in order to pour 
 a little water into their faces, does not imply an 
 impossibility,— ^it only implies that they were all mad. 
 
214 THE MODE 
 
 However, as I have now, by their own admission, 
 got them into the water, I will try to force them under 
 it, before I let them out. Dr. Wardlaw asserts that 
 £j£_5ov Io^5av»)u may be translated at or in Jordan. To 
 this I reply, 1. At and in are very unusual senses of 
 SIS, and never are given to it by any sober critic, except 
 when the usual signification will not apply. When 
 they have such signification, the meaning is so obvi- 
 ous, that it cannot be doubted. It never takes place 
 when it could cause confusion or ambiguity. If the 
 same phrase could optionally he interpreted at a river, 
 in a river, and into a river, human language would be 
 as dark as the enigmas of the Sphinx. 3. There is 
 no reason to bring them to the water, or place them in 
 the water, but the intention of immersing them into 
 the water. 3. A multitude of examples might be 
 produced, in which sis is construed with /3a*Ti^u, in 
 which the signification is without doubt immersion. I 
 appeal to those I have given. No one example can 
 be- produced in which iis> in construction with the verb, 
 signifies either at or in. The phrase, then, cannot be 
 supposed to have a signification here different from its 
 usual signification ; and which there is no single 
 proof that it ever has. I will force them down, then, 
 by the verb and the preposition separately, and by both 
 united as a phrase. I defy them to produce, out of 
 Greek literature, one instance in which the phrase has 
 the meaning contended for by them. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw partakes with Mr. Ewing in his asto- 
 nishment, that an argument should be drawn from 
 going down and coming up. If my astonishment had 
 not been entirely exhausted with the Jordan scene, I 
 should be mightily astonished that both these writers 
 so far mistake the gist of the argument. The going 
 down and the coming up, is not supposed to refer to the 
 act of immersion. As pouring water into a bath, is 
 necessary in order to immersion in the bath ; so going 
 down to the river, is necessary in order to dipping in 
 the river. We do not confound the going into the 
 
OF BAPTISM. 215 
 
 water, with the immersion in the water. This would 
 show the same want of discrimination that confounds 
 pouring with baptism. 
 
 But Mr. Ewing- overturns all our arguments and 
 criticisms with a diflSculty. " If the act of baptizing," 
 says he, " had consisted of immersing the subject in 
 water, there would surely have been some allusion to 
 the lowering of his body in that supine direction, 
 which is, I believe, commonly observed for the pur- 
 pose of bringing it under the surface : some allusion, 
 also,'to that stooping attitude, which is at the same 
 time necessary on the part of the immerser] But 
 there is nothing of this kind to be found in all the 
 Scriptures, either in the accompanying phraseology, 
 or, as we have seen, in the name of the ordinance 
 itself." Now if the surely was a real surely, the con- 
 clusion would be undeniable ; for I do not know a sin- 
 gle reference of the kind demanded. But what makes 
 this surely necessary 1 Why, it is necessary to keep 
 Mr. Ewing's theory from sinking, but this is its only 
 necessity. If no information is given about the way 
 of putting the body under water, then no part of the 
 meaning of the ordinance depends on one way more 
 than another. We are then at liberty to do it in the 
 most convenient way. But this requirement is very 
 strange in one who maintains baptism to be a popping 
 of a handful of water out of the cup of nature, or the 
 hollow of the hand, upon the turned up face of the 
 person baptized. Each of these things is a necessary 
 part of baptism, yet I am so stupid as to be unable to 
 see a glimpse of any of them in the Scriptures. 
 
 T shall now examine the example of Mr. Ewing's 
 Appendix, alleged to prove that sx sometimes signifies 
 merely from, as perfectly synonymous with a*o. I 
 have admitted that ev may, in certain circumstances, 
 be translated with, and that sis sometimes denotes mo- 
 tion to a place, that ends on this side of the object, 
 without occasioning any confusion or ambiguity. But 
 I- have denied that sx is ever used when the object de- 
 
216 THE MODE 
 
 parting is not supposed to have commenced its depart- 
 ure within the object from which it departs. Now, Mr. 
 Ewing's very learned friend, who writes the Appen- 
 dix, in reply to some observations by Dr. Ryland, 
 steadily abides by his first position ;iand by a nimaber 
 of instances alleges, with the utmost confidence, that 
 the use of the Greek language proves the supposed lax- 
 ity in the use of sx. The general acquaintance of 
 this gentleman with Greek literature, entitles his opi- 
 nion to the the highest respect, and I am willing to 
 allow him to be in all respects what Mr. Ewing repre- 
 sents. I take the utmost liberty in exposing false rea- 
 soning and false criticism, even in those whom I re- 
 spect. God's truth is a paramount object, and what- 
 ever tends to pervert it must be cut down. The ex- 
 tensive reading in Greek writers which this gentleman 
 possesses, is a qualification of indispensable importance 
 to a critic ; and that he is conversant with the philo- 
 sophy of language is obvious at a glance. I stand upon 
 ground too firm to make me fear the talents of my an- 
 tagonist, and I would feel ashamed were I conscious of 
 underrating these talents through dread of them. No 
 man unjustly disparages the abilities of his opponent, 
 who is not conscious either of having a bad cause, or 
 of his inability to defend a good one. 
 
 The learned writer of the Appendix says : " The 
 truth is, that though a*o and sx were originally distinct, 
 in the progress of the language they came to be used indis- 
 criminately, and while a^o encroached on the province 
 of sx, sx in return usurped part of the territories of a*o." 
 Now, on the very face of this observation, I pronounce 
 it unphilosophical ; and I would confidently do so, had 
 the assertion respected a language of which I do not 
 know the letters. It is contrary to the first principles 
 of language, that prepasitions appointed to express dif- 
 ferent relations, should be used to express the same 
 relation. Were this the case, the prepositions would 
 be two only in sound ; one of them would cumber ra- 
 ther than enrich the language. There is a sense in 
 
OP BAPTISM. 217 
 
 which one word may be said to encroach on the terri- 
 tories of another ; that is, it may be used in a situa- 
 tion which another usually fills. But this is not pro- 
 perly an encroachment. So far as it properly goes, 
 the territories are its own. The territory occupied by 
 both, belongs exclusively to neither. It is common, 
 and either may be used at pleasure. But consistently 
 with" this joint reign,'each may,have a peculiar territory, 
 into which it is usurpation in the other to enter. Were 
 it true, according to the learned writer, that a*o and sx 
 at random usurp each other's territories, it would be 
 impossible for criticism to ascertain any thing from 
 their use. Language would be incapable of definite 
 meaning. From my account of them, it is clear that 
 in a vast multitude of instances, they may be used in 
 the same place optionally. But even here, it is not 
 impossible to discriminate them. Each of them has 
 in every instance its own distinctive meaning. I may 
 say in English,. this friend is out of Glasgow, or from 
 Glasgow, yet out of and from are not the same. The 
 one expression denotes that the point of departure was 
 in the city ; the other may have its point of departure 
 either in or at the city. There are cases also in which 
 the English preposition could not be used in the same 
 situation. In a besieged city, the expression " this sol- 
 dier has come out of the city," is very different from 
 *' this soldier has come from the city," I assert, then, 
 that the fact that these prepositions may be used often 
 in the same situation, is no evidence that they have 
 not their characteristic meaning ; and far less is it 
 evidence that they are in all things indiscriminate. 
 While they have a common territory, each has a pro- 
 vince of its own. Even wheo aifo is used where sx 
 might be used, there is this difference, that the former 
 is not definite, and does not mark the idea which the 
 use of the other would have marked. I call the atten- 
 tion of critics to this distinction as one of vast import- 
 ance, and one which has been universally overlooked. 
 It has been hitherto taken for granted, that if two 
 
 19 
 
218 THE MODE 
 
 words are interchangeable m any situation, they may, 
 at the pleasure of the critic, be supposed interchange 
 able. I maintain that two words with meanings cha- 
 racteristically distinct, may have in other things a 
 corhmon province, while there are laws to ascertain 
 the extent of the common province, and to limit each 
 within its peculiar boundary, I maintain even far- 
 ther, that in the common province each expresses its 
 own meaning. They reign without interference even 
 over the common territory. Now, if I am well founded 
 in these observations, they will be of vast advantage 
 in ascertaining definitely the import of language. 
 
 With respect to the prepositions a*o and ex, though 
 they iifiay often be used interchangeably, yet the latter 
 always implies intusposition ; the former the point of 
 departure in general. But the writer of the Appen- 
 dix has alleged a number of examples to prove, " that 
 £x may be, and often is, made use of to express remov- 
 al, distance, or separation, merely where previous in- 
 tusposition neither was, nor could be in view." Now, 
 if his examples prove this, let him have it. That 
 none of them do so, I am quite confident. 
 
 His first example is from Thucydides. Speaking of 
 a promontory, he says, o ■>jv ex te SaXatfrfiis owo)cf*j(ji,vov xai 
 EX T»)f yiis ■jjxifl'Ta sVifjoaj^ov, " which was steep from the 
 sea, and not easily attacked from the land." The ex- 
 ample has not the colour of opposition to our doctrine. 
 Were I lecturing on the passage to students, I would 
 remark as a beauty, the distinctive import of sx, which 
 this writer's criticism teaches him to overlook. The 
 promontory is supposed to rise out of the sea below, as 
 a tree grows out of the ground. The imagination 
 views the object commencing at the bottom of the sea, 
 and rising a vast height above its surface. Do we not 
 ourselves speak of a rock rising out of the ocean ? 
 There is nothing here said in Greek, but what we-our- 
 selves say in English, yet out of with us is never /rom. 
 As to the example alleged, there is no real motion, or 
 point of departure, whether a*o or ex is used. The 
 point of departure is merely in the view of the imagi- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 219 
 
 nation. While examples of this kind still preserve the 
 original distinction, yet examples most decisively to 
 the point must be taken from real motion, and a real 
 point of departure. It is with these that airo and ex are 
 connected on the subject of Baptism. The writer re- 
 marks : " The historian surely never meant to convey 
 the idea, that the steep part of the rock had formerly 
 been within the rock." This surely is granted, but the 
 observation is surely so absurd as to need no answer. 
 When we say that " a rock rises boldly out of the 
 sea," do we mean that the top of it rose from the bot- 
 tom 1 But there is here an intusposition : the rock 
 commences below the water. 
 
 1^ But if we are able to manage the first ix, he asks us 
 what we will do with the second. This he thinks al- 
 together refractory. However, it costs me no more 
 trouble than the first. A glance discovers its bearing. 
 " Would Dr. R. maintain," says the writer, " that 
 Thucydides meant that the promontory, if attacked on 
 the land side, must then be understood as having come 
 out of the land 1" No, indeed. Dr. R. could not make 
 such an assertion, — nor is any such assertion needed. 
 It is not the promontory that comes out of the land ; 
 it is the assault that comes out of the land. When 
 attacked on the land side, does not the assault come 
 from the interior of the land 1 I am surprised at such 
 an observation from such a writer. What is most 
 strange is, that the same question might as well be 
 asked if a*o had been used. In that case, would the 
 writer suppose that the promontory was represented 
 as coming /rom the land? The promontory is not, as 
 this writer absurdly supposes, here represented as the 
 point of departure, whether airo or sx is used. The 
 promontory is the point of arrival. The assailants 
 come out of the country on the land side, and direct 
 their assault, not from the promontory, but upon it. 
 Never were witnesses farther from serving the cause 
 of the party who summoned them. 
 
 The next example is, — o5w— ef A^Sriguv eg Io'tjwv. 
 
220 THE MODE 
 
 " The road/rom Abdera to Ister." I say, literally, " the 
 road out 0/ Abdera to Ister." The road is supposed to 
 commence within Abdera. Does the road out of Edin- 
 burgh to Leith commence at the extremity of the 
 city 1 There might be as much of the road within 
 the city as without it. This example is clearly on my 
 side. 
 
 But what shall I do with Alexander's mound 1 
 Surely I cannot bring it out of the continent. Yes, I 
 will bring a machine that will force it out of the. land. 
 Let us see the words of the author, x'^i^"' ^7"" X""^"""' 
 EX Tyis ij^siiou us £*i rriv iftiKiv, " he resolved to carry up a 
 mound /row the continent to the city." I say lite- 
 rally, " out of the continent." But says the writer, 
 "the rampart never had been within the conti- 
 nent, but merely commenced at it." I say the ram- 
 part, according toArrian, commenced within the con- 
 tinent. The point of commencement was not with- 
 out the land, but within it. As the foundation of a 
 house is more secure when it commences underground, 
 so a mound is more secure, when it commences 
 within the land. I was not, it is true, present on the 
 occasion when Alexander commenced this work ; but 
 I know where Arrian fixes the commencement. We 
 could say that the mound of Edinburgh runs out of 
 Bank Street into Prince's Street. The point of com- 
 mencement is within the street above, and ends within 
 the street below. Now, has not my machine taken 
 Tyre without a mound 1* 
 
 The next example is, — " a line is said to be drawn 
 ex Tou ifo\ou,from the pole of a circle." " It is impos- 
 sible," says our author, " for a hne to be within a 
 point." Very true ; and did not the writer see that it 
 
 * Mr. Locte, in one of his Letters to Mr. Molyneux, speaks of his 
 letters written out ofHoUand. The letters were written in Holland. 
 What sort of a critic would he be, who should say that this iniplies that 
 Mr. Locke was not in Holland when he wrote the letters ? Yet this is 
 the principle on which many criticise on dead languages. My oppO' 
 nenis are in error in their canons of criticism. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 221 
 
 was equally impossible for the whole Une to be at a 
 point 1 And if its point of commencement could be 
 at the edge of a point, might it not also be within the 
 point 1 This is the thing said. The line is supposed 
 to commence within the pole. The author adds : 
 " in other prepositions of the same book, airo is made 
 use of to denote precisely the same idea." Say, is 
 made to fill the same situation. This is quite in ac- 
 cordance with my doctrine. We ourselves do the 
 same thing with /rom and out of, yet they do not sig- 
 nify precisely the same idea. 
 Another example is — 
 
 " She led him from the gate to the inner apartment." 
 " Though he came from the gate," says the writer, 
 " he could never be supposed to have come out of it." 
 Certainly not out of the wood or metal of the gates, but 
 as certainly out of the gates. Who is so ignorant as 
 not to know that gates denote, not merely the gates 
 strictly, but the place in which they stand, and that 
 whole assemblies are said to meet and sit in the gates 1 
 We speak in like manner of a door. He stood in the 
 door — ^he came out of the door — he came from the 
 door. But out of the door is not perfectly the same as 
 from the door. There is not the^^shadow of difficulty 
 in such examples. 
 
 Another example brought by this writer is — 
 
 Off ^woirXaff'Tuv avSga; 
 
 *' Who forming men j^rom the extremity of the foot, 
 making a statue." The writer remarks, "forming 
 out of the extremity of the foot, would convey either 
 no meaning at all, or a very absurd one ; ex in this 
 passage is completely synonymous with a-Ko." To 
 suppose that the upper parts of the statue proceeded 
 out of the foot, would indeed be absurd. And to 
 19* 
 
222 THE MODE 
 
 suppose that they proceeded from the foot, would be 
 no less absurd. But if the meaning is, as without 
 doubt it is, that the foot was the point of commence- 
 ment in the making of the statue, it may as well be 
 said that this point was within the foot as at the foot, 
 and that the work commenced out of the foot as from 
 the foot. Nay, it seems to be the very intention of 
 the expression to include the foot ; for if he made the 
 statue only from the foot, he did not make the foot. 
 The expression is not only intelligible on the suppo- 
 sition of the peculiar meaning of ex, but is more defi- 
 nite than it would have been, had a*o been used. 
 
 The next example alleged is from the Penegeris of 
 Dionysius, Lin. 109. 
 
 Ex 5' o^swv SixsXuv K^»)ri)j ava*£*raTai oi5(x.a 
 Max^ov sg avroXii)v. — 
 
 "From the SiciHan mountains the sea is extended 
 far to the east." " No one," says the writer, " I think 
 will contend that ex here implies any thing but the 
 point of departure, — certainly it was not meant to de- 
 note, that the sea was ever within the mountains." 
 Nothing, indeed, but the point of departure, or rather 
 the point of commencement. But that point is within 
 the mountains, either really or in the imagination. 
 Is not the sea within the mountains in every bay 
 formed by mountains 1 What is meant by ■rovros srfw 
 Ai?uris. « The sea within Lybia," — an expression 
 used by Dionysius, a few lines above the passage 
 quoted by this writer 1 But in this place I do not un- 
 derstand the point of commencement, as respecting 
 the place where the sea toucljes Sicily, but the place 
 of the spectator. When viewed out of the Sicilian 
 mountains, the sea of Crete extends far to the east. 
 On no supposition, however, has the expression any 
 appearance of opposition to my doctrine, with respeci 
 to the distinctive meaning of ex. 
 
 Another example is madrad' sx ^mm 
 
 " Rising from her seat." " Not out of it certainly,' 
 
OP BAPTISM. 223 
 
 says the writer. Yes, out of it certainly, say I. Thrones 
 or chairs of state were of such a construction, that per- 
 sons, were said to sit down into them, and to come out 
 o/them, — just as we would say that a gentleman comes 
 out of his gig. Indeed, we might say ourselves, that the 
 old man rose out of his arm chair. This is a most un- 
 fortunate example for our author. The phrase sk Ss^iuv 
 xai 0g EuuvufAuv, Matth. XX. 21, are elliptical, and their 
 explication depends on a knowledge of ancient cus- 
 toms, which may not now he attainable. Literally, it 
 is no more right hand and left, than it is on the right 
 hand and on the left. The word thrones, or seats, or 
 places may be understood, and from their construc- 
 tion and situation above the assembly, the application 
 of sx might have arisen. But of this I am bound to 
 say nothing. What I say is, that in some way the 
 idea of out of must have been implied, because sx is 
 used. Every professor of Greek, in speaking on these 
 phrases to his pupils, if he was not a disgrace to his 
 chair, would say, "literally, out of right hand (seats) 
 and out of left hand (seats,) — on my right hand, on 
 my left hand, are our phrases, but they are not a trans- 
 lation." But did not the gentleman perceive that these 
 phrases are as hard to be accounted for, on the supposi- 
 tion that EX signifies _/rorre, as on the supposition that it 
 signifies out of? Could we say, "to sit from, my 
 right hand, more than to sit out of ray right hand 1 If 
 it is said, that the point of the sitting commences at the 
 right hand, I reply, that it may also commence within 
 the Ss^iuv Torecjv, right hand places. We are at liberty 
 to supply any word we please, for it is evident that the 
 substantive to which Ss^iuv is related, is not hand. It 
 is possible to sit within right hand places, or right hand 
 seats. 
 
 The phrase sx veoTiiros, from my youth, has no diffi- 
 culty. The commencing point is within his youth. It 
 did not commence in the outer verge of youth, or at the 
 very edge of youth, but within it, far within it. Phi- 
 losophically, then, as well as literally, it is out of my 
 
324 THE MODE 
 
 youth. In like manner, £? a.qc>s, from the beginning, 
 is literally out of the beginning. The commencing 
 point is supposed to be within the beginning, not where 
 the beginning ended. He knew it in the beginning. 
 The distinctive meaning of sx is visible even in these 
 phrases. It is no proof of the contrary, that in some 
 of them we have no idioms to correspond with them. 
 If all languages had corresponding phrases perfectly 
 alike, what would be meant by idiom 1 There is not 
 one of the phrases alleged by this writer, in explain- 
 ing which, a Greek Scholar would not say, " literally 
 out of." In some of them our idioms may he from; 
 the Greek idiom is not from in any of them. 
 
 I have followed the writer through all his examples, 
 and have wrested them out of his hands. But this 
 was more than my cause required. There is not one 
 of the examples that corresponds to the subject of our 
 debate. Our contest respects a case in which there is 
 real motion, and a change of position from one point 
 to another. It respects departure and arrival. Now 
 there is no example to the purpose in which there is 
 not a change of place. The preposition sx might be 
 used with respect to other things in which the primary 
 idea could not be discovered ; while, with respect to real 
 change of place, the distinction might be universally 
 preserved. But there is not one of the author's exam- 
 ples that respects cases similar to the case to be illus- 
 trated. Not one of them relates to real motion, either 
 from or out of. These are the examples that must de- 
 cide the matter. Though I could not analyze one of 
 the examples brought by this writer, I would still con- 
 tend thai IX, as signifying point of departure, or mo- 
 tion from one point to another, is more definite than 
 aitg since it always implies that the point of departure 
 is within the object, and not without it. From this 
 there not only is no exception, but there is no colour 
 of exception. 
 
 I conclude then with all the authority of demon- 
 stration that Philip and the eunuch were within the 
 
OP BAPTISM. 226 
 
 water, because they came out of it. I have aheady 
 observed, with respect to other examples in which 
 l3aitTi^oi occurs, that it will not construe with the sig- 
 nification /jowr. I observe the same thing with respect 
 to Acts viii. 38. " What doth hinder me to be bap- 
 tized, ^oMrritf^ijvai." It could not be translated, "what 
 doth hinder me to be poured !" It is not the bap- 
 tized person, but the water, that is poured in the obser- 
 vance of this ordinance by pouring. — Philip sSaicnas, 
 baptized the eunuch. If the word then signifies to 
 pom, it was the eunuch he poured, and not the water 
 on the eunuch. Now, the same thing may be ob- 
 served, with respect to all the passages in which this 
 word occurs. Not one of them will construe on the 
 supposition, that it signifies to pour. The same thing 
 is true to a certain extent, with respect to sprinkle, 
 and every other meaning that has been given to this 
 word. Some of the passages may construe on that 
 supposition ; but many of them will not. I need not 
 waste time in going over all the examples, and apply- 
 ing to them all the meanings that have been given to 
 the word in question. This has been done by many, 
 and must, at a glance, be obvious to all. It merely 
 may be stated as a canon, that whatever this word sig- 
 nifies with respect to the ordinance of Baptism, will trans- 
 late it in every passage in which it refers to Baptism. 
 There can be no exception to this, even though it 
 should be supposed to admit a different syntax in other 
 meanings ; yet, as referred to the same ordinance, it 
 must, without doubt, have the same meaning. This 
 canon, then, excludes the pretensions of pour and 
 sprinkle, and every other meaning that invention has 
 given to it. Immerse or dip is the only word that can 
 stand this ordeal. This I have shown can bear the 
 test, not only with respect to this ordinance, but with 
 respect to every instance in which the word is used. 
 Can there be any rational doubt, then, in determining 
 on the pretensions of the different claimants 1 
 
 The reason alleged, John iii. 33, for baptizing, in a 
 
226 THE MODE 
 
 particular place, implies, that baptism is immersion, 
 " And John also was baptizing in iEnon near to Sa- 
 lira, because there was much water there ; and they 
 came, and were baptized." But when Mr. E wing, reads 
 this, he "can see nothing concerning immersion." 
 Strange, indeed, that the same object should have 
 an appearance so different to different eyes. Mr. Ew- 
 ing sees here, with every one else, that the Holy Spi- 
 rit assigns a reason for John's baptizing in ^Enon, and 
 that this reason is, the circumstance of the conveni- 
 ence of water. As to my purpose, I care not whether 
 it is translated "much water," or "many waters." 
 Does not this imply, that the water was for the pur- 
 pose of baptizing 1 The people came there, and were 
 baptized, because of the suitableness of the place for 
 baptizing. This is the meaning that undoubtedly will 
 present itself to every candid reader, who has no sys- 
 tem in his mind as to the mode of baptism. Let the 
 language be submitted to persons utterly unacquainted 
 with Christianity, and among a thousand there will 
 be but one judgment. Instead of being difficult to 
 be discovered here, I venture to say, that there is 
 scarcely any mind that has not some difficulty in 
 keeping itself from seeing it. This is the labour : this 
 is the difficulty. A person having made up his mind 
 on the mode of Baptism, when he comes to this pas- 
 sage, may succeed in satisfying himself with some 
 view of the matter which has been created by his own 
 fancy ; but I am much mistaken, if it is not always 
 with some difficulty. That the water was for the pur- 
 pose of baptism, is to my mind the very testimony of 
 the Holy Spirit. When I say, that in such a district, 
 there are many bleach-greens, or many grist mills, be- 
 cause there is there a fine river, would not every per- 
 son understand that the water was necessary for the 
 bleaching, and for turning the wheels of the mills 1 
 Wliat 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 BAPTISM. 227 
 
 of the persons who are employed about them 1 Just 
 such criticism is it, that denies that this passage malcea 
 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 hisquick- 
 sightedness 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 neigh- 
 boiuhood 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 ob- 
 ject of this water. Mr. Ewing sees two large compa- 
 nies. I cannot see one large company in the passage, 
 nor in all the history of John the Baptist. Mr. Ew- 
 ing 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 onlyFin 
 Mr. Ewing's imagination, is clear from the fact, that 
 Jesus went every where, and every where was at- 
 tended 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 lan- 
 guage can be, that the many waters spoken of were in 
 Mnon only. 
 
g28 THE MODE 
 
 Mr. Ewing informs us that Dr. R. understands the 
 iroXXa vSara as not applying to small streams, while he 
 himself contends that in this 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 vast collection. But I maintain that he fails in 
 proving that it here denotes springs or fountains : vSug 
 may apply to any collection of water, from a well to 
 a lake, or the greatest river. The phrase ifoXKa uSara, 
 is not a Hebraism ; for it is found, times innumera- 
 ble, in the Greek writers. The phrase, in the singu- 
 lar, *oXu vSu^, might apply to the sea, if viewed as one 
 collection ; while the plural, itoXKa u8ara, might apply 
 to a number of ponds viewed separately. 
 
 Baptist writers, to prove that the phrase signifies 
 one collection of water, have sometimes appealed to 
 passages where it is undoubtedly so applied. But in 
 all such passages, though the waters are really in one 
 collection, they are viewed by the imagination sepa- 
 rately. There is no instance in which the phrase, in 
 the plural, should not be translated many waters. Even 
 Rev. xvii. 8. is no exception to this. The waters of 
 the Euphrates are here, in some point of view, consi- 
 dered separately, which is evident, not only from the 
 expression, but from the symbolical import of it. The 
 many waters were a symbol of the many nations or 
 people. The river ran through Babylon, and the part 
 of it opposite every gate might be viewed separately 
 in this figure, as separately serving the city. The 
 circumstance, also, that the bed of the Euphrates was 
 as high as the countries on the banks, and in many 
 places higher, made it practicable to water all the 
 country of Babylon, by cuts through the banks of the 
 river. In this way, the whole country might be wa- 
 tered^ and all around the city might be encompassed 
 with water. The observation is warranted by Arrian's 
 account of the difference between the Tigris and the 
 Euphrates. The bed of the former was low, and 
 
OP BAPTISM. 229 
 
 therefore the river was continually enriched by tribu- 
 tary streams ; but the bed of the latter was high, and 
 was constantly supplying the countries through which 
 it passed, so that it became shallow at the mouth. 
 This is the only passage in which the application of 
 the phrase has any diflficulty ; for the sound of many 
 waters, like the sound of many voices, is composed of 
 separate parts ; and the many waters of the sea, 
 though one collection, are viewed separately by the 
 imagination. 
 
 But Mr. Ewing is quite unguarded, when he argues 
 that the phrase here refers to the springs. I agree 
 with him, that the account which he gives of the ori- 
 gin of the name ^non is the most probable. But I 
 say with Dr. Cox, that a small spring may give rise 
 to a large stream. Every one knows that lakes are 
 sometimes formed from springs. The piece of water 
 in which baptism was performed, would not be the 
 spring itself, but formed out of the spring. And in- 
 deed there is no spring which would not afford the 
 formation of a conveniency for baptism. Nor is there 
 a Hebraism in the word iEnon, more than there is in 
 the name of the city Wells. The many waters are not 
 the many springs, but the many springs may feed the 
 many waters. There is no reason to think that there 
 were any great rivers or lakes in iEnon ; but the Holy 
 Spirit tells us that there were in it many collections of 
 water fit for baptism, which is all we want to learn 
 from it. 
 
 I must now justify my observations with respect to 
 the use of u5aTa in classic use. " These waters are said 
 to be good for bathing," M\. p. 48. Hippocrates uses 
 this word in the plural, and frequently this very 
 phrase, as signifying rains. He uses the phrase *oXu 
 mSui^, referring to drinking. The phrase occurs in his 
 writings, both in the singular number, and in the plu- 
 ral, and in every instance with the distinction which 
 I have pointed out. It is needless to transcribe them : 
 But he uses the phrase *oXXa u5ara with respect to the 
 
 30 
 
230 THE MODE 
 
 waters of a city, as distinguished into several sepa- 
 rate kinds, p. 75. Arrian also uses the word vSu^ for 
 a collection of waters, for a river, &c. He uses the 
 plural also very frequently. He uses the phrase vSam 
 agiKtias for digging wells, p. 137. Here we see the dis- 
 tinction between a spring and a mere receptacle of 
 water. This was a small collection of water, but it 
 was not a spring. A spring is not dug. Kareirgaro- 
 lesSsudB '!f^os ou iroXXu u(Jari. " He encamped at a small 
 river," p. 138. I shall merely refer to the following 
 pages: 140, 141, 150, 163, 163, 164, 165, 170, 171, 
 172, 175, 186, 187, 191. In these, and very many 
 other passages of the same writers, the distinction be- 
 tween the use of the singular and plural of this word 
 would be seen. No invention can turn aside the tes- 
 timony of this passage of scripture, in favour of im- 
 mersion. It obviously assigns the conveniency of 
 baptizing, as the reason why John resided at this time 
 in Mnon. 
 
 Having considered the syntax and connexion of 
 the word iSaim^u, I shall next proceed to ascertain 
 how far any light can be obtained from the Scripture 
 explanations of the ordinance, and the occasional al- 
 lusions to it. It is a most providential circumstance, 
 that the mode of this ordinance is determined not only 
 by the word that designates it) — by its syntax, and 
 words in construction with it, — but also by direct ex- 
 planations. 
 
 Examination of the Evidence of Rom. vi. 3. 
 
 The Apostle Paul, having strongly and fully stated 
 salvation to the guiltiest of men, through grace reign- 
 ing through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
 Christ our Lord, anticipates, in the beginning of the 
 sixth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, the objec- 
 tion that, in every age, has been made to his doctrine : 
 " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound V 
 He refutes this objection by the fact, that from our 
 union with Christ by faith, we have died along with 
 
OF BAFTISM. 231 
 
 him. And that we have died along with Christ, he 
 proves from our baptism. "Know ye not, that so 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were 
 baptized into his death f Something is here supposed 
 to be implied in baptism, of which no Christian should 
 be ignorant ; and that thing is, that all who are bap- 
 tized, are by that ordinance exhibited as dead along 
 with Christ. To be baptized into Christ's death, is 
 not merely to be baptized into the faith of his death, 
 but of our own death with him. For if our death 
 along with him is not implied in being baptized into 
 his death, then this would be no proof at all of our 
 own death. But it is our own death with Christ, that 
 the apostle is proving by our baptism into Christ's 
 death. The third verse would be no proof of what is 
 asserted in the second verse, if our baptism into Christ 
 does not imply our death in his death. 
 
 " Therefore we are buried with him, by baptism 
 into death." As in Christ's death, we have died with 
 him ; so in baptism, we are figuratively put into the 
 grave along with him. Words cannot more plainly 
 teach any thing, than these words declare, that in 
 baptism we are buried with Christ. Baptism, then, 
 must not only contain a likeness to burial, but that 
 likeness is emblematical. There may be resemblance 
 between two objects, and to exhibit that likeness in 
 words, is a beauty in language. But if the likeness 
 is merely accidental, it is only a figure of speech, and 
 can teach nothing. To found an argument on such 
 ground, would be the extravagance of fanaticism 
 Homer often compares the falling of his heroes head 
 long from their chariots, to the diving of water-fowl. 
 But this resemblance is merely accidental, and the 
 victor had no intention of giving an emblem of diving; 
 nor could any argument be grounded on the likeness. 
 When a person dips in bathing, he might be said 
 to be buried in the water ; and there would be as 
 good a likeness in this to Christ's burial, even as in 
 baptism. But the likeness ia only accidental, not 
 
232 THE MODE 
 
 emblematical. No argument could be drawn from 
 this, to prove a dying with Christ. This would be a 
 metaphor. But baptism is not a figure of speech ; it 
 is an emblerhatical action. The likeness is intention- 
 al, and the action performed is symbolical. Were it 
 not so, the apostle might as legitimately argue from 
 the bath as from baptism. This distinction is self-evi- 
 dent, and we shall find that it is of decisive import- 
 ance. From not understanding it, some have said 
 that we have as good a right to find in the meaning 
 of baptism, something corresponding to planting, as 
 to burial. Planting is a metaphor ; there must then 
 be a likeness, but no emblematical import. 
 
 " That like as Christ was raised from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
 in newness of life." Here we see that baptism is an 
 emblem also of the new life of the Christian. He dies 
 with Christ to sin, he rises with him to a new life of 
 holiness. There must, then, be something in bap- 
 tism, that is calculated to be an emblem of a resur- 
 rection, as well as of a burial. Immersion is a mode 
 that answers both ; and immersion is the only mode 
 that can do so. 
 
 " For if we have been planted together in the like- 
 ness of his- death, we shall also be in the likeness of 
 his resurrection." In our baptism, then,^ we are em- 
 blematically laid in the grave with Christ, and we 
 also emblematically rise with him. It is designed to 
 point to our own resurrection, as well as the resurrection 
 of Christ. In baptism, we profess our faith in the 
 one as past, and in the other as future. What sim- 
 plicity, what beauty, what edification, is contained 
 in this ordinance ! How have all these been over- 
 whelmed by the traditions of men ! How clearly 
 does this ordinance present the truth that saves the 
 soul ! How admirably is it calculated to recall the 
 mind to a view of the ground of hope, that is calcu- 
 lated to silence unbelief ! How is it that a vile sinner 
 can escape the wrath of God, and obtain eternal life 1 
 
OF BAPTISM. 333 
 
 How is it that Christ's work is available for him? 
 Why, when Christ paid our debt, we ourselves have 
 paid our debt, for we are one with Christ. We have 
 died with Christ, and have risen with Christ ; Christ's 
 death is our death ; Christ's burial is our burial ; 
 Christ's resurrection is our resurrection ; Christ's sit- 
 ting in heavenly places, is our sitting in heavenly 
 places. 
 
 This clear testimony of the Holy Spirit, Mr.- E wing 
 endeavours to set aside, by a mode of criticism cer- 
 tainly the boldest and most violent that I recollect 
 ever to have seen from the pen of a man of God. 
 The grossness of the perversions of those who know 
 not Grod, is not astonishing. The extravagance even 
 of Neologists, may be accounted for. But that one 
 who knows and fears God, should take such liberties 
 with his word, is more than I was prepared to expect. 
 Indeed, there is nothing more extravagant in Neolo- 
 gism, than in the manner in which Mr. Ewing ex- 
 plains the burial of Christ. Had I been informed 
 merely of the result, without knowing any thing of 
 the author, I would have at once concluded that it 
 was the offspring of Neology. But the character of 
 Mr. Ewing, as well as the document itself, gives full 
 evidence that it is the work of sincerity. Indeed, while 
 I must say that it is one of the most mischievous per- 
 versions of Scripture that I have ever met from the 
 hand of a Christian, I am fully convinced that the 
 author considers that he has conferred an important 
 benefit on the world, by his discovery in criticism. 
 His wild conclusions are speciously drawn from pre- 
 mises hastily adopted, and utterly unsound. 
 
 He begins by saying, that " the great, and, as it 
 appears to me, the only original reason why baptism 
 has been thought to imply immersion, is the expres- 
 sion which occurs in Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12." I 
 shall not answer for the dead, but for my own part, 
 the word by which the ordinance is designated, is per- 
 fectly sufficient for me, without a particle of evidence. 
 
234 THE MODE 
 
 from any other quarter. Yet 1 am disposed to set as 
 great a value upon the evidence of these passages, as 
 any writer can do. I value the evidence of these 
 passages so highly, that I look on them as perfectly 
 decisive. They contain God's own explanation of 
 his own ordinance. And in this, I call upon my un- 
 learned brethren to admire the divine wisdom. They 
 do not understand the original, and the adoption of 
 the words baptize and baptism can teach them nothing. 
 Translators by adopting the Greek word, have con- 
 trived to hide the meaning from the unlearned. But 
 the evidence of the passages in question, cannot be 
 hid, and it is obvious to the most unlearned. The 
 Spirit of God has, by this explanation, enabled them 
 to judge for themselves in this matter. While the 
 learned are fighting about /3a*rig'w, and certain Greek 
 prepositions, let the unlearned turn to Rom. vi. 4, and 
 Col. ii. 12, &c. 
 
 Mr. Ewing, speaking of the reasoning of the Apos- 
 tle in this passage, says : " He then infers, that since 
 baptism has so immediate a reference to the death of 
 Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also 
 •with his resurrection ; and that, as in the former 
 view, it teaches the regenerated the abandoning of the 
 old life of sin, so, in the latter, it equally teaches them 
 the habitual, increasing, and permanent pursuit and 
 progress of the new life of righteousness." By no 
 means, Mr. Ewing. This inference is not legitimate. 
 Baptism might have a reference to burial, without 
 being by consequence connected with his resurrec- 
 tion. Has not the Lord's Supper an immediate em- 
 blematical reference to Christ's death, without any 
 emblematical reference to his resurrection ? These 
 two things are quite distinct ; and it is possible for 
 an ordinance to represent the one, without represent- 
 ing the other. The Lord's day is a memorial of 
 Christ's resurrection, but is no emblem of his burial. 
 If there was nothing in baptism that is fitted to be 
 an emblem of resurrection, baptism does not be- 
 
OF BAPTISM. 235 
 
 come an emblem of resurrection by consequence from 
 being an emblem of burial. But baptism is here 
 explained as an emblem of resurrection, as well 
 as of burial ; there must, therefore, be something 
 in the emblem, that will correspond to resurrection 
 as well as to burial. There is such a thing in im- 
 mersion, but there is no such thing in pouring ; nor is 
 there any such thing in applying water as an emblem 
 of sepulchral rites. This, then, overturns Mr. Ewing's 
 system altogether. He confesses virtually in this 
 quotation, that the Apostle infers that baptism is con- 
 nected with the resurrection. If so, as there is no- 
 thing in sepulchral rites, that is, in washing and em- 
 balming the dead, that corresponds to resurrection, 
 washing and embalming the dead cannot be the bu- 
 rial referred to, — and pouring water as an emblem of 
 washing and embalming the dead, cannot be bap- 
 tism. Nothing can be more decisive than this. In- 
 deed, so far from arguing that resurrection must be 
 implied in baptism, because that baptism represents 
 Christ as dead, we could not know that either death 
 or resurrection was referred to in that ordinance, had 
 not inspiration given the information. It is possible 
 that an ordinance, performed either by immersion or 
 pouring, might have had no instruction in mode. The 
 instruction might have been all in the water. That 
 there is any meaning in the mode, we learn merely 
 from the inspired explanation. Here Mr. Ewing 
 takes the half of his edification in this ordinance, from 
 a source that does not- contain any thing on the sub- 
 ject. There is nothing in the emblem, according to 
 his view of it, that corresponds to a new life or resur- 
 rection. Has washing the dead any likeness to resur- 
 rection 1 Have sepulchral rites, or embalming, any 
 likeness to resurrection ] Mr. Ewing was so tender 
 in the conscience, that he scrupled to give the name 
 to this ordinance from immersion, if it also denoted 
 emersion, though these two things are necessarily con- 
 nected, and both explained as belonging to the ordi- 
 
THE MODE 
 
 nance. He does not scruple to make the emblem of 
 death, an emblem of life by consequence. 
 
 " It is a common remark," says Mr. Ewing, " that 
 the Apostle is treating in this passage, not of the form 
 of baptism, but of its object, its design, and its actual 
 effects." Let its form be what it may, this passage 
 treats of its object as known from its form. " On 
 this account," says he, " many are of opinion that no 
 inference can be drawn fiom his language, concerning 
 the form of baptism at all." No inference is neces- 
 sary. The Apostle has drawn the inference himself. 
 We could not have drawn the inference which the 
 Apostle has drawn. Had not the Apostle explained 
 this ordinance, we would have had no right to do so. 
 But even if baptism had not here been explained as a 
 symbolical burial, — had it been alluded to as a burial 
 merely in metaphorical language, it would have beau 
 equally decisive of form, though not of meaning. If 
 baptism is a burial merely by a figure of speech, there 
 must be a likeness between baptism and burial, to 
 justify that figure. 
 
 " Perhaps," says, Mr. Ewing, " it would be more 
 correct to say, that he is here treating of the connex- 
 ion between the justification and the sanctification of 
 Christians." True — ^but he is treating of these things 
 as they are implied in baptism. He is treating also 
 of more. He incidentally treats of the resurrection 
 of believers as implied in their baptism. " And that 
 in doing so," says Mr. Ewing, " he makes three dis- 
 tinct allusions, to baptism, to grafting, to crucifixion." 
 He makes no allusion to grafting at all ; and what- 
 ever is the meaning of the phrase planted together, it 
 refers to baptism. Crucifixion does not allude to bap- 
 tism. 
 
 We come now to the examination of Mr. Ewing's 
 account of "the Scriptural meaning of 'being buri- 
 ed.' " Here we will find the mysteries of the Critical 
 art. By a learned and laborious process, Mr. Ewing 
 endeavours to prove that Christ was not perfectly bu- 
 
OP BAPTISM. 237 
 
 ried at all ; and that burial in Scripture is not burial, 
 but washing or embalming the dead. Now, on the 
 very face of this allegation it contains its own con- 
 demnation. Burying, in the Scripture meaning-, must 
 be the same as burying in the common meaning, 
 otherwise the Scriptures are not a revelation. This 
 is a canon — a canon which is self-evident. If the 
 Scriptures do not use words in the sense in which they 
 will be understood by those who speak the language, 
 they do not instruct, but mislead. I overturn the 
 whole system, then, by taking away the foundation 
 on which it rests. It assumes what is not true in any 
 instance. 
 
 " By burying," says Mr Ewing, " we commonly 
 mean the lowering of the dead body into the grave, 
 covering it with earth, and so leaving it under 
 ground." This, indeed, is in general our way of bu- 
 rying. But we would apply the term to burying in 
 any way. We would say that a person was buried in 
 a vault, where he would lie exactly as Christ lay, — 
 without lowering, without a covering of mould, &c. 
 If a person was deposited in all respects as Christ 
 was deposited in the tomb, we would say thai he was 
 buried. The difference is merely in circumstances ; 
 the things are essentially the same. Besides, the im- 
 mersion of a believer, is equally suited to all kinds of 
 burial. No part of the figure depends on any peculiar- 
 ity in age or nation. 
 
 " In Scripture," says Mr. Ewing, " to bury, not 
 only includes all the preparations of the body for in- 
 terment, but is the expression used in cases where our 
 method of interment was not practised, where no in- 
 terment followed at the time, and where no final in- 
 terment followed at all." Neither in Scripture nor 
 any where else, is the word used for preparatory rites 
 alone, or where the body was not truly and properly 
 interred. 
 
 What does Mr. Ewing mean by final interment 1 
 Does he mean that Christ was not finally interred, 
 
238 THE MODE 
 
 because he rose on the third day % Then none of us 
 shall be finally interred ; for we shall all rise again. 
 Does he mean that the disciples did not consider him 
 as truly interred, and that they designed to bury him 
 better 1 They had no such design. They intended 
 to cover him with more spices, but not to take him 
 from the place where he was buried. He was as 
 truly buried as if he had been in the ground till the 
 resurrection. What does Mr. Ewing mean 1 Does 
 he deny that Christ was truly buried 1 If he was not 
 buried, the Scriptures are false. And if he was truly 
 buried, though he had lain but a moment, our baptism 
 may be an emblem of his burial. We lie in the 
 water, as Dr. Cox has remarked, a still shorter time 
 than he^lay in the grave. Was he not in the sepul- 
 chre 1 Does not prophecy speak of his grave ] 
 
 But it seems Mr. Ewing has Scripture proofs for 
 the meaning that he assigns to burial. Let us then 
 take a look at these. In Gen. i. 26. where the He- 
 brew says they embalmed Joseph, " the Septuagint," 
 says Mr. Ewing, " has ste4^av, they buried him." Very 
 true. But does this imply, that by eda^av the transla- 
 tors understood embalming 1 No such thing. Had 
 they used the word in this sense, they could not have 
 been understood by those who spoke the Greek lan- 
 guage. This translation is not a proof either that the 
 Septuagint understood embalming to be the meaning of 
 burial, or that they did not understand the true mean- 
 ing of the original. It is only proof of what occurs in 
 this translation a thousand times, and what occasion- 
 ally occurs in every translation, namely, careless and 
 loose rendering. Their text, said he, was embalmed : 
 they content themselves with saying, he was buried. 
 
 " The rites of burial were," says Mr. Ewing, " from 
 the very commencement, a proof that the attending 
 friends had ascertained the fact of the decease." In- 
 deed, it is obvious enough, that they would not com- 
 mence these rites till after the death of the person ; 
 but these rites never were designed as proof of this. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 239 
 
 Above all, the Scriptures do not require such a mode 
 of ascertaining the fact of decease. He adds, " and 
 that among all believers of revelation, the zeal and 
 solemnity with which these rites have ever been per- 
 formed, ought to be considered as the effect, not 
 merely of personal attachment, but of religious princi- 
 ple, and particularly of the hope that God will raise 
 the dead." Whatever may have been the origin of 
 these rites, nothing can be more certain than that 
 they were used by persons who had no notion of re- 
 surrection, — nay, by many who denied it. Above all, 
 these rites were not a divine appointment for remind- 
 ing of the resurrection. Nothing can be built on this. 
 
 " It is our happiness to know," says Mr. Ewing, 
 " that our blessed Saviour never was finally interred." 
 By finally interred here, Mr. Ewing must mean that 
 he was raised again, and did not lie like the other 
 dead. For, as far as concerns our salvation and com- 
 fort, he might as well have been kept in a common 
 grave for the period of three days, as have been bu- 
 ried in a rock. But may he not have been truly bu- 
 ried, though he had risen in a moment after being 
 deposited 1 
 
 " Preparations of his body for burial were made," 
 says Mr. Ewing, " both by anticipation, and after the 
 event of his death had taken place. In both cases, 
 they are called ' his burial.' " How can Mr. Ewing 
 say so ]. The preparatory rites are never called burial. 
 The passages referred to have not the smallest appear- 
 ance of confounding embalming with burying. John 
 xii. 3. represents Mary not as burying our Lord by the 
 act of anointing him, but as having anointed him as 
 preparatory for burial. She anointed him by anticipa- 
 tion ; but she did not bury him by anticipation. Is it 
 said that she buried him ? The woman, Mat. xxvi. 
 1 2, is represented as doing what she did, not to bury 
 him, but to embalm him, or prepare him for burial. 
 She did to him, when alive, what is usually done to 
 persons after death. She embalmed him by antici- 
 
240 THE MODE 
 
 patioM. Evraqjia^u is used for embalming, but iaifru 
 never. 
 
 " After our Lord had given up the Ghost," says 
 Mr. Ewing, "the rites of burial were renewed by Jo- 
 seph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus." This was 
 strictly and properly the embalming. But is this call- 
 ed a burial 1 Had they done nothing but this, Jesus 
 would not have been buried; and the Scriptures would 
 not have beerj fulfilled. He adds, " and were intend- 
 ed to have been finished by the women which came 
 up with our Lord," &.e. These rites, then, were not 
 finished ; a"nd if they are burial, Jesus was not buried. 
 
 Mr. Ewing, then, has utterly failed in his attempt 
 to prove, that in Scripture, preparatory rites are call- 
 ed burial: Not one of his examples have a shadow of 
 proof. I will now make some general remarks on 
 this strange opinion. 
 
 First, The word SairTu signifies to bury, and is ne- 
 ver applied exclusively to preparatory rites. This is 
 as true, with respect to Scripture use, as it is with res- 
 pect to the use of the classics. Mr. Ewing gives a 
 meaning to this word, not confirmed by use, but mere- 
 ly to suit his purpose. In like manner rfuv^a^Tu, the 
 word here used, signifies to bury one thing or person 
 with another, — never to embalm one thing with ano- 
 ther. The opinion, then, does not deserve even a 
 hearing. 
 
 Secondly, ©a*T-u applies to all kinds of burial. No 
 doubt, originally, in all countries, burial was by dig- 
 ging 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 enlarg- 
 ing the meaning of words, may be exemplified in a 
 thousand words. The idea that is common to all bu- 
 rying, is that of covering the dead, or surrounding them 
 with something to keep them from violation. It is 
 
OP BAPTISM. 241 
 
 quite a waste of time, then, for Mr. Ewing to discuss 
 the situation and peculiarities of our Lord's sepulchre. 
 He was buried 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 distin- 
 guished as quite different things. Josephus, speak- 
 ing of the magnificent manner in which Herod bu- 
 ried Aristobulus, says, " And as for his funeral, that 
 he took care should be very magnificent, by making 
 great preparation of a sepulchre to lay his body in, 
 and providing a great quantity of spices, and burying 
 many ornaments with him," &c Here the embalm- 
 ing and the burying are distinguished. It was the 
 laying of him in the sepulchre {6i>ms) that was the 
 burial. It may be noted, also, that here is a magnifi- 
 cent sepulchre, built as a house for the dead, in which 
 the corpse lay on a bier or couch, (xXfvij ;) yet the per- 
 son is said to be buried. If Christ was not truly bu- 
 ried, Aristobulus was not truly buried. We have here, 
 also, not only (fuv^a^Tw, but (fvyx.a.TaAa'KTu. The orna- 
 ments that were buried together with Aristobulus, 
 were deposited in the tomb with him, — not washed 
 along with him by preparatory rites. These orna- 
 ments were buried down with him, although he was 
 laid, like Christ, in a sepulchre above ground. Yet 
 this is as truly burying as the common way of bury- 
 ing ; though the sepulchre should have been on the 
 top of the highest mountain in the world, the corpse 
 is buried under a covering, as truly as if it were de- 
 posited in the centre of the earth. 
 
 Moschus, describing a funeral, represents the bu- 
 rial, KOfrsAw^oM, as taking place after all the rites were 
 finished, Meg. 1. 35. 
 
 Patroclus, notwithstanding all the embalming he 
 received, appears to his friend Achilles, and calls for 
 burial, ©cmte (ji.s, " bury me. " 
 
 The dead body of Hector was washed regularly by 
 the maids of Achilles, yet it was not buried till long after. 
 
 31 
 
242 THE MODE 
 
 The passage produced by Dr. Cox from Herodotus, 
 is most decisive. The embalming is designated by 
 fl-a^ijfsuu, the burying by Sairru. 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 burying? But Mr. 
 Ewing says, that the body of Christ " was never finally 
 deposited in the tomb ; but, after being wound up with 
 about an hundred pounds weight of spices," &c. 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 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 burying of Jesus, seeing he was actually laid in the 
 sepulchre? No fancy can be wilder than this. 
 
 Fourthly, The representations of Scripture suppose 
 Jesus to have been truly buried. " For as Jonas was 
 three days and three nights in the whale's belly ; so 
 shall 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 1 Besides, this removes all Mr. Swing'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 
 
OF BAPTISM. 343 
 
 here as well as if he had been buried in a pit at the 
 bottom of a valley. Again, Christ's being buried, is 
 taught as a part of the gospel, 1 Cor. xv. 1. To al- 
 lege, then, that he was not truly buried, is to call in 
 question the truth of the gospel. " Moreover, bre- 
 thren, 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 vaiif . 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, accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures." 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 from what ] 
 The third day from his being buried. He is here 
 considered as being three days buried, for he rose on 
 the third day from his being buried. His resurrection 
 here, is also opposed to his being buried ; it must then 
 be burying, in the proper sense of the word. 
 
 Fifthly, The very basis of this doctrine is a mere 
 assumption, namely, that the dead body of Jesus was 
 washed. It is not in evidence that he was washed 
 at all ; and nothing can be deduced from a mere sup- 
 position. 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 in- 
 formation. It is not necessary that the dead body of 
 Jesus should receive all the usual rites, nor any of 
 them, except those that prophecy foretold. The 
 proof, then, that it was usual to wash the dead, 
 is no proof that Jesus was washed. Indeed, I per- 
 fectly agree with Dr. Cox, that it is probable Jesus 
 was not washed at all. So far as the history goes, 
 
S44 THE MODE 
 
 this is the obvious conclusion. I acknowledge, in- 
 deed, 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 apocryphal washing, of no 
 more authority than the story of Tobit and his dog, 
 or of Bel and the Dragon. I admit no argument but 
 what is founded either on Scripture, or self-evident 
 truth. Had Mr. Ewing been obviating a diiBculty, 
 — had he been proving that some part of Scripture 
 asserts that the dead body of Jesus was washed, and had 
 any one alleged the silence of the history as evidence 
 of the contrary, I would take part with Mr. Ewing. 
 The silence of history is not to be alleged against 
 proof. To remove a diflScuIty, 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 was to bury." No, Mr. Ewing, 
 we are not told this. Had this been said, it would 
 settle the question ; for, undoubtedly, it was the man- 
 ner 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 would have been done. But there is no 
 
OF BAPTISM. 345 
 
 necessity to fulfil national customs. The burying of 
 Jesus with his blood unwashed, marred not his sacri- 
 fice, nor left any prophecy unfuMUed. It was custom- 
 ary for all friends to escort the body to the grave ; it 
 was customary to keep the corpse some time after 
 death, yet Jesus was carried immediately to the grave 
 without any funeral pomp. 
 
 Sixthly. Is it not above all things absurd to sup- 
 pose, 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 1 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 1 How is it that the spices are 
 mentioned, yet the washing, which in Mr. Ewing's 
 view, was the principal thing, omitted 1 
 
 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 1 Was there not a 
 word to signify embalming 1 Why then use a word 
 that denotes only a part of the thing ? Can he pro- 
 duce any instance to give authority to such a suppo- 
 sition ? Was it usual to denote the whole process of 
 embalming by the word wash ? If not, why does Mr. 
 Ewing make the arbitrary supposition ? Again, the 
 washing was no part of the embalming. It was a 
 part of the rites of burying, and as such, when em- 
 balming 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 impossible to 
 designate embalming by washing. This would have 
 implied, that all who were washed were embalmed ; 
 whereas multitudes were washed who were not em- 
 balmed. 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 
 connot stand for embalming, if many who were 
 washed were not embalmed. 
 31* 
 
246 . THE MODE 
 
 Eighthly, This theory makes baptism an emblem 
 of the embalming 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 im- 
 mersion. From the days of John the Baptist to the 
 present hour, was ever such a thing heard of, but 
 from Mr. Ewing 1 If this is true, there has not been 
 one properly baptized till the time of the author. For 
 this discovery, Mr. Ewing is undoubtedly entitled to 
 a claim of originality. 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 ordi- 
 nance 1 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 fu- 
 neral. No popish ordinance can vie with this ordi- 
 nance of Mr. Ewing, in fertility of mysteries. 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 lam 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 baptism, but she has a corresponding 
 multitude of emblems. The oil, and the spittle, and 
 the breathing, &c. &c. entitle her to enlarge the mean- 
 ing of her ordinance. But Mr. Ewing, under the 
 outward form of one handful of water, contrives to 
 couch the most discordant meanings. 
 
 But if washing stands for embalming as a part for 
 the whole, then it cannot, in this situation, stand sim- 
 ply 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, 
 fw these were the principal things in the embalming. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 247 
 
 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 get- 
 ting rid of true burying, by substituting the embalm- 
 ing in its place. Then, when this is eflfected, as he 
 has no need of embalming, but finds it rather cum- 
 bersome, he contrives to dismiss it, retaining only the 
 part that fits him. Washing is brought in only in the 
 right of embalming, but whenever it pops its head into 
 this situation, it takes care to displace its principal. 
 Accordingly, washing is the only thing that is made 
 emblematical. The oil and spices have no mystery. 
 Is not this unjust to the chief parts of the embalming 1 
 Surely the anointing ought to have a place in bap- 
 tism, 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 considered in baptism, which is an 
 emblem of embalming. The Church of Rome will 
 thank Mr. Ewing for the oil, which he does not seena 
 forward to use, but the spices, by a very little inge- 
 nuity, might serve his system effectually. As em- 
 balming preserves the body from putrefaction, so bap- 
 tism may not only be an emblem of the washing of a 
 corpse, but of the resurrection. 
 
 J^Tinthly, Mr. Ewing complains of the want of like- 
 ness 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 embalm- 
 ing. 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 want of like- 
 ness 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 re- 
 marked, 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. 
 
248 THE MODE 
 
 The former could not be known to be a likeness of 
 something else, if it were not explained to be such. 
 The latter is, by its very appearance, known to be an 
 emblem. The sacrifices of the Jewish law, could not, 
 from mere external appearance, have been known to 
 represent the death of Christ. But the dramatic bu- 
 rying 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 em- 
 blem is in the actual state of the body as being co- 
 vered with the wafer. The likeness to the resurrec- 
 tion 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 killing the sacrifice and the manner of Christ's 
 death. There was no likeness betweea 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 em- 
 blem 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 be- 
 lievers 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 immersion and 
 burying in any manner, there is a likeness. It is no- 
 thing 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. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 249 
 
 that it must have its reference to baptism. It might 
 be a new figure, but the manner of introducing it, evi- 
 dently shows that it, equally with burying, refers to 
 baptism. " For if we have been planted together in 
 the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the like- 
 ness 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 show that we are dead with Christ, 
 leaving the subject of baptism. But having shown 
 the burial of the Christian in baptism, he goes on to 
 show that resurrection is equally important. If we 
 have been buried with Christ, so shall we rise with 
 him. Had he left the subject of baptism, and intro- 
 duced 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 ia 
 the meaning of Cuficpuroi, it must have a reference 
 to baptism. 
 
 Mr. Ewing thinks that <fvfi^\i7oi here signifies grafted, 
 and of course can have no likeness to baptism. On 
 the contrary, for this very reason 1 say that it cannot 
 signify grafting, because it is expressly said, that we 
 have been rfufJwpuToi in the likeness of Christ's death. If, 
 then, there is in grafting no likeness to death, the word 
 tfuficpuTo) cannot mean grafting. Whatever is the mean- 
 ing of (fiifAfpuToi, it must suit the supposition of a likeness 
 to death. Even if this word had no reference to bap- 
 tism, it must refer to a likeness of death. We have 
 been tfufji/^urot in the likeness of his death. 
 
 But independently of the connexion altogether, I 
 maintain that the word rfujAipuToi does not signify grafted. 
 Mr. Ewing produces no authority from use to esta- 
 blish this meaning. When it refers to trees, it does 
 not designate the operation of grafting, or of inserting a 
 part of one into another ; but to the planting of trees 
 in the same bed. The trees of a grove are tfujAipuTO. 
 
350 THE MODE 
 
 I 
 
 Grafting is, indeed, one of the figures employed to re- 
 present the union of Christ and his people, and some 
 excellent observations on this subject are contained in 
 Mr. E wing's dissertation on this verse. But they 
 have no application to this subject. A house, a tem- 
 ple, the human body, the husband and wife, are all 
 figures of this union. But they are not the fig'ures 
 used here. No more is grafting. It is a fine figure in 
 its own place ; but it has no likeness to death, and 
 therefore has nothing to do with baptism. If the 
 allusion is here to planting, as it is expressly said to 
 have a likeness to death, and refers to baptism, the 
 resemblance must be found in the burying of the roots 
 of the plants. The likeness is sufiiciently obvious to 
 justify a metaphor. I have no objection to the suppo- 
 sition of this figure in this place, from the weakness 
 of likeness. Yet I am of opinion on other ground, 
 theit neiihev planting nor grafting are implied here. In 
 grafting there is no Ukeness, either to burial or resur- 
 rection ; and though planting has a likeness to the 
 former, it has not to the latter. But it is evident that 
 the passage connects tfufiiipuToi as well with the resur- 
 rection, as with the burial. Now, in classical use the 
 word rfufjiipuToi signifies the closest union of any kind — 
 incorporated, growing together, united, joined with, &c. 
 Hippocrates uses it with respect to the healing of a 
 wound, when the lips of the wound again coalesce. 
 He says also, that a nerve when cut, or a bone broken, 
 &c. ou tfufxipusTai, " do not coalesce." Here|we see it 
 denotes the most intimate union, so as to be denied to 
 the union that takes place between the different parts 
 of a broken bone. A glutinous plant, also, that causes 
 things to adhere as one body, takes its name from this 
 word. It might, I think, be appUed to express the 
 growing together of the graft and the tree,^but this 
 would be the efiect or consequence of grafting, 
 and not the operation itself. It denotes, in short, 
 the closest union with respect to things indiscrimi- 
 nately. There is no need, then, to bring either 
 
OP BAPTISM. 251 
 
 planting or grafting out of the passage ; and as neither 
 of them resembles a resurrection, they should be re- 
 jected. When we translate the passage, " For if we 
 have become one with him, or have been joined with 
 him in the likeness of his death," we not only suit the 
 connexion to both death and resurrection, but we take 
 the word rfufitpuToi in its most common acceptation. 
 
 Mr. E wing's attempt, then, to find in pouring a 
 handful of water on the face, a likeness to the burial 
 of Christ, has utterly failed. It is as forced as any 
 thing that the wildest imagination ever conceived. 
 Nothing but the necessity of a favourite system could 
 send a man on such a perilous expedition. It is most 
 astonishing, that any man who allows that Jesus 
 Christ lay three days in the tomb, should attempt to 
 find his burial in the washing or embalming of his body. 
 
 This attempt of Mr. Ewing to force a likeness be- 
 tween baptism and the rites of embalming, and to 
 make the burial of Christ, not his being laid in the 
 sepulchre, but his being washed as a corpse, is of great 
 importance as a document on this subject. It testifies 
 in the strongest manner, that in Mr. Ewing's judg- 
 ment, th&jevidence from Rom. vi. 3, and Col. ii. 12, 
 that baptism contains a likeness to burial, is so obvi- 
 ous, that he could see no way to explain these passa- 
 ges otherwise. Had any other explanation seemed 
 to him possible, certainly he would not have had re- 
 course to so strange a thought, as that Christ's burial 
 was not his interment, and that bury in the Scriptures 
 relates to rites preparatory to -interment. It is self- 
 evident, that no man would have fled to such a re- 
 fuge, who could have found any other. I appeal to 
 common sense for the truth of this observation. Mr. 
 Ewing not only had no temptation to find a likeness 
 to burial in these passages, but his cause would have 
 been much better served, could he have proved that 
 these passages contain no such likeness. Since, then, 
 in such circumstances he has confessed a likeness, and 
 since to divert this likeness to another object, he was 
 
253 THE MODE 
 
 obliged to have recourse to so violent an expedient, 
 we have a right to say, not only that his judgment is 
 in favour of likeness, but that all his ingenuity could 
 not explain the passages in a manner satisfactory to 
 himself, without the supposition of likeness. 
 
 But what Mr. Ewing's intrepidity and ingenuity 
 did not attempt, Dr. Wardlaw has undertaken. He 
 explains the passages on the supposition that baptism 
 has no likeness to burial in any sense. Now, in this 
 we have Dr. Wardlaw's judgment virtually but clear- 
 ly pronounced, that Mr. Ewing's attempt is a failure. 
 We have a right then to say, that Mr. Ewing's expla- 
 nation of these passages is unsatisfactory to the most 
 sagacious of his own party. But Dr. Wardlaw's opi- 
 nion of the insufficiency of Mr. Ewing's explanation 
 has the more value, ^hen it is considered, that by re- 
 fusing to adopt it, he is obliged to have recourse to an 
 expedient as violent, and as wild, as that of Mr. Ew- 
 ing's itself. To assert that there is here no likeness 
 implied between baptism and burial, does as great vio- 
 lence to language as can easily be conceived. If, 
 therefore, Dr. Wardlaw is so convinced of the insuffi- 
 ciency of Mr. Ewing's explanation, that h* ventures 
 on one so extravagant, his opinion of Mr. Ewing's 
 failure is entitled to the greater weight. It was his 
 interest to coincide with Mr. Ewing's explanation, 
 had he conceived that it was at all tenable. He 
 would not have ventured to come ashore upon a 
 plank, had he not found Mr. Ewing's leaky boat sink- 
 ing under him. Dr. Wardlaw complains of the mode 
 of controversy that argues from discrepancies between 
 those on the same side. I admit that the argument 
 may be abused. But if he complain of my argument 
 on this point, he does not see its bearing. Persons on 
 the same side of a controversy, may differ with re- 
 spect to the explanation of many passages, without 
 any detriment to their common cause. But the dif- 
 ference here is about a thing which must in itself be 
 obvious, namely, whether a certain phrase implies tlie 
 
OF BAPTISM. 253 
 
 likeness of one thing to another. About this there 
 cannot in reaUty be a ground for controversy among 
 those who understand the words. 
 
 The difference, also, is of such a nature, that each 
 must look on the other as giving up the common 
 cause. As Mr. Ewing is so fully convinced that it is 
 impossible to deface the likeness, he must look upon 
 those who do not agree with him in finding it in pre- 
 paratory rites, as giving up the passage to his oppo' 
 nents. As Dr. Wardlaw cannot explain the passages 
 on the supposition of likeness without admitting im- 
 mersion, he must look upon those who admit likeness, 
 as yielding the doctrine in debate. On the other 
 hand, we may differ about the meaning of (fufjwpuToi, 
 without the least danger to our common cause. One 
 may say it is "planted together," another that it is 
 "joined together" without overturning the common 
 doctrine. My argument is founded, also, on the ex- 
 travagancies to which each of these writers is obliged 
 to have recourse, in olrder to defend his opinion. Each 
 of them must have strong reason of dissatisfaction 
 with the opinion of the other, when, rather than em- 
 brace it, he has recourse to an opposite point of extra* 
 vagance. One sees likeness so clearly, that rather 
 than deny it, he endeavours to find it where sobriety 
 of judgment never could look for it. The other sees 
 the extravagance of this attempt so clearly, that, ra- 
 ther than adopt it, he will deny that the passages con* 
 tain any likeness. 
 
 But let us now take a glance at the process of eject- 
 ment by which Dr. Wardlaw has removed from these 
 passages the idea of likeness. " To be 'baptized into 
 Christ,' " says he, "is to be baptized into the faith of 
 him as the Messiah," &c. And again, " The simple 
 meaning of the expression evidently is, that by being 
 baptized into the faith of his death, as the death of 
 our surety and substitute, we become partakers with 
 him in it." Now, what is here said to be evidently 
 the simple meaning of this expresssion, is evidently 
 
 22 
 
354 THE MODE 
 
 not its meaning at all. We do not become partakers 
 in the death of Christ, by being baptized into the 
 faith of his death. We become partakers in the 
 death of Christ, by faith, before baptism, and with- 
 out baptism ; and would have been equally so, had 
 baptism never been instituted. In baptism, this 
 participation with Christ is exhibited in figure, just as 
 we are said to wash away our sins in baptism. Sins 
 are washed away by faith in the blood of Christ, but 
 they are symbolically washed away in baptism. Just 
 so we become partakers in the death of Christ the 
 moment we believe ; in baptism, this participation is 
 exhibited by a symbol. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw, by this mode of interpretation, con- 
 sideis faith in Christ's death, and baptism into his death, 
 as equivalent expressions. But to be "baptized into 
 his death," is more than to " believe in his death." 
 Baptism into his death, not only imports that we be- 
 lieve in him as our substitute, but marks our death in 
 his death. To be baptized into his death, is the same 
 as to be buried into death. In reality we die with 
 Christ the moment we believe ; but this is not ex- 
 pressed by the phrase, faith in Christ's death. It is 
 learned from other parts of the Scriptures. Now, 
 herein lies the importance of the mode of baptism. It 
 marks, in a figure, the way in which we become par- 
 takers in the benefits of Christ's death. This is by 
 our being, by a divine constitution, one with him. 
 His death is a proper atonement for us, because we 
 die with him, so that in reality his death is ours. This 
 is not necessary in all cases of substitution. To have 
 a debt discharged by another, there is no necessity to 
 become one with him. But it is not so in crime. 
 Justice is not satisfied, except the criminal himself 
 suffers. And by the divine constitution, that makes 
 all believers one with Christ, they are all considered 
 as having died with him. The criminals have suf- 
 fered, since he who suffered was one with them. 
 Baptism, then, marks this circumstance. It shows. 
 
OF BAPTISM. 265 
 
 in a figure, that union with Christ in his death, burial, 
 and resurrection, which we have by faith. 
 
 According to Dr. Wardlaw's way of explaining 
 these passages, there was no occasion to mention bap- 
 tism at all. If the Apostle is-epeaking of the real 
 oneness with Christ, without considering it as exhi- 
 bited in a figure, he might ds well have said, " Know 
 ye not, that as many as have believed in Christ's 
 death, have died along with him 1" This would ex- 
 press all that Dr. Wardlaw takes out of the passage ; 
 and it would express it definitely. Why, then, does 
 the Apostle bring in baptism at all 1 Again, if baptism 
 implies burial only as implying faith in Christ's death, 
 then the Lord's Supper, or any thing that implies 
 faith might have been referred to on this occasion, as 
 well as baptism. We might as well say that we are 
 buried by the Lord's Supper as buried by baptism. 
 We might as well say that we are crucified by bap- 
 tism. But such phraseology is never used in the 
 Scriptures. The only reason, then, that baptism is 
 here brought forward at all, must be that it is a figure 
 of burial. 
 
 That baptism has a likeness to death, is put beyond 
 question in this passage, from the phrase, buried with 
 him through baptism into death. Here is a burial by or 
 through the means of baptism. What buries us into 
 death? It is baptism. But the death into which bap- 
 tism buries us, must be a figurative death. It is faith 
 that buries us truly into Christ's death. But the death 
 and burial here spoken of, are effected, not by faith, 
 but by baptism. This phrase refutes Dr. Wardlaw's 
 assertion, that though a likeness might be fancied be-? 
 tween immersion and burial, no likeriess to death can 
 be found in it. The phrase, buried by baptism into 
 death, imports that we die with Christ in baptism, as 
 well as we are buried with him. Nay, it is by burial 
 we die. We are supposed to be buried into death. 
 And the figure is well fitted for this purpose. To im- 
 nterse a, living man, affords an emblem of death as 
 
356 THE MODE 
 
 well as of burial. The baptized person dies under the 
 water, and for a moment lies buried with Christ. 
 Christ's own death was spoken of under the figure of 
 a baptism. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw, indeed, asserts that the phrase, buried 
 with him by baptism into his death, merely directs the 
 attention to that into which they were baptized. But the 
 passage says nothing of the doctrine into which they 
 were baptized, in any other way than as it is con- 
 tained in the figure. As I observed before, it is by 
 baptism, and not by faith, they are here said to be bu- 
 ried ; and, therefore, the burial must be a figurative 
 burial. The phrase in Col. ii. 12, is different, but 
 equally express. It is buried with him in baptism. 
 This burial, then, takes place, not in believing, but in 
 baptism. We are buried with him when we are bap- 
 tized, and by the act of baptizing. The two express 
 sions, when taken together, make the thing more de- 
 finite. One of them expresses that it is in baptism 
 that we are buried ; the other, that it is by baptism 
 that we are buried. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw speaks of this passage, as containing 
 " a beautiful illustration of the spiritual connexion of 
 believers with Christ." Now, how is this an illustra-. 
 tration, if it is not by containuig a likeness to the 
 thing illustrated 1 Is it not absurd to speak of illus- 
 trating by things in which there is no resemblance to 
 the principal object] Dr. Wardlaw cannot consistently 
 look on this as an illustration. He sets out with sup- 
 posing, that the passage refers merely to the partici- 
 pation that believers have in Christ's death, burial, and 
 resurrection, by faith, without any likeness to these 
 things in baptism. Now, if this is the ease, death, 
 burial, and resurrection, are here not an illustration of 
 connexion, but an exemplification of connexion. By 
 calling these things an illustration, the author gives 
 up his doctrine. Indeed these things are so obviously 
 an illustration — the passage so evidently considers 
 death, burial, and resurrection, as figurative, that it is 
 
OP BAPTISM. 257 
 
 not easy even for the most determined enemy of im- 
 mersion to speak much about the passage, without 
 using language that admits this. 
 
 " To be dead with Christ," says Dr. Wardlaw, " and 
 to be buried with Christ, are the same things." Cer- 
 tainly not. Death is different from burial, though bu- 
 rial includes death. Were they not different, they 
 would not both have been mentioned here. It is a 
 distinct part of the gospel testimony, that Christ was 
 buried. His burial was as distinct from his death, as 
 his resurrection was. 
 
 "The latter of the two phrases," says Dr. Ward- 
 law, " appears to be used in the fourth verse, chiefly 
 for the sake of completing the .Apostle's figure." This 
 assertion is most injurious to the language of the Holy 
 Spirit, and totally unfounded in the lawful use of 
 figures. I am bold to assert, that there cannot be an 
 instance of what the author asserts, without a ser ous 
 trespass of the laws of figurative language. It is true, 
 indeed, that in allegory there may be some points in 
 the figure which have nothing to correspond to them 
 in the thing illustrated, because the unity of the re- 
 sembhng object cannot be broken. But to add burial 
 to death, is to add one figure to another without any 
 necessity. If, then, there is no distinct meaning in 
 burial, to add it to death is vicious in taste, and child- 
 ish in argument. The only reason why burial is 
 mentioned, must be that it has a distinct meaning. 
 To suppose that the Apostle would bring it in merely 
 for the purpose of stringing one figure to another, is 
 not only an affront to the Holy Spirit, but would be an 
 impeachment of the good sense of the Apostle, if he 
 had written without inspiration. Plato indeed goes 
 over the whole human body, and brings out of it a 
 chain of metaphors. He makes the head a citadel, 
 the neck an isthmus, &c. This is sufficiently child- 
 ish, but it is manly compared with what the apostle is 
 supposed to do. Plato gives some meaning to each 
 of bis figures ; but the apostle strings one figure ta 
 32* 
 
258 THK MODE 
 
 another, not for the sake of additional illustration, but 
 out of the puerile conceit of completing his series of 
 figures. It would have been an improvement, had 
 he inserted the embalming between death and the bu- 
 rial, and added the funeral procession to the series. 
 
 But what shall we say of the .Apostle's figure ? Is 
 there, then, a figure in the Apostle's language? Is 
 this death, burial, and resurrection, figurative 1 If the 
 death, burial, and resurrection in baptism are figura- 
 tive, they must have a likeness. Is there any figura- 
 tive death without a likeness 1 There is a common 
 proverb, that murder will never lie. The murderer 
 will sometimes discover himself even by talking in his 
 sleep. Dr. Wardlaw has murdered this passage most 
 barbarously, and it is no wonder if he informs against 
 himself. While he has assassinated the likeness in 
 baptism to death, burial, and resurrection, he speaks 
 of illustration, figure, and resemblance. 
 
 " As it was necessEury," says Dr. Wardlaw, in order 
 to Christ's rising, that he should be laid in the grave ; 
 so in the figure, it is necessary that we should be view- 
 ed as buried with him, in order to our rising with him to 
 newness of life. Certainly, it is necessary that we 
 should be viewed in the figure of baptism as buried 
 with Christ. But if the author means that we are 
 buried with Christ by faith in him as a substitute 
 merely by a mode of speaking, it is a most serious eri 
 ror. Does the author say that it is ia a figurative 
 way of speaking that the believer dies with Christ 1 If 
 he does, he has a very inadequate view of the believ- 
 er's union with Christ. The believer is one with 
 Christ, not by a peculiar mode of speaking, or a par- 
 ticular way of viewing the subject, but by a real 
 union. He is one with Christ as truly as he is one 
 with Adam. He dies with Christ as truly as he fell 
 with Adam. By a divine constitution all Christ's peo- 
 ple are one with him, and his work is as really theirs, 
 as if they had themselves performed it. When it is 
 said that Christians have died with Christ by faithj 
 
OF BAPTISM. 359 
 
 there is no more figure than when it is said that they 
 have died in Adam, or that they shall die themselves. 
 But this view of the subject overturns the apostle's 
 reasoning altogether. Dr. Wardlaw understands the 
 apostle as speaking of the connexion that believers 
 have with Christ by faith; and that they are here said 
 to be dead with him, buried with him, and to be risen 
 with him, not by a likeness to these things in bap- 
 tism, but merely by faith. Now, if he ascribes to them 
 this death, burial, and resurrection, as a mode of view- 
 ing them, or as a figurative way of speaking, he 
 wrests the apostle's argument out of his hands. If 
 this death is the death by faith, and yet nothing but a 
 figure,, then our security against living in sin, accord- 
 ing to the Apostle, is nothing but a figure. A figura- 
 tive death is no security against sin. An actor will 
 die on the stage to-night, and act to-morrow. If it 
 ie only in a certain way of speaking that we rise with 
 Christ by faith, then there is from that figurative re- 
 surrection no security of a holy life. The spirit of 
 the Apostle's reasoning on this verse would be, " How 
 can they, who are said by a figure to be dead to sin, 
 live any longer therein? Know ye not, that as many 
 of us as have believed on Christ, are figuratively view- 
 ed as having died with him?" This figure would be a 
 weak security against living in sin. It must be a real 
 death that will secure against sin. Now, how differ- 
 ent is the Apostle's argument, on our view ? " How 
 shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?" 
 This must be real death, otherwise there is no argu- 
 ment. How then are we dead? By faith in Christ 
 we are dead. But in baptism this truth is exhibited 
 in figure. " Know ye not that so many of us as were 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
 death ?" To be baptized into Jesus Christ imports the 
 being baptized into the faith of his death as our sub- 
 stitute ; but to be baptized into his death imports, 
 that by baptism we are exhibited as dying along with 
 him. The death in baptism is a figurative death, 
 fbuaded on the real death by faith. If baptized inta 
 
260 THE MODE 
 
 his death, does not import our death with Christ, this 
 verse is not proof of what is asserted in the former. 
 And if baptism is no figurative burial, it is no proof of 
 death, and therefore would be only an incumbrance 
 in this place. The Christian has a real death, burial, 
 and resurrection with Christ by faith. He has all 
 these also in baptism by figure. Baptism is a figure 
 of death, because it has no meaning otherwise. Hence 
 it is used as an argument here : and hence the great 
 importance of understanding the import of baptism. It 
 gives, by a striking figure, a conception of the union 
 of believers with Christ in his death, burial, and re- 
 surrection, that has escaped, we see, the most sa- 
 gacious Christians who are ignorant of the ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 " The si"mple meaning," says Dr. Wardlaw, is this : 
 " Since, in our being baptized into Jesus Christ, we 
 Tvere baptized into his death, — ^into the faith of his 
 death as the death of a surety : we may be consi- 
 dered, as by faith, partaking with him in his death." I 
 reply, This partaking is a real — not a figurative par- 
 taking. If baptism is not a figure of this, there was 
 no occasion to allude to it at all. The author conti- 
 nues : " as buried with him ; and that with the spe- 
 cial end of our rising with him, in a spiritual resem- 
 blance of his resurrection, and ' walking in newness 
 of life.' " But does not Dr. Wardlaw see that we are 
 not here said to be buried with him by faith, but buried 
 with him by baptism into death ? This burial is not 
 merely a burial by faith, but a burial by baptism. 
 The language imports, also, that baptism has a refer- 
 ence both to Christ's resurrection, and our new life. 
 " We are buried with him by baptism into death, 
 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
 glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
 newness of life." This is stated as the end of bap- 
 tism — not as the end of faith. As baptism does not 
 eflfect these things, it must be viewed as a figure. 
 Baptism makes us die, buries us, raises us, only in 
 figure ; therefore as we are said to die, to be buried» 
 
OP BAPTISM. 261 
 
 and to rise in baptism, baptism must contain a like- 
 ness to these things. It is not said that we are buried 
 by faith, that we may rise, &c. ; but that we are bu- 
 ried by baptism into death, that we may rise, &c. All 
 these things are connected with baptism. But ex- 
 cept as a likeness or figure, it has no connexion with 
 them at all. Any other ordinance might have been 
 equally mentioned. Rather there was no need for 
 the mention of any ordinance, on the supposition that 
 there is no likenesss. 
 
 But that baptism contains a likeness to death, is in 
 this passage expressly asserted : For if we have been 
 tfu(ji.(puroi, " joined with him in the likeness of his death." 
 Here we see that this death is a symbolical death. 
 It is a likeness to death. Now, the participation in 
 Christ's death, that the believer has by faith, is not a 
 likeness to death, but a real death. It is, by the di- 
 vine constitution of the union that subsists between 
 Christ and his people, his own death. How, then, is 
 there in baptism a likeness to death, if that ordinance 
 is not by immersion 1 Our future resurrection is also 
 figured in baptism : " we shall be also in the likeness 
 of his resurrection." In Col. ii. 12, also, we are said 
 to be risen with Christ : " Buried with him in bap- 
 tism ; wherein, or in which, also ye are risen with 
 him." Dr. Wardlaw asks. How is it we are said to 
 be " risen with him f Undoubtedly through faith. 
 Without this there is no rising to new life, nor will 
 there be to glory. But this resurrection is notwith- 
 standing said here to be in baptism. It must then be 
 in figure. Dr. Wardlaw supposes that these things 
 are ascribed to baptism ; " because it was the first 
 public declaration of the faith of the converts." But 
 baptism is not necessarily a public declaration of faith. 
 Nor is it necessarily the first public declaration. There 
 may be many instances in which a public declaration 
 of faith is made, before there is any opportunity of 
 being baptized. Besides, this is an apocryphal rea- 
 son. The Scriptures do not assign it. And as a mat-> 
 
262 THE MODE 
 
 ter of fact, it is no more connected with salvation 
 than the Lord's supper. It is not in baptism, nor by 
 means of baptism, that we die with Christ really, or 
 are made spiritually alive. This death and this life 
 take place before baptism. Baptism, then, can have 
 these things ascribed to it only in figure. " It is on 
 the same principle," says Dr. Wardlaw, " that they 
 are spoken of as in baptism 'washing away their 
 sins.' " All these things are doubtless spoken on the 
 same principle. But that principle is, that baptism is 
 a figure. Baptism washes away sins, not because it 
 is the first ordinance, but because it is an emblemati- 
 cal washing of the body with water. Does not Dr. 
 Wardlaw hold, that baptism is an emblem of washing 
 away sin 1 How then does he explain the phrase, 
 washing away sin in baptism, on. the principle of bap- 
 tism being the first ordinance ? We wash away 
 sins in baptism, just as we eat the flesh of Jesus 
 in the Lord's supper. " The cup of blessing which 
 we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
 Christ 1 The bread which we break, is it not the 
 communion of the body of Christ V How is the cup 
 the communion of Christ's blood 1 How is the bread 
 the communion of his body ? In figure. And when 
 the figure is observed in faith, the real communion is 
 effected. Just so baptism washes away sin. Just so 
 in baptism we die, we are buried, and we rise. But 
 the truth of the emblem is effected, not by baptism in 
 any sense, but by faith of the operation of God, It is 
 absurd and ridiculous to suppose, that an ordinance 
 can wash away sin in any other than a figurative 
 sense. Was it not in this way that Jewish rites were 
 said to make an atonement and to cleanse from sin 1 
 The first ordinance observed, has no more to do with 
 these things than the last. The death, burial, and 
 resurrection, which are ascribed to baptism, take place 
 in baptism and by means of baptism. The washing 
 away of sins, ascribed to baptism, is effected by bap- 
 tism. This washing, this death, this burial, and this 
 
OF BAPTISM. 263 
 
 resurrection, then, cannot be the washing, death, bu- 
 rial, and resurrection, which are effected by faith, and 
 which take place before baptism. If the washing 
 away of sins, the death, burial, and resurrection, as- 
 cribed to baptism, were effected previously, and by 
 other means, the Scriptures are not true, that speak 
 of them as effected in baptism, and by baptism. The 
 reality has already taken place, but it is represented 
 iu figure as taking place in the ordinance, and by 
 means of the ordinance. 
 
 " In Rom. vi." says Dr. Wardlaw, " the language 
 of the whole passagejis figurative." And what, suppose 
 it were figurative 1 Would this imply that there is no 
 likeness ? When death, burial, and resurrection, are 
 used figuratively, they must of necessity have a like- 
 ness. Will Dr. Wardlaw show what kind of figure 
 he supposes to exist here 1 Will he show any figure 
 that will justify the ascription of the washing away of 
 sin, of death, burial, and resurrection to an ordinance, 
 because it is the first ordinance observed 1 This figure 
 he will look for in vain, either in the writings of rhe- 
 toricians, or the practice of any language. The prin- 
 ciple on which I hold that these things are ascribed 
 to baptism, I have verified by example, and justified 
 on principle. But will Dr. Wardlaw recollect, that 
 this death, burial, and resurrection, he has, in setting 
 out, considered as effected by faith 1 He cannot, then, 
 speak consistently of this language as figurative. But 
 though he talks of the simple meaning of the passage, 
 there is evidently a jumble in his own conceptions of 
 this meaning. There never was a paragraph farther 
 from simplicity, than that which he has employed to 
 show the simple meaning of Rom. vi. 1. 
 
 The fact, however, is, that in the expression, wash 
 aioay sin by baptism, death, burial, and resurrection in 
 baptism, there is no figure. It is a figurative action, 
 not a figurative expression. A symbol is not a figure 
 of speech. And I have shown, that as Dr. Wardlaw 
 has in the commencement explained death, burial, 
 
264 THE MODE 
 
 and resurrection, as the death, burial, and resurrection 
 which we have by faith in Christ, dying as our sure- 
 ty, to speak of these things now as figurative lan» 
 guage, is to overturn the Apostle's argument, and to 
 deny real union with Christ in his work. We are 
 not one with him by a divine constitution, as we are 
 one with Adam, but merely one with him in a figura- 
 tive way of speaking. Dr. Wardlaw, then, ejects 
 immersion out of Rom. vi. only by virtually overturn- 
 ing the gospel, or denying real oneness with Christ. 
 
 " The same principle of interpretation," says Dr. 
 Wardlaw, " according to which the expression ' bu- 
 ried with Christ is explained, as referring to the repre- 
 sentation of interment by the immersion of the body 
 under water, should lead us also to understand the 
 phrase which immediately follows, 'planted together in 
 the likeness of his death,'' as referring to an emblematic 
 representation of planting, which, accordingly, some 
 have stretched their fancy to make out." If the 
 word tfufiipuroi is to be translated planted together, there 
 must indeed be a likeness between baptism and plant- 
 ing. And it requires no stretch of fancy to discover a 
 likeness between the burying of the roots of plants 
 and immersion in water. But even on this supposi- 
 tion, the word is metaphorical, and while it equally 
 with a symbolical action requires likeness, it does not 
 imply that baptism is an emblem of planting. Let 
 Dr. Wardlaw consider the difference between a figu- 
 rative word and a figurative action, and he will with- 
 draw this objection. Baptism is here explained as a 
 symbohcal action, representing death, burial, and 
 resurrection. The likeness to planting is illustrative, 
 not symbolical. The phrase, planting together, proves 
 the mode of baptism ; but it does not imply that there 
 is in it any thing emblematic of planting. Dr. Ward- 
 law continues, " or the phrase, crucified with him, to 
 some similar exhibition of crucifixion." But does not 
 Dr. Wardlaw perceive that we are not said to be cru- 
 cified with Christ in baptism 1 We are indeed cruci* 
 
OP BAPTISM. 265 
 
 fied with him — really and truly crucified with him— 
 not in baptism, but by faith in his cross. We were 
 nailed to the tree, when he was nailed, because by 
 the divine constitution we are one with him. But, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Wardlaw's explanation of this passage. 
 We might as well be said to be crucified in baptism as 
 buried in baptism. If there is no allusion to burial in 
 baptism, more than to crucifixion, why are we not 
 said to be crucified in baptism 1 If we are really cru- 
 cified with him by faith in his cross, why might we 
 not, on Dr. Wardlaw's principle, be said to be cruci- 
 fied in baptism, and by means of baptism, because it 
 is the first ordinance in which we profess faith in the 
 cross of Christ ? But there is no such absurdity of 
 expression in the Scriptures. 
 
 After all the labours of Mr. Ewing and Dr. Ward- 
 law on this passage, I could safely rest my cause on a 
 candid reading of it by the most unlettered good 
 sense. To a reflecting mind, nothing can more 
 strongly prove the impossibility of diverting these 
 words from giving their testimony in favour of immer- 
 sion, than that one of these learned and ingenious 
 writers could find no other way to efiect his purpose, 
 but by forcing burial to denote embalming or wash- 
 ing the dead ; and the other by denying that the pas- 
 sage implies any likeness between baptism and burial. 
 These extravagances are so enormous, that every 
 sober mind may see that the cause that requires them 
 is desperate. I ask any man who fears God and trem- 
 bles at his word, is Christ's burial merely the wash- 
 ing of his corpse, and not his being laid in the sepul- 
 chre 1 I ask, does the phrase " buried with baptism by 
 death" import no likeness between baptism- and bu- 
 rial 1 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw observes, " according to our Baptist 
 brethren, washing or cleansing, so far from being the 
 exclusive, is not even the principal, but only a se- 
 condary meaning of the rite." In this he is mis- 
 taken. Death, burial, and resurrection, we do not 
 consider as the primary meaning of baptism ; and 
 
 2i 
 
266 THE MODE 
 
 washing away sin, as a secondary meaning. It takes 
 both together to make one meaning. The ordinance 
 has one meaning only. It not only signifies washing 
 away sin through faith in the blood of Christ, but de- 
 notes that such sins are washed away by our fellow- 
 ship with him in his death. Washing away of sin is 
 the thing which it always signifies ; but this is not 
 the whole of its meaning. It is then to no purpose 
 that Dr. Wardlaw insists that sprinkling and pouring 
 may be an emblem of cleansing. They are no em- 
 blem of death, burial, and resurrection which are 
 figured in baptism. 
 
 Another passage that favours our view of the mode 
 and import of baptism is, 1 Cor. xv. 29. " Else what 
 shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the 
 dead rise not at all 1 Why are they then baptized for 
 the deadl" There must be an argument here, and 
 this object of baptism must be a scriptural object, 
 otherwise it could not be an argument. Indeed, 
 though to us the passage may be difficult from differ- 
 ence of circumstances with respect to those imme- 
 diately addressed, yet it is evident that the apostle 
 considers the argument as very obvious and con- 
 vincing. Now, to consider the expression to be a 
 reference to the mode and import of baptism, as im- 
 plying an emblem of the resurrection of believers, 
 will aiford a natural meaning to the words, and an 
 important argument to the apostle. Baptism is an 
 ordinance that represents our burial and resurrection 
 with Christ. We are baptized, in the hope that our 
 dead bodies shall rise from the grave. Now, if there 
 is no resurrection, why are we baptized 1 On that 
 supposition, there is no meaning in baptism. It is 
 absurd for any to be baptized, baptism being a figure 
 of a resurrection, if they do not believe in a resurrec- 
 tion. Heb. X. 22, is on both sides allowed to have a 
 reference to baptism ; and to me it appears evident, 
 that the whole body was covered with the water. 
 "Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance 
 of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil 
 
OF BAPTISM. 267 
 
 conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." 
 Here the heart is said to be sprinkled in allusion to 
 the application of the blood of the sacrifices ; and 
 the body is said to be washed in pure w^ater, referring 
 to the ordinance of baptism. Now, the pouring of a 
 little water in the face is not a washing of the body. 
 I admit, that sprinkling a little water on any part of 
 the body might be an emblem of purification ; but 
 this would not be called a washing of the body. The 
 passage which Mr. Ewing brings to justify his view 
 of this verse, is not parallel. " For, in that she hath 
 poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my 
 burial," Matt. xxvi. 12. " This instance," says Mr. 
 Ewing, " of calling what was poured on the head, a 
 pouring on the body, illustrates what is said of bap- 
 tism, which is in itself a pouring on the face only, but 
 which, being a figure of washing, is called a washing 
 of the body." Our Lord's expression is quite literal, 
 and has no emblem. The smallest quantity of water 
 poured on any part of the body, is as truly poured on 
 the body as if the whole body was covered. Water is 
 literally poured on the body, if poured on any part of 
 the body. But when the body is said to be washed, 
 it implies that the whole body is washed. Washing a 
 part of the body, is not washing the body. Let us 
 have an exampJe in which the pouring of a little 
 water on a part of an. object, is called the washing of 
 the object. The bodies of the priests were washed 
 on entering on their office. Shall we say that this 
 may have been the pouring of a little water on their 
 head 1 Though I do not agree with Dr. Campbell, 
 that Xouu cannot be applied to a part, yet it is so gene- 
 rally appropriated to the bathing of the whole body, 
 that in medical use it is employed without a regimen 
 in that sense. . If any part is not to be bathed, it 
 must be expressly excepted, as ifXriv xe(paXi>is, except the 
 head. 
 
 " Except a man be born of water and the Spirit," 
 John iii. 5. is another expression which is admitted to 
 refer to baptism ; and has its explanation most intelli- 
 gibly in emersion out of the water in that ordinance. 
 
268 THE MODE 
 
 To emerge out of the water, is like a birth ; and to 
 be born of water, as distinguished from being bom of 
 the Spirit, is to be born of the truth represented by 
 the water. We are regenerated both by the word 
 and Spirit. We are born into the kingdom of God 
 by the agency of his Spirit, through the behef of the 
 word that testifies the death, burial, and resurrection 
 of Christ, and our death, burial, and resurrection with 
 him. Christ, therefore, is said to have given himself 
 for his church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it 
 with the washing of water by the word, Ephes. v. 26. 
 The washing of water is by the word, which is figu- 
 ratively done in baptism. In like manner, we are 
 said to be saved " by the washing of regeneration 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost," Tit. iii. 5. We 
 are also said to be " washed and sanctified," 1 Cor. 
 vi. 11, in reference to the cleansing from sin by faith 
 in the blood of Christ, as well as to the renewing of 
 our hearts by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Beief Strictures on Mr. Ewing's Miscellane- 
 ous Remarks on the Hypothesis of Immer- 
 sion. 
 
 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 reason- 
 ing in this part of his work. They appear to me both 
 false and dangerous. Immersion he considers as inde- 
 cent and indelicate, and in several cases he attempts 
 to prove Its impracticabiUty. " The immersion of one 
 person by another," says Mr. Ewing, "except in 
 cases of necessity or mercy, seems to be contrary 
 to decency, and to the respect which we owe to 
 one another." Mr. Ewing commences very pro- 
 perly, by saying, " I feel it incumbent on me to 
 enforce my conviction on others, by every considera- 
 tion which the examination of the Scriptures on the 
 subject has suggested to my mind." By all mean 
 
OF BAPTISM. 269 
 
 let us have every thing th&t the Scriptures suggest on 
 this subject. Pray now, Mr. Ewing, was it the Scrip- 
 tures 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 perso'n's face, out of the hand, so that some of the 
 water must be swallowed 1 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 /or 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 appointments, 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 1 Did 
 he never hear of such a thing as circumcision 1 Has 
 he forgotten the transaction in Abraham's house on 
 the institution of that ordinance 1 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 1 What shall tve 
 say of many parts of the law of Moses ? What shall 
 we say of many parts both of the Old Testament and 
 the New 1 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. Ew- 
 ing's caricqture of the immersion of females, is sq 
 33* 
 
270 THE MODE 
 
 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 stiong enough to 
 express my feelings of abhorrence. " Shall you per- 
 mit your wives and daughters," say the enemies of the 
 Scriptures, " to read the indelicate statements of the 
 Bible ?"* And shall the man of God blow the trum- 
 pet 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, how- 
 ever, 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 argument from the scarcity of water ; and no 
 doubt he will appear so to a numerous class of his read- 
 ers. But the argument, instead of having weight, 
 cannot be admitted to a hearing by any one who un- 
 derstands the nature of evidence. All the information 
 that can be collected at this distance of time, cannot 
 assure us that there were not other resources of wa- 
 ter, of which we have no account. Mr. Ewing may 
 say, ih?t the pool of Bethesda may have been sufficient 
 only for one jjerson to go down at a time. Well, if 
 my cause obliged i^ie 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 iTla^' have admitted a hun- 
 dred to go down at once, and the bsre possibility is 
 enough to remove the objection. NeitBei of us can 
 prove the dimensions of it. If, then, there had been 
 no water in Jerusalem but this pool, I am at liberty to 
 suppose that it might have sufficed. The pool of Si- 
 loam 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 im- 
 
 * It is said that there is no more usual argument to dissuade the 
 higher classes in France from reading the Scriptures, than their indeli- 
 cacy. They are told that the Bible on this account, is the very worst 
 bouk that can be put into the hands of youth. 
 
OP BAPTISM. 271 
 
 possible in some of the places where baptism was per- 
 formed, no man who understands reasoning will ob- 
 ject on this ground. 
 
 Were I engaged with Mr. Ewing, even in an histo- 
 rical controversy, with respect to the supply of water 
 in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, I could ea- 
 sily show that his conclusions are unwarranted. He 
 depends on the accounts of modern travellers. I 
 would, admit their statements, and deny the conse- 
 quence. Must the supply of water be the same now 
 as it was then 1 Aqueducts and reservoirs may have 
 then existed, of which there are no remains. Herod, 
 at great expense, brought water to the city by aque- 
 ducts, from a considerable distance ; and the pools, 
 and fountains, and rivers, cannot now be estimated. 
 The supply of water to the city of God, could not be 
 inadequate to the wants of the inhabitants, and to the 
 use of it in legal purifications, which required abund- 
 ant 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 upon rainl Is 
 there reason to think that the supply is equal at pre- 
 sent 1 Earthquakes alter the course of rivers, and 
 often seal up fountains. In the year 1182, as Gold- 
 smith relates, most of the cities of Syria, and the king- 
 dom 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 run up the 
 stream 1 and could they not baptize where it entered , 
 
 * Mr. Gibbon makes alike objection to the Scripture account of the 
 fertility of Jndea. The present barrenness of that country, he consi- 
 ders as proof of the falsehood of the accounts of its ancient fertility. 
 This, which may appear to many very sage, is in reality -very shpUow. 
 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. 
 
272 THE MODE 
 
 the city, or upwards ? The very attempt to prove, at 
 this distance of time, that there could not be water in 
 or near Jerusalem for immersion, is absurd. I would 
 hold this, were the question merely an historical one. 
 But if the Holy Spirit testifies that the disciples were 
 baptized on believing the gospel, and if I have proved 
 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 Jor- 
 dan ; but if there is enough of w^ater, there are, it 
 seems, other wants. " In the course of his ministry," 
 says Mr. Ewing, " he drew his illustrations, 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 pu- 
 rification." Was ever any thing so childish put upon 
 paper 1 Can any mind suppose that there is argument 
 in this ? Did ever John the Baptist illustrate his sub- 
 ject by allusions to popping 1 Is the absence of any 
 such allusions, to be received as evidence that there 
 was not immersion in baptism 1 
 
 " 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. 
 
 1 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 immersed, 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 were baptized, I will make them con- 
 duct Christ and the Apostles on their way, till .they 
 come to water. I care not where the water is to bo 
 found ; if they were baptized, they were immersed. 
 
OP BAPTISM. 273 
 
 Mr. Ewing, as well as Dr. Wardlaw, learns from 
 Peter's phraseology, "can any man forbid water 1" 
 4hat the water was to be brought to the place. And 
 if this were certain, it aflfects not the question. Must 
 the observance of the ordinances of Christ never put 
 us to trouble 1 But the expression imports no more, 
 than " who can forbid baptism to the persons who have 
 already received the Holy Spirit?" without any re- 
 spect to mode. 
 
 The phraseology of Ananias, it seems, forbids im- 
 mersion : — " Arise, and be baptized." Where is the 
 proof here 1 Why, there is no going down to the wa- 
 ter, nor coming up from it. Is there any man so 
 frantic as to suppose, that this phraseology must ap- 
 ply to every baptism 1 Baptism in a bath, is as good 
 as baptism in the Jordan. 
 
 But Paul was baptized after a three days' fast, be- 
 fore he had received either meat or strength. " Would 
 this have been done," we are asked, " had his bap- 
 tism been immersion 1" It was done, yet his baptism 
 was immersion. From this, let us learn that baptism 
 is not a thing to be trifled with, but ought to be per- 
 formed 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 circumstance. He has certainly 
 delayed his baptism much too long. 
 
 But the jailor — How shall we find water to im- 
 merse the jailor ] " The argument," says Mr. Ew- 
 ing, " that there was a bath in the jail at Philippi, be- 
 cause there is a very fine tank at Calcutta, and al- 
 ways 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. Petersburg, 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. 
 
274 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 Besides, for any thing in the narrative, the baptism 
 might iiave taljen place in any part of the town. It 
 is madness to suppose that immersion was here impos- 
 sible ; and if it was not impossible, the objection is not 
 valid. There might have been a thousand ways of 
 obtaining water of which we are ignorant. To sup- 
 pose that it is necessary to produce, from the history, an 
 actual supply of water,in the case of every baptism, im- 
 plies a radical error, with respect to the first principles 
 of evidence. The jailor and his household were bap- 
 tized, therefore they were immersed. What sober 
 mind will go in quest of the water, in a foreign coun- 
 try, at the distance of nearly two thousand years! 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Having ascertained the mode and the meaning of 
 this ordinance, I shall now inquire who are the sub- 
 jects of it. If our minds were uninfluenced by preju- 
 dice, this inquiry would not be tedious. We have the 
 answer obviously in the words of the apostolical com- 
 mission. " 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 ob- 
 serve 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 commtssion warrants 
 to be baptized, are scholars of Christ, having believed 
 in him for salvation. If this needed confirmation, it 
 has it in the record of the commission by Mark. '< Go 
 ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 275 
 
 saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." 
 Here the persons whom Matthew calls disciples, Mark 
 calls believers. According to this commission, then, 
 none are warranted to be baptized but disciples or be- 
 lievers. But our opponents affect to treat this passage^ 
 as not at all to the purpose ; alleging, that though it 
 commands believers to be baptized, it does not ex- 
 clude the infants of believers. They consider this as 
 common ground, and as teaching a doctrine which 
 they do not deny, without opposing the peculiar doc- 
 trine which they hold. Accordingly, they run over 
 this commission with the greatest apparent ease, and 
 are amazed at the want of perspicacity in their oppo- 
 nents, who see in it any thing unfavourable to the 
 baptism of infants. Now, this evidence strikes 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 commis- 
 sion alone. Dr. Wardlaw thinks he has shown as 
 clear as a sun-beam, that the words of this commis- 
 sion have no bearing on the subject. I will risk the 
 credit of my understanding, on my success in show- 
 ing that, according to this commission, believers only are 
 to be 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 ex- 
 press command or explanation. No command, no ex- 
 planation, can bring unbelievers into the commission 
 that enjoins the baptism of believers. Even if I found 
 another command, enjoining the baptism of the in- 
 fants of believers, I would not move an inch from 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 according to this commission, nor included in 
 it. It would be another baptism, far more different 
 from the baptism of this commission, than the bap- 
 
276 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 tisra of John was from that of the Apostles. This 
 command to baptize the infants of believers, 'would 
 not be according to the command to baptize believ- 
 ers. There would then be two baptisms, on quite dif- 
 ferent grounds ; the one on the ground of faith, the 
 other on the ground of descent. Talk not, then, of 
 the Abrahamic covenant, and of circumcision ; if a 
 baptism, or any other New Testament ordinance, 
 must be found to correspond to these, it cannot be 
 forced into the baptism commanded in this commis- 
 sion. This 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 enti-enched, and I defy the ingenuity of 
 earth and hell to drive me from my position. This 
 commission to baptize believers, does not indeed imply that 
 it is impossible that another commission might have been 
 given to baptize 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 another principle. 
 
 But not only does this commission exclude infants 
 from the baptism it enjoins : if there were even another 
 commission enjoining the baptism of infants ; when 
 these infants, who have been baptized in infancy, ac- 
 cording 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 com- 
 mands all men to be baptized on believing the gospel. 
 Had there been even a divinely appointed baptism 
 for them in infancy, it cannot interfere with this bap- 
 tism, 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. He alleged one instance in which the 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 277 
 
 command of God was made void by the traditions of 
 the Pharisees. God has commanded the children to 
 support their parents if tiiey need it ; but the Phari- 
 sees, by an invention of their own, eluded this com- 
 mand. Just so with infant baptism. It has usurped 
 the place of believer baptism ; and, as far as it is re- 
 ceived, sets the ordinance 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 man- 
 ner, exhibits that truth in a figure to be observed 
 immediately after its reception, is now generally set 
 aside. Believer baptism is virtually 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 satisfactory." " Suppose," says he, " the 
 ordinance of circumcision had been to continue, and 
 the command had run in these terms :— — ' Go ye^ 
 therefore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them 
 in the name of the Father,' &c. Had such language 
 been used, we should have known that children were 
 to be the subjects of the prescribed rite, as well as 
 their parents : the previously existing practice would 
 have ascertained this." I deny it, Dr. Wardlaw. I 
 will not be driven from my position by dtcwmcision 
 more than by baptism. Had such a commission been 
 given to circumcise, it would have excluded infants 
 utterly. Could a command to circumcise believersj 
 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 believers, they cannot, 
 in virtue of that commission, circumcise any but be- 
 lievers. 1 will say, also, that if we met in another 
 part of Scripture, a command to circumcise the infants 
 of believers, it would not be included in the aposto- 
 lical commission. A command to circumcise be- 
 lievers, can extend to none but believersv But Dr. 
 
278 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Wardlaw will say, we know, that the Jews did cir- 
 cumcise infants. We do indeed know this; but are 
 we to do every thing that was enjoined on the Jews ] 
 This commission to circumcise believers, would ex- 
 clude the circumcision of infants ; because it extends 
 to none but believers. The Jewish practice as to 
 circumcision, could not show what must be the Chris- 
 tian practice as to this rite, had it been appointed as 
 a Christian ordinance. And no practice could reduce 
 infant circumcision to a commission enjoining be- 
 liever circumcision. 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 contra- 
 diction. "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 continua- 
 tion of the same rite, while the subjects of it were 
 changed 1 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 ? 
 
 With reference to Mark xvi. 16, Mr. Ewing says, 
 " From this text some infer, that a person must actu- 
 ally believe, else he cannot be baptized. With as 
 much reason they might infer, that a person must 
 actually believe, else he cannot be saved." Certain- 
 ly ; if there were no way of saving children but by 
 the gospel, this conclusion would be inevitable. The 
 gospel saves none but by faith. But the gospel has 
 nothmg to do with infants, nor have gospel ordi- 
 nances any respect to them. The gospel has to do 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 279 
 
 "with those who hear it. It is good news ; but to in- 
 fants it is not news at all. They know nothing of it. 
 The salvation of the gospel is as much confined to be- 
 lievers, 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 alt 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 salva- 
 tion and 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 sal- 
 vation 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 benefit, nor an injury. They will 
 be judged, as we are assured in the Scriptures, ac- 
 cording 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 confined to such. The man who would 
 preach infant salvation out of the Apostolic commis- 
 sion, or attempt to prove that the commission 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 baptism. None can be saved by the gos-. 
 
280 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 pel, but such as believe the gospel : none can be bap- 
 tized with the baptism of the gospel, but such as be- 
 lieve the gospel. There is no exception to either. 
 
 But that believers only can be baptized by this 
 commission, is clear from tbat into which they are 
 said to be baptized : " Baptizing them into the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost." It is into the faith and subjection of the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, that men are to be bap- 
 tized. Surely none can be baptized into the faith 
 and subjection of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but 
 adults. Infants cannot believe, nor express subjec- 
 tion. 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 imported in 
 it. While, therefore, I use the surgical knife with an 
 unsparing hand, to remove the morbid parts of the rea- 
 soning 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 ordinance, 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 en- 
 deavouring to establish a baptism not instituted by 
 Christ. In doing so, they injure thousands and thou- 
 sands of their brethren, and cannot but injure them- 
 selves. 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 know my own heart, I 
 would not no wpour water into a child's face in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 for the globe on which I stand. Ah ! my brethren, it 
 is an awful thing to do in the Lord's name, that which 
 the Lord has not appointed. Who has required this 
 at your hands ? You may explain, and reason and 
 suppose, but, till the trumpet sound, you will never 
 force this commission to include your baptisra of itt' 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 281 
 
 fants. You may conjure up difficulties to perplex the 
 weak ; your ingenuity may invent subterfuges that 
 may cover error. But you M'ill never find an inch of 
 solid ground on which to rest the sole of your foot. 
 Yourwork will never bedone. Youare rolling the stone 
 of Sisyphus, and the farther you push it up hill, with 
 the greater force will it rebound on your own heads. 
 The labours of Hercules are but an amusement com- 
 pared with your task. Ingenuity may put a false 
 system plausibly together. But no ingenuity can 
 give it the solidity and life of the truth. It may sa- 
 tisfy as long as persons do not inquire deeply and 
 earnestly into the question. But it will not satisfy 
 when the mind begins to say, " Lord, what wouldst 
 thou have me to do 1" 
 
 That believers only are included in the baptism of 
 this commission, is clear also from the command to 
 teach the baptized : " Teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Here 
 the persons baptized are supposed to be capable of be- 
 ing 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 human wisdom has totally re- 
 versed the ordinance here enjoined. It has ordered 
 infants to be baptized, who, by the very terms of this 
 commission, are excluded from this baptism : and it 
 leaves unbaptized, believers whom only Jesus hath 
 commanded to be baptized. Is not this the very spi- 
 rit of Antichrist 1 Christians, how long will ye suf- 
 fer 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 1 
 
 The baptism of John was in two points essentially 
 different from the baptism of the Apostolic commis- 
 sion. But in mode and subjects it was perfectly coin- 
 cident. John did not baptize into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : he 
 4id npt baptize into the faith of Christ as come, bvit 
 
282 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 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 derived from 
 the baptism of John. " John did baptize in the wil- 
 derness, 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, 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 from the behef of 
 the truth, but through the blood of Christ, applied in 
 a way of which we can learn nothing from the Scrip- 
 tures ; 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 judg- 
 ment, that when his servants use his word as an in- 
 strument 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 1 Can they have faith without 
 knowledge 1 And did any one ever hear of the know- 
 ledge of infants ? But this observation is founded on 
 deep ignorance. It proceeds on the supposition, that 
 as faith is necessary to the salvation of adults, it is 
 necessary in infants also. The necessity of faith to 
 salvation, they must consider as a necessity of nature, 
 and not a necessity of divine appointment. They 
 suppose that God himself cannot save infants, without 
 ^ving 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 gospel, be- 
 cause God has absolutely required it. But it is not 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 283 
 
 at all necessary to infants, because he hath not re- 
 quired 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 when an in- 
 fant. He is said indeed to be sanctified from the 
 womb, but this was not a sanctification through be- 
 lief of the truth. Adults are sanctified by feith, 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 Scriptures. Was ever any 
 such thing heard 1 Can there be any surer evidence, 
 on the very faceof 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 1 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 alsol Is it 
 not mentioned as a thing extraordinary, that John was 
 sanctified from the womb 1 Let them baptize none in 
 infancy, but such as they have reason to believe are 
 sanctified from 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 pa- 
 rents cannot receive such doctrine. They know that 
 iheir children are ignorant of God, till, by the hear- 
 ing of the gospel, he shines into their heart to give 
 them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God 
 in the face of Jesus Christ. Can any absurdity ex- 
 ceed that of the opinion that infants are baptized on 
 the supposition that they have faith 1 If it can be fair- 
 ly 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 
 
284 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 in order to baptism ; but outrages common sense, in 
 order to find it in infants, when they are born. Chris- 
 tians, 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 1 
 Can such nonsense be worthy of refutation 1 No, 
 were it not that the names under which such absurdi- 
 ties are ushered into the world, have a weight with 
 the public, these arguments would be unworthy even 
 of being mentioned. 
 
 The baptism of John was not only a baptism on 
 repentance for remission of sins, it was also a baptism 
 in which sins were confessed. He baptized them in 
 the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Now infant 
 faith will not do without infant confession. Can in- 
 fants confess their sins 1 If not, they were not bap- 
 tized by John. It was the perception of this difficulty 
 that first appointed sponsors, who believe, and repent, 
 and confess for thejinfant. Unhappily our Independ- 
 ent brethren have not this resource. 
 
 John's baptism, did not serve for Christ's. If so, 
 infant baptism, even if such a thing had been insti- 
 tuted by Christ, would not serve for the baptism in 
 Christ's commission, which is believer baptism. Paul 
 baptized the disciples of John the Baptist, because 
 they had not been baptized into the faith of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost; and because they had been bap- 
 tized only in the faith of the Messiah to come. Surely 
 then, they who are baptized in infancy upon any pre- 
 tence whatever, must be baptized when they come to 
 the faith of the gospel. 
 
 But if John's baptism implied repentance and con- 
 fession of sin, how could Jesus submit to it ? This 
 apparent inconsistency struck John himself so forci- 
 bly, 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 V Jesus did not deny 
 this personally, he had no sins to confess ; yet still 
 there was a propriety in his submitting to the baptism 
 of repentance. " And Jesus answering, said untft 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 285 
 
 him, Suffer it to be so now : 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 unmeaning ceremony. If he submits to 
 the baptism of repentance, there must be a point of 
 view in which it suits him. And what is that point 
 of view 1 Evidently that, though he is himself holy, 
 harmlessj'and undefiled ; yet, as one with ue, he is 
 defiled. Just as, by our oneness with him, we can 
 say, "who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's 
 elect 1" by his being one with us, he can confess him- 
 self a sinner. The oneness of Christ and his people, 
 then, is not a figurative 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 mean- 
 ing, as well as the same figure to him as to us. In 
 Christ's being buried in the waters of Jordan, we 
 have a figure of the way in which be 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 im- 
 mersing of persons professing repentance ; Mr. Ew- 
 ing 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 1 Here is 
 
286 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the proof, and surely it is demonstration itself. " Con- 
 sider," says Mr. Ewing, " the very general and com- 
 prehensive terms in which the people are said 'to 
 have come to be baptized, Matt. iii. 5, 6 ; ' Then 
 went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all 
 the region round about Jordan, and were baptized 
 of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' This ac- 
 count," says he, " most naturally admits the suppo- 
 sition, that the inhabitants of those places came, usu- 
 ally at least, with their families." The account does 
 not import even this. If the whole question de- 
 pended 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 compre- 
 hensive 1 AreJ they so general and comprehensive, 
 as to include infants'? They are not so, Mr. Ew- 
 ing. However numerous they were, they all con- 
 fessed their sins. " The disciples," says Mr. Ewing, 
 " there went out to meet John, as the disciples at 
 Tyre did to take farewell of Paul." Who told you 
 so, Mr. Ewing ? This is apocryphal. Even this you 
 cannot learn from the history. And if it were 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! The whole Greek language 
 could not produce a phrase that his criticism would 
 admit as conclusive evidence of immersion. But that 
 infants were present with their parents at John's bap- 
 tism, and baptized along with them, he admits with- 
 out evidence, with the docility of a child. If his ob- 
 stinacy 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, Ew- 
 ing, " 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 disci- 
 ples and the Jews about purifying. And they came 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 287 
 
 unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was 
 with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest wit- 
 ness, behold the same baptizeth, and all come to him.' 
 Johniv. 1 — 3, 'When therefore the Lord knew how 
 the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and bap- 
 tized more disciples than John, (though Jesus him- 
 self 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 1 
 Is it not mere dreaming, to quote these passages in 
 proof that Jesus baptized infants ? Yet, in Mr. Ew- 
 ing's estimation, this is proof. " The two foregoing 
 passages," says he, "evidently imply 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 bap- 
 tism, is not hinted. On the contrary, those baptized 
 by John, are baptized on a confession of sin ; and it 
 is said that Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
 than John. The disciples of Jesus, then, baptized 
 while he was with them, disciples only. 
 
 But not only does Mr. Ewing find infants baptized 
 by John ; he also makes provision for them in the 
 apostolical commission itself. Now, really if he can 
 do this, I will not despair of proof for transubstantia- 
 tion. Well, let us hear him. " We have to add," 
 says Mr. Ewing, " that there is ample room for sup- 
 posing family baptism to be included in the compre- 
 hensive terms of our Saviour's final commission. Matt, 
 xxviii. 18." Room, aye, " ample room." I have 
 measured it, and I maintain, that if there is truth in axi- 
 oms, there is not room for infants in this commission. 
 How is the language of this commission comprehen- 
 sive ? Does Mr. Ewing find a place for the infants in 
 the all nations ? I cannot persuade myself that this 
 is the refuge which he has provided for them. Does 
 
S88 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 he deny that it is disciples that the commission en- 
 joins to be baptized 1 Does he make infants disci- 
 pies ? Does he deny that the commission, as recorded 
 by Mark, makes the disciples in Matthew xxviii. be- 
 lievers ? Why did not Mr. Ewing show how this 
 commission comprehends infants ? Why did he pass 
 over this with a mere assertion 1 If he could do this, 
 he certainly would not have concealed the process by 
 which he has come to the conclusion. That com- 
 mission commands believers to be baptized ; and ex- 
 cept both sides of a contradiction may be true, it can 
 never include unbelievers. "When we consider," 
 says Mr. Ewing, " how many things there are which 
 Jesus himself did, which are not written in the gospel 
 histories, (John xx. 30, and xxi. 25,) we cannot won- 
 der at the brevity of the accounts of the subordinate 
 practice of the disciples in dispensing baptism to be- 
 lievers and their houses." But does Mr. Ewing sup- 
 pose that we are so unreasonable, as to look for long 
 histories of all instances of infant baptism, on the sup- 
 position that it was practised 1 We look for no such 
 thing. Were they included in the commission, we 
 would not look for a single example in practice. 
 And if there was an instance of the baptism of but 
 one newly born child, we would esteem it as valid as 
 a million ; valid, however, not to prove that infants are 
 included in the commission, — for nothing could prove 
 this, — ^but valid to prove another baptism, not inter- 
 fering with the baptism of believers. Were a thou- 
 sand baptisms found in the New Testament, they 
 could not all serve for the baptism of the commission ; 
 nor relieve the believer from his obligation of being 
 baptized on the belief of the truth. 
 
 Though, therefore, no evidence could convince me 
 that it is possible to reduce infant baptism to the com- 
 mission, I am wiUing to examine the practice of the 
 apostles, to find whether they used an other baptism 
 with respect to the infants of believers. I have no 
 hope that we shall find any such thing ; for the apos- 
 tle tells us that there is but one baptism, as well as 
 
SUBJECTS Ot BAPTISM. 289 
 
 cYie faith. Let us -try, then, whether the apostle has 
 told the truth in this matter ; and whether his prac* 
 tice give the lie to his assertion. 
 
 How did the apostle Peter preach baptism on thd 
 day of Pentecost 1 Did he preach infant baptism 1 
 No, he preached a baptism connected with repent- 
 ance for the remission of sins. Let us hear the ac- 
 count given of his doctrine on this subject by the 
 Holy Spirit, Acts ii. 38 ; "Then Peter said unto them, 
 Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, fot the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" Here 
 baptism is connected with repentance and remission 
 of sins. This baptism, then, cannot extend to in- 
 fants. If infants have a baptism, it must be essen- 
 tially different from this,— ^more different than John's 
 baptism is from Christ's. Well, a number of them 
 did repent, and were baptized. But were any infants 
 baptized with them 1 Not a word of this. " Then 
 they that gladly received his word were baptized." 
 This does not express infants, nor can it include them. 
 No explanation could make this account extend to 
 infants. It may be said, that it is possible that in- 
 fants were baptized at the same time. This is possi* 
 ble, just in the same Way that it is possible that the 
 apostles administered honey and milk to the baptized 
 persons. It is not in evidence, either expressly, or 
 by implication. Infants are excluded out of the 
 number who are said to be baptized ; because they 
 only are said to have been baptized, who received the 
 word gladly. 
 
 The next account of baptism occurs in Acts \nu 
 12, " But when they believed Philip preaching the 
 things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and 
 women." Here, also, only they who believed are 
 said to have been baptized. But it is remarkable, 
 that the account specifies women. 
 
 Had the account said nothing of women, yet it 
 trould have included them as believers; and the 
 
 25 
 
290 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 commission would have extended to them. But to 
 make the thing palpably clear, women are not only 
 included, but expressly included. Now, is it not re- 
 markable that the Holy Spirit should be so precise as 
 to women, yet not say a word of infants 1 This is 
 unaccountable, if they were baptized. How many 
 volumes of controversy would the addition of a word 
 have prevented ! How liberal was the Spirit of Inspi- 
 ration as to the information about the baptism of 
 women ! But on the supposition that infants were 
 baptized, how parsimonious with respect to the bap- 
 tism of infants ! 
 
 The baptism of Simon proceeded on the supposi- 
 tion of his faith ; and though he was not renewed in 
 the spirit of his mind, he was baptized on the same 
 ground with all others. ," Then Simon himself be- 
 Ueved also : and when he was baptized," &c. The 
 baptism of the eunuch was on the same principle. 
 Tljese examples illustrate the commission, as re- 
 quiring baptism on the belief of the truth. True, 
 indeed, it is possible ' that faith might be required in 
 ftduUs and not in infants. But the former is the only 
 baptism included in the commission, and the only 
 baptism that these examples illustrate. 
 
 The baptism of Paul, Acts xxii. 16, shows that 
 baptism is a figure, applicable only to those who are 
 washed from their sins. "Be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins." Paul's sins were already washed 
 away by faith in the blood of Christ. Yet he is com- 
 manded here to wash them away in baptism. This 
 shows that baptism is a figure of washing away sins, 
 with respect to those who are already washed. To 
 infants, it can be no such figure. Even if all the in- 
 fants of all believers, were assuredly to be brought to 
 the knowledge of the truth, yet this is not done in 
 infancy. Infant baptism, then, and believer baptism, 
 are not the same ordinance. To the former, it would 
 be a sign that their sins would hereafter be washed 
 away ; to the latter, that their sins were already, by 
 faith, washed away. But who will say that there is 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 291 
 
 any evidence that all the children of all believers 'Will 
 ever come to the knovsrledge of the truth 1 
 
 But surely the households vv^ill settle the business. 
 Here is a word comprehensive enough for including 
 infants. This battery, then, we cannot take. Well, 
 I once talked of thfe households myself, and sheltered 
 myself here as long as I could fire a gun. But my 
 own conscience obliged me to give up the battery at 
 last. I maintain that it is impossible to defend the 
 cause of infant baptism by this battery. It cannot 
 point one gun on the enemy. Mr. Ewing and Dr. 
 Wardlaw have made the best of it, yet their fire is 
 quite harmless. The noise of their guns may startle 
 the inexperienced soldier ; but if he can command as 
 much nerve as will enable him to examine the direc- 
 tion of their fire, he will soon get under it. I shall be- 
 gin with Dr. Wardlaw. 
 
 " In the first place, then," says Dr. Wardlaw, 
 " there is one point of fact undeniably clear, namely, 
 that the Apostle baptized households or families." 
 Granted ; but it is as clear that these were believing 
 households. This fact signifies nothing. A house- 
 hold may include infants, and it may not include 
 them. It cannot, then, give evidence on this point. 
 In stich a case, the extent of the baptism must be de- 
 termined by the commission. Nay, if I were assured 
 that there were infants in every one of the households, 
 I would with equal confidence deny that they were 
 baptized. According to the commission they could 
 not be baptized. And such phraseology always ad- 
 mits exceptions, with respect to those known to be ex- 
 cluded from the thing spoken of. When I say that such 
 a man and his family dined with me, I am known not 
 to include infants. In like manner, as the baptism 
 of the commission cannot possibly extend to infants, 
 even if they had been present in the families, 'they are 
 not included among the baptized. I will go a 
 step farther. I will suppose, for sake of argument, 
 that the ApOstles did baptiz6 infants ; even therl, I 
 will deny that the infants were baptized according tq 
 
292 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the commission. It must have been a different bap- 
 tism, and would not prevent the same infants from 
 being baptized with believer baptism, as soon as 
 they should believe. Now, try, Dr. Wardlaw, to 
 make your guns bear upon me. If you prove one in- 
 stance of infant baptism, I will baptize infants ; but a 
 million of such examples, would not set aside believer bap- 
 tism. 
 
 "It should be noticed too," says Dr. Wardlaw, 
 " that a man's house, (oixos,) rnost properly means his 
 children, his offspring, his descendants, — and is gene- 
 rally used to denote these even exclusively." This 
 word as properly, both from its origin and use, includes 
 all domestics as children. It properly signifies all the 
 residents in a house. It is capable, indeed, of being 
 limited to descendants, when the connexion or known 
 circumstances require it. It is therefore very often 
 used with respect to them exclusively. It is also 
 often used to denote, not only descendants, but an- 
 cestors and collateral relations. But in all these in- 
 stances, it does not mean residents at all. The pas- 
 sages to which Dr. Wardlaw refers, respect descend- 
 ants without respect to abode, I Kings, xiv. 10, &c. 
 That it also with equal propriety includes all domes- 
 tics, is clear from its use, 1 Kings, iv. 7, v. 9, &c. It 
 must then be the connexion or circumstances, that, in 
 each occurrence of the word, will declare its extent. I 
 will allow Dr. Wardlaw to limit it, when, from the 
 connexion or circumstances, he proves his limitation. 
 He must likewise allow me to limit it by the same prin- 
 ciples. If it may, by the connexion or circumstances, 
 be limited to descendants, it may also be limited to 
 adults, by the necessity arising front the commission. 
 Dr. Wardlaw, in reasoning on these households, 
 seems to forget the difference between answering an 
 objection and founding an argument. It may be so, is 
 enough to establish any thing as an answer to an ob- 
 jection ; it may not be so, is enough to overturn it as an 
 argument. When I attempt to prove believer baptism, 
 I must produce arguments to establish it, and my op-. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 293 
 
 ponent will succeed, if he can show that these argu- 
 ments do not establish my point. In obviating an ob- 
 jection, I succeed, if I can show that there is any way 
 of understanding it consistently with my doctrine. 
 Now, with respect to the households, we merely stand 
 on the defensive. It is our business to reply to the 
 objection grounded on this fact. As our opponents 
 use the fact as an argument, they must prove that 
 their doctrine is in it. It is enough for us to prove, 
 that this fact is consistent with our doctrine. If they 
 do not prove that infant baptism is necessarily here, 
 the passage is useless to them. If we prove that in- 
 fant baptism is not necessarily here, we have all we 
 wish. Now with respect to oixo?, house, it is enough 
 for our purpose, that the word may include all domes- 
 tics. But it is not enough for them, to show that the 
 word may signify descendants exclusively, unless they 
 show a necessary limitation, from the connexion or 
 circumstances. 
 
 But as concerns the point in debate, I care not that 
 it was established that oixog applies to descendants 
 only. I will still limit it farther by the commission 
 to adults. Even one of the passages referred to by 
 Dr. Wardlaw himself, might have taught him this. 
 " One that ruleth well his own house," 1 Tim. iii. 4. 
 The nature of the thing asserted, determines it to 
 apply to adults only, or at least to children capable of 
 government. Newly born infants are excluded. I 
 require no more, in repelling the objection from the 
 households. As the ruling of a house cannot apply 
 to infants newly born, so the baptizing of a house 
 cannot refer to any in the house, but such as come 
 under the commission. Common sense every day 
 makes the necessary limitations in such indefinite 
 forms of speech. It is only the perverse spirit of 
 controversy that finds any difficulty in them. 
 
 " Secondly," says Dr. Wardlaw, " To an unpreju- 
 diced reader of the New Testament, it must, I think, 
 be equally clear, that the baptism of families is men- 
 tioned in a way that indicates its being no extraordU 
 
 25* 
 
294 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 nary occurrence, — ^but a thing of course." The bap- 
 tism of households was just as common a thing 
 as the faith of households, and nothing more so. 
 Both were evidently, in the days of the Apostles, 
 \ery common. That the baptism of a household 
 was as a matter of course on the faith of the head of 
 it, without the faith of the family, there is not the 
 slightest appearance. We are, indeed, informed of 
 the baptism of Lydia's house, without being informed 
 of their faith. But that they had faith, the commis- 
 sion leaves no doubt. The narrative tells us that 
 the house of Crispus believed, but it does not tell us 
 that they were baptized. Acts xviii. 8. We know, 
 however, that they were baptized, because the com- 
 mission enjoins it. In like manner, when we are 
 told that Lydia's house were baptized, we know that 
 they believed, because the commission warrants the 
 baptism of none but believers. 
 
 Instead of stating that the baptism of Lydia's 
 house was a thing of course on her faith, without 
 theirs, the narrative states, as a piece of important 
 information, that ought to be a lesson to every age, 
 that baptism is so closely connected with the belief 
 of the truth, that not only Lydia herself, but her 
 whole family, were baptized, before she invited the 
 Apostle to partake of her hospitality. " And when 
 she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
 us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to 
 the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. 
 And she constrained us." The work of the Lord was 
 first attended to, and then attention to the Apostle. 
 
 That Lydia had any children, either infants or 
 adults, is not in evidence ; and thej'efore, as her house 
 may have exclusively consisted of servants, the fact 
 can never serve the cause of infant baptism. Indeed, 
 from the way in which she speaks of her house, and 
 from her being a stranger on business in that place, 
 there is reason to believe that her family consisted 
 solely of servants. But I will not build any thing on 
 even the highest probabilities. I will lay no stone in. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 295 
 
 my building, that time will corrode. I care not that 
 she had no servants ; her baptized house must be 
 believers, because the Apostle had no authority to 
 baptize others. I care not that she had infants of a 
 week old ; they could not be included, and the form 
 of the expression does not require that they should 
 be included. When it is said that a certain noble- 
 man " believed himself, and his whole house," John 
 iv. 53, does it imply that there were no infants in his 
 house 1 Does it not evidently refer to those in his 
 house who were capable of believing, and to all such 
 in his house 1 When it is said that Cornelius " feared 
 God, with all his house," is it necessary to assert 
 that there could have been no infants under his roof? 
 Surely not. Why, then, is it supposed that the bap- 
 tism of households should imply the baptism of in- 
 fants, who, by the commission, are excluded? 
 
 " Thirdly," says Dr. Wardlaw, " Having thus the 
 unquestionable fact of the baptism of families, — a fact 
 according with the ancient practice of the circum- 
 cision of families, and supported by the use of a word 
 that properly denotes a man's children or offspring; 
 we are warranted to assume, that such was the usual 
 practice." 
 
 Here Dr. Wardlaw shifts the ground of his argu- 
 ment, and very conveniently takes for granted the 
 thing to be proved? What is the unquestionable fact 
 in his past observations ? The baptism, of families. 
 This is unquestionable, because it is expressly said. 
 But what is the thing that is unquestionable 1 Why, 
 that the word household is so applied. Is it unques- 
 tionable that the household were baptized, not on ac- 
 count of their own faith, but on account of the faith 
 of the head of the family ? No ; this is not unques- 
 tionable. This is the point in debate. But this is 
 what Dr. Wardlaw's third observation takes ag un^ 
 questionable. If it is not unquestionable in this sense, 
 it is nothing to his purpose. It does not accord with 
 the ancient practice of the circumcision of families. 
 If the household believed and were baptized, it does 
 not accord with the circumcision of a family without 
 
296 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 any regard to faith. Dr. Wardlavr must take for 
 granted his own sense of the phrase ; and when this 
 is granted to him, he will very easily prove his point. 
 If it is granted as a thing unquestionable, that unbe- 
 lieving famiUes were baptized, as unbelieving fami- 
 lies might be circumcised, the debate is at an end. 
 But Dr. Wardlaw must prove his meaning of the 
 phrase, before he takes it for granted. 
 
 We are indeed warranted to assume, that it was the 
 usual practice to baptize every family that believed. 
 But from the baptism of a thousand families, we are 
 not warranted to conclude the baptism of every fa- 
 mily when the head of it believed. The baptism of 
 one family will prove that all families in the same 
 circumstances ought to be baptized. This is the 
 turning point of the argument. If we read that a man 
 and his whole family were hanged for murder, this 
 will prove that every family that joins with the head 
 of it in committing murder, ought to be hanged. But 
 it will not prove that every family ought to be hanged 
 with the father, when he is guilty of murder. If 
 Lydia's family were baptized on account of her faith, 
 having none of their own, it would prove what Dr. 
 Wardlaw wants; but if this is not in evidence, he can- 
 not take it for granted. Dr. Wardlaw, you must 
 prove that these households were baptized, not on ac- 
 count of their own faith, but on account of that of the 
 head of the family. This is what you can never do. 
 All the apparent strength of your reasoning depends 
 on the assumption of false principles. No man is 
 more convincing than Dr. Wardlaw, if it is lawful to 
 take for granted the thing to be proved. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw, in 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 chil- 
 dren. And does Dr. Wardlaw think that this proof 
 lies upon us 1 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 children, lies on those 
 who need the assistance of the infants. I maintain 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 2&7 
 
 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 con- 
 sistent with all that is said here. This is sufficient 
 for my purpose. Before you can deduce an argument 
 from this fact, you must prove not only that she had 
 children, but infants. You must do more. 1 care 
 not that she had infants, the form of the expression 
 does not require that they were baptized, and the 
 commission makes it certain that they were not bap- 
 tized. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw has a very long, and certainly a very 
 satisfactory discussion, showing that the term bre- 
 thren, in verse 40, may not refer to Lydia's house- 
 hold, but all the believers 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 argument 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 question who think 
 that it is necessary to prove this, I refer them to Dr. 
 Wardlaw for a 'most triumphant refutation of their 
 sentiment. But did not Dr. Wardlaw perceive that 
 he was here cutting his own carotid artery ? Did he 
 not perceive that the very same arguments which 
 prove that the language, with respect to the faith of 
 the households of the jailor and of Stephanas, is con- 
 sistent with the supposition that there might have been 
 infants in them, equally prove that there might hava 
 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 might have been infants. And when 
 it is said that a family were baptized, infants might 
 have been in the house, without being included in the 
 baptism. The commission as effectually excludeg 
 
298 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 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 draw from the above source. We 
 do not attempt to prove that such phraseology is in- 
 consistent with the supposition, that infants were in 
 the families. But we allege these facts, to show that 
 if there were baptized families, there were also be- 
 lieving 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 show that there might 
 have been unbelieving infants in believing houses, we 
 will show that there might have been unbaptized in- 
 fants in baptized houses. But the facts alluded to are 
 especially important, because they apply to the very 
 houses that are said to be baptized. This not only 
 shows that it was possible that there might be be- 
 lieving houses, but it shows that there were such 
 houses. Two of the three baptized households are 
 expressly shown 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 informed of the one, the 
 otiier is necessarily understood. Why do our oppo- 
 nents speak of their households at all 1 If the jailor 
 had a baptized house, had he not a believing house 1 
 If Stephanas had a baptized house, had he not a be- 
 lieving bouse ] And why may not Lydia have had a 
 believing house 1 Our 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 actually in 
 evidence. There is here no cover for infant baptism. 
 
 " I add," says Dr. Wardlaw, " as a sixth observa- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 299 
 
 tioi), the extreme improbability, that a change, which 
 must have been felt so important by those whose 
 minds had been all along habituated to the connexion 
 of their children with themselves in the covenant of 
 promise, should have taken place without the slight- 
 est 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 
 stated could not at all be accounted for, it could not be 
 admitted as evidence. A thousand things might ac- 
 count for it, of which we are ignorant. Is every 
 thing recorded that took place in the ^postolic la- 
 bours ? Their adult children in unbelief were ad- 
 mitted to all Jewish ordinances ; is there any recorded 
 complaint of their exclusion from Christian ordi- 
 nances 1 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 offended them, was the giving up of old cus- 
 toms. Of the extent of baptism, whatever it was, 
 they could not be ignorant. Why then should they 
 murmur against the known will of God ? Upon the 
 principle of this observation, there were a thousand 
 things of which they might have complained, but of 
 which no complaint is recorded. This takes for 
 granted, also, that there was a spiritual connexion 
 between the Jews and their offspring, which is the 
 thing to be proved, — a thing which is not only not 
 admitted to be true, but which I will prove to be 
 false. This observation proceeds, from first to last, 
 on false principles. It takes for granted, that every 
 disagreeable change must have been a cause of mur- 
 muring ; and if there was murmuring, it must have 
 been recorded. There might have been a disagree- 
 able change, the principle of which might be so well 
 
300 StfBjECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 understood, as to prevent murmuring ; and there 
 might have been great murmuring 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 prac- 
 tice of these perverters of the gospel came to be dis- 
 cussed 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 dispensation, of administering any sign to chil- 
 dren, on the admission of their parents into the Chris- 
 tian commonwealth." This is egregious trifling. 
 Are all things recorded that were said on that occa- 
 sion 1 Was there any need in that assembly to dis- 
 cuss every error connected with the circumcision of 
 the Gentiles ? By cutting off" the circumcision of the 
 Gentiles, was not the circumcision of their infants, 
 and every error connected with it, cut off also 1 But 
 such 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 consi- 
 deration. This observation takes it for granted, that 
 the apostles could not condemn one error, without 
 expressly denouncing every other error connected 
 with it ; and that we have, in the records of the Acts, 
 every thing that was said in the celebrated rneeting at 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 " Let it be further considered," says Dr. Wardlaw, 
 " that we have no recorded instances of the baptism 
 of any person, grown to manhood, that had been 
 bom of Jewish converts, or of Gentile proselytes to 
 the faith of Christ." This would try the patience of 
 Job. Is there any need of such an example, in order 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 301 
 
 to shoTV that the children of such persons should be 
 baptized when they believe 1 What difference is thera 
 between such and others'? Is not the law of the 
 commission sufficient to reach theml Is it not suffi- 
 ciently clear 1 " He that believeth and is baptized ?" 
 " Nor have we," continues Dr. Wardlaw, " in any of 
 the apostolic epistles to the churches, the remotest al- 
 lusion, in the form of direction, or of warning, to the 
 reception of such children by baptism into the Chris- 
 tian 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 de- 
 voted saint.- When they believe, they are received 
 equally to every thing. 
 
 " This supposition," says Dr. Wardlaw, " let it be 
 further noticed, is in coincidence with the fact of chil- 
 dren 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 ar- 
 gument 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 suffi- 
 cient for my purpose. This will refute an objection. 
 But that they must have been such, is beyond ques- 
 tion, from the address itself. Their obedience to their 
 parents, is to be " in the Lord," which applies to be- 
 lievers only. The reasons of their obedience, also, 
 show that they were such children, as were capable 
 of faith. " This is right."-^" This is well pleasing unto 
 Ihe Lord." These are motives quite suitable to be- 
 lievers. As soon as children can evidence that they 
 act from these principles, they ought to be baptized, 
 and to walk in all the ordinances of the Lord. 
 
 But Dr. Wardlaw thinks that the children here ad- 
 dressed cannot merely be such adult children as were 
 
 26 
 
302 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 members of the churches ; because it is immediately 
 added, " and ye fathers provoke not your children to 
 wrath ; but bring them up in the nurture and admoni- 
 tion of the Lord." — " Fathers, provoke not yourchildren 
 to anger, lest they be discouraged." Novvr, as the duty 
 of fathers extends 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 would discern 
 that in these injunctions, neither the children nor the 
 fathers of the one injunction, correspond to the chil- 
 dren 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 members of the church who had fathers ; 
 but not one of these fathers Tnight 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 church. So 
 far from being necessary to suppose, that all the chil- 
 dren 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 ex- 
 tends to all their children. The fathers addressed may 
 not be the fathers of the children addressed ; and the 
 children addressed may not be the children of the fa- 
 thers addressed. Surely Dr. Wardlaw must be in the 
 habit of teaching according to this distinction. I would 
 not be so much surprised 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 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 303 
 
 apostolical injunctions are constantly inculcated. 
 Children are 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. 
 
 "Do our Baptist brethren," says Dr. Wardlaw, 
 " wait till their children are members of churches, be- 
 fore they venture to put their finffer on the passages 
 we have quoted, and say, ' This is addressed to 
 you V " 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 disobe- 
 dient children their duty from these passages. Though 
 we cannot tell unbelieving children that these exhor- 
 tations were originally addressed to such as they are, 
 but to believing children ; yet the duty inculcated is 
 equally incumbent on all. The moral duties incul- 
 cated 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 shows the 
 duty of unbelieving children. Dr. Wardlaw will not 
 say, that unbelieving fathers are directly addressed in 
 the above injunctions ; yet could he not apply the 
 injunctions, so as to make them bear upon unbeliev- 
 ing fathers 1 Could he not urge on unbelieving fa- 
 thers, their guilt in not training up their children in 
 the nurture of the Lord 1 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 them- 
 selves. Now, Dr. Wardlaw, of your eleven observa- 
 tions, this is the only one that has even a show of ar- 
 gument ; 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-paedo-baptist principles." So, Dr. Wardlaw, you 
 are returning to your old mode of reasoning from dif- 
 
S04 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ficulties. Well, then, I will admit, for sake of argu- 
 ment, 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 
 ordinance 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 in- 
 fant 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 show that this is not the case. But that the 
 opinion may have given rise to the practice, is enough 
 for my purpose. I am answering an objection, and 
 any thing that will account for the difficulty is suffi- 
 cient. 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 prac- 
 tice of the other cannot be alleged as proof of its 
 truth. Even were it granted that infant communion 
 was grafted on infant baptism, still, as it was univer- 
 sally received so early without having been from the 
 Apostles, infant baptism may have been grafted on 
 some similar stock. It is impossible to argue consist- 
 ently for infant baptism from the argument of anti- 
 quity, and reject the same argument for infant com- 
 munion. If infant communion was a thing not insti- 
 tuted by the Apostles, yet universally adopted so 
 early, why may not any other practice have been 
 adopted universally without apostolic institution 1 
 The practice of the earliest antiquity, with respect to 
 the ordinances of Christ, is a matter of much interest; 
 s-nd I am convinced that the subject has never been 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 305 
 
 set in that light, which the remains of antiquity would 
 afford to candour and industry. If God spares me 
 life and leisure, I may yet endeavour to exhibit its tes- 
 timony. 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 lo this series. It .is the remarkable 
 fact, of the entire absence, so far as my recollection 
 serves me, of any thing resembling the baptism of 
 households or families, in the accounts of the propaga- 
 tion of the gospel by our Baptist brethren." Now, at 
 first sight, this has an imposing appearance, but, on 
 reflection, it vanishes 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 
 baptized by households. I suppose that the Baptist 
 missionaries have a baptized household, as often as they 
 have a believing household. They will baptize Krish- 
 noo and his family, if Krishnoo and his family believe. 
 I have never seen three thousand baptized on one 
 day, yet I have no doubt that three thousand be- 
 lieved on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 In fact, I have never examined a series of argu- 
 ments 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 child. Jose- 
 phus, on one occasion, took a town, by presenting a 
 fleetbefore it, in which eachshiphadonlyfour 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 arguments 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 general- 
 ship, with respect to the households. " Family bap- 
 tism," says Mr. Ewing, "as mentioned in the New 
 Testament, is the more remarkable, that no other or- 
 dinance, and no privilege of any kind, is mentioned ixk 
 
306 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 the New Testament, as given to families." The rea- 
 son is obvious. Baptism belongs to individuals, and 
 vphen 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 
 church. It might as well be asked, why is baptism 
 given to an individual, seeing the other ordinances are 
 observed socially 1 Mr. Ewing gives the answer to 
 himself, in the next sentence. " Mention," 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 i's obvious. If a 
 believer and his family weae not a church, why is it 
 strange that they had not the ordinances that belong 
 to a church 1 " 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 1 
 If they were a church, they had the Lord's Supper, 
 whether it is recorded or not. There is no necessity 
 for any such record. 
 
 "I shall now be asked," says Mr. Ewing, "if all 
 or any of the families of behevers, where the family bap- 
 tism is said to have been practised, can be proved to 
 have contained infants?" Yes, Mr. Ewing, we will ask 
 this question, and notvi^ithstanding all you have said, 
 we will continue to insist on this question. " I an- 
 swer," says JMr. 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 famihes mentioned in connexion with baptism, 
 is any exception made, for the purpose of excluding 
 infants." This is granted fully; But it is more difl5- 
 cult to conceive how such arguments can impose on a 
 sound understanding, than it is to answer them. 
 House or family includes infants as well as adults — if 
 infants 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 may not have infants ; 
 therefore from the term we can learn nothing on this 
 
StJBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 307 
 
 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, without any intima- 
 tion, that the term house did not include his chil- 
 dren. Just so from the commission, we know that 
 infants are not included among those who were bap- 
 tized 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 ex- 
 cepted in the supposed case of the eunuch. There is 
 no need for the history to except them. They are ex- 
 cepted by that commission that must guide all prac- 
 tice. 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 common sense, 
 than that as a house or family may or may not have 
 infants, the baptism of a house is no proof that infants 
 were baptized 1 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 phraseology admits the exception of them, and 
 the commission demands it. The pertinacity with 
 which our opponents continue to rest on the house- 
 holds, is a discredit to their good sense, as well as 
 their candour. 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 evi^ 
 dence from the term that there were infants in those home- 
 holds. Again, as such phraseology is, in daily conver- 
 
308 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 salion, used with exceptions ; so, though infants had been 
 in those households, the known limitations of the commis- 
 sion would except them. This is as obvious as that two 
 and two maiie four. It is useless to reason with any 
 who are so perverse as to deny what is self-evident. 
 Their disease cannot be cured by argument. When 
 Mr. Ewing says, that in the narrative of the house- 
 holds there is no " exception made for the purpose of 
 excluding infants," it is virtually admitted, that such 
 phraseology admits exceptions. If so, may not the 
 exception in the commission be as valid as an excep- 
 tion in the history 1 Nay, the exception of the com- 
 mission makes an exception in the history perfectly 
 unnecessary. The commission enjoins the baptism of 
 believers, and from that baptism all others are there- 
 fore for ever excluded. When a household were bap- 
 tized according to this commission, they must have 
 been beUevers. 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 per- 
 fectly 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 en- 
 list 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 em- 
 barrass the weakest 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 family are ennobled, does not the 
 nobiUty include infants 1" It does so, not from the ne- 
 cessity of the phraseology, but from what is known 
 of the laws. Were it said that a man and his family 
 were hanged for murder, his infants would be ex- 
 cluded. Were it said that after a rebellion a maa 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 309 
 
 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 1" No, Mr. Ewing, because it is 
 known from the commission that infants are not in- 
 cluded : whereas in the other cases, it is known that 
 infants are included. In neither case can we learn 
 the extent of the application 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 probability of the case, many confine their atten- 
 tion to the four families mentioned in Acts x. Acts xvi. 
 and 1 Cor. i." Calculating probability ! Is a law of 
 God to depend on a calculation of probabilities 1 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 same 
 way." Who told this to Mr. Ewing? Has he got it 
 iin a dream, or in a vision? If Mr. Ewing 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 mention- 
 ed, they were all believing families. The commis- 
 sion leaves no doubt of this. Of the three families 
 mentioned, two of them are expressly represented as 
 believing families. Why might not the other be sol 
 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 
 baptized, the same number believed. 
 
 But it seems there is one baptized household at 
 least, in which it is even certain that there were no 
 
310 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 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. Ew- 
 ing has received some secret revelation on this point. 
 No, no, I assure you, Mr. Ewing professes 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. Unquestionably she put her argu- 
 ment 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 sin- 
 gular number, saying, ' If ye have judged me to be 
 faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide.' " 
 Now, this is so shadowy an argument, that it is as dif- 
 ficult to get at it, as it was for Fin gal 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 1 Had there been a thou- 
 sand, the house was hers, the hospitality was hers, and 
 the ground of the Apostle's receiving it must be her 
 faithfulness. 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 school- 
 ed by Sir Roger de Coverley's old butler, that she 
 must say, our house, our faithfulness ? &c. The man 
 who can take this for evidence, will never want evi- 
 dence for any thing to his taste. I never met any 
 writer more intrepid, than Mr. Ewing, in cutting down 
 opposing evidence; nor more easily pleased with evi- 
 dence 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 Church. What 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 811 
 
 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 sen- 
 timents, I would let them sink to the bottom of the 
 ocean. Mr. Ewing is right in not surrendering a bat- 
 tery, while it is capable of defence. But why will he 
 keep his flag flying, while it is evident, from his fire, 
 that the ammunition is expended 1 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 
 requires a more than an ordinary audacity to say, in the 
 face of the commission of Jesus Christ, that unbeliev- 
 ing 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 bap- 
 tized. Christians, whether will ye obey your Lord 
 and Saviour, or Mr. Ewing 1 How long, Mr. Ewing, 
 how long will you make void the commandment of 
 God by your inventions 1 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 1" The language of Lydia is con- 
 sistent with the supposition that there was not an un- 
 believer in her house. So far is it from implying that 
 her family were all unbelievers. 
 
 " The house of Stephanas," says Mr. Ewing, " ad- 
 dicted themselves 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 perform 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 in- 
 fants, there is no necessity that they should be sup- 
 posed to have been baptized. We do not argue, that, 
 because the baptized households were believing house- 
 holds, there could not be any infants in the houses. 
 
312 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 But we argue, that if there were baptized households) 
 these households were believing households ; and that 
 in the household of the jailor and of Stephana^ we 
 have direct evidence. We could have known this by 
 the commission, had the narrative been silent. But 
 when the narrative itself shows that they had believ- 
 ing households, what difficulty is in the expression 
 baptized households ? Is not the one commensurate 
 with the other 1 The importance of the fact of the 
 believing households is, not to show that there could 
 be no infants in those houses, but to show that it is an 
 historical fact that there were in those houses believers 
 to be called a baptized household ; and to show 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 refute themselves. If ihere may have 
 been infants where a house is said to believe, without 
 supposing that infants are believers, so where a house 
 is said to be baptized, there may have been in it in- 
 fants, who were not baptized. If any man cannot 
 understand the weight of this argument, it is not ar- 
 gument can convince him. 
 
 Mr. Ewing asks his opponents, " if they admit the 
 general fact of family baptism, why they do not prac- 
 tise accordingly 1" And do they not practise accord- 
 ing to the view in which they admit this fact? Is 
 there any inconsistency between their practice and 
 their admission? Are they inconsistent with them- 
 selves because they practise according to their own 
 views, and not according to the views of Mr. Ewing 1 
 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 fa- 
 milies, when whole families believe," says he, "ap- 
 pears to me to be treating the historical Scripture as 
 nugatory." But why, Mr. Ewing, does this treat the 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. S13 
 
 historical Scripture as nugatory 1 " Any view of this 
 subject," says Mr. Ewing, " would lead us to baptize 
 whole families, or whole nations, if they all believed." 
 Doubtless. And may we not say the same thing of in- 
 dividual baptism ? Is the history of the baptism of the 
 euTiuch and that of Paul nugatory ; because, if neither 
 of them had been recorded, we would have known from 
 the commission that believers ought to be baptized ; 
 and that faith is necessary to baptism 1 There may 
 be much use in recording these facts, though they do 
 not bear Mr. Ewing's inference. It is not warranta- 
 ble to say, that a portion of Scripture must have a cer- 
 tain meaning, because we can see no use in it, if it 
 , has not that meaning. " It would not have made 
 the slightest diiFerence in the practice," continues Mr. 
 Ewing, " had no mention been made of family bap- 
 tism at all." Not the shghtest difference^ Nor would 
 it have made the slightest difference with respect to 
 the baptizing of individuals, had no example of bap- 
 tism been recorded. Yet none of the examples are 
 nugatory. The perverseness of Christians requires 
 them all. The family baptisms recorded, can war- 
 rant no family baptisms but swh as are recorded ; and 
 two of these are expressly stated as believers, and the 
 remaining third must be according to the commission. 
 " Unless, therefore," says Mr. Ewing, " we admit some 
 peculiar connexion between the extent of a family, 
 and the extent of the administration of baptism, I ap- 
 prehend that family baptism is a Scripture fact which 
 we do not yet understand." Does not Mr. Ewing per- 
 ceive 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 1 On Mr. Ewing's principles, might I 
 not say, unless every infant of the house of the Re- 
 chabites 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 1 Suppose the govern- 
 ment issues a commission to raise a number of regi- 
 ments, and to enlist all men fit for service. In the 
 27 
 
814 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 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 1 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 convince 
 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 en- 
 listed, every member of his family, man, woman, and 
 child, are enlisted also ; he can see no meaning in the 
 statement of the enlistment of the three families 1 
 The fact that three families are enlisted 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 contradicted 
 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 famiMes, but how many is not 
 known ; nor can the number at all influence the 
 question. How many soever they might be, they 
 must all have been believing households. To justify 
 Mr. Ewing's observation, the commission must have 
 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 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 315 
 
 to do with this question, more than with a demon- 
 stration in EucUd. 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 unclean." Shame, Peter, 
 is there any thing unclean that God commands to be 
 eaten? What made certain meats unclean to Israel 
 but God's command ] 
 
 "You keep aloof," says Mr. Ewing, "from this prac 
 tice from your 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. Ew- 
 ing, "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, in- 
 deed ! This sounds harshly in my ears. Deter from 
 a practice for which there is a divine warrant 1 He 
 must have a scrupulous conscience indeed, who will 
 speak of being deterred from executing a divine war- 
 rant. I would baptize Satan himself, without the 
 smallest scruple, had I a divine warrant. Give us a 
 divine warrant, and we have no objection, 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 fa,- 
 mily. I am glad of it. He may yet be led to see 
 that it is an awful thing to allege a warrant from 
 Jesus to baptize unbelievers, when the apostolical com- 
 mission includes believers only. "But the truth is," 
 says Mr. Ewing, "infants and adults are precisely 
 on a footing, in regard to the regenerating Work of 
 the Holy Spirit, of which baptism is a figure." But 
 are adult unbelievers to have the figure of regenera- 
 tion which they have not yet experienced 1 This 
 
316 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 contradicts every thing exhibited in the figure of bap- 
 tism, 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 consequently 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 rebelUous 
 against both their Father in heaven and their parents 
 on earth, as to refuse the ordinance, and to contra- 
 dict and blaspheme the truth 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, ex- 
 cept he refuses. I do not envy the conscience that 
 can receive this without qualms. I think it will be 
 swallowed with difficulty by many of the Independ- 
 ents. But when Mr. Ewing has avowed this mon- 
 strous doctrine, where will he find a warrant 1 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 . cer- 
 tainly be saved 1 Let us hear the passage itself. 
 "And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 
 And, behold, there was a man named Zaccheus, 
 which was the chief among the publicans, and he 
 was rich. And he sought to see Jesus, who he was ; 
 and could 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 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 317 
 
 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 re- 
 ceived him jo3rfully. 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 accusation, I re- 
 store 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, appears 
 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 clear- 
 est evidence of his conversion. The Lord, therefore, 
 recognises him publicly before the people, who mur- 
 mured, and declared that Zaccheus was not only wor- 
 thy of being his host, but that he who was among 
 the chief of sinners, was now a member of his king- 
 dom : 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 salvation 
 ■was come to that house : " He also is a son of Abra- 
 ham." That he was a natural descendant of Abra- 
 ham, there was no question. 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 Abra- 
 ham. He was a notorious sinner, indeed, but I have 
 come to save such." 
 Many suppose that the phrase, " Salvation is come 
 
318 SUBJECTS OF BAFTISM. 
 
 to this house," means that others in the house had 
 believed ; or that it was an intimation 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 passage. 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 foun- 
 dation for baptizing an unbeheving family, and does 
 not seem to be contained in this passage. If salva- 
 tion 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, with I'espect to those who refuse the ordi- 
 nance and blaspheme 1 Children have no right to 
 refuse ; and slaves may be forced to submit. Those 
 must ail be baptized with the household. Ah ! Mr. 
 Ewing, is such a household as you represent to be en- 
 titled to baptism, at all like the house of the jailor, 
 and the house of Stephanas % How unlike to your 
 coEomission to baptize, is the commission of Christ !. 
 Christ says, " believe and be baptized :" Mr. Ewing 
 says, " baptize all the unbelievers of a believer's 
 house, except they refuse." Is it not a fearfxil thing 
 to have on record before heaven and earth, a docu- 
 ment at such variance with the commission of Christ! 
 I know Christ will forgive the ignorance of his peo- 
 ple j but to teach his children to err from his com- 
 mandments, 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 commis- 
 sion 1 Must iK)t the commission limit this indefinite 
 word 1 Does not Mr, Ewing, does not Dr. Wardlaw, 
 show examples that justify such limitation of indefi- 
 nite or general language t 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, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 319 
 
 without being baptized 1 None can be baptized, ac- 
 cording- to the commission, but believers ; the phrase- 
 ology about the households is perfectly consistent 
 with this, according to daily use in all nations : why 
 then conjure up a difficulty, when not a shadow of 
 difficulty exists? An infidel, who should read the 
 Scriptures, just to learn what was actually the prac- 
 tice 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 ex- 
 tend to every inhabitant of the family, or admit of 
 certain exceptions, according to known limitations. 
 The limitation of the households he would find in the 
 commission. He would never dream that the Apos- 
 tles would baptize any but such as are commanded to 
 be baptized. 
 
 Let it be recollected, that we stand on the defensive 
 in this matter ; and that it is perfectly sufficient for 
 our purpose, if the term household will admit the limi- 
 tation 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 difierent from that of the commis- 
 sion, 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 dis- 
 ciples 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 capable, has anj bearing on the subject. We might 
 as well seek a warrant for infant baptism in Magna 
 Charta, or the Bill of Rights. Infant salvatioa does 
 not imply infant baptism. Baptism is an exhibition 
 of the faith of the gospel ; and of course cannot be- 
 long to any but those who appear to believe the gos. 
 
320^ SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 pel. 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 1 
 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 con- 
 descension, which the passage does mention, and 
 which he so beautifully displays both to children and 
 to parents, is by no meansExcLusivE of the baptism 
 of the former, but apparently in addition to it." Our 
 Saviour's condescension, here mentioned, not exclusive of 
 the baptism of infants ! What an argument ! Does 
 our Saviour's condescension to children, suppose that 
 they must have been baptized 1 It is a shame for hu- 
 man understanding 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, butif we receive infant baptism on 
 the authority of such arguments, we must receive it 
 as simpletons. Christ commands us to be like little 
 children, but he never commands us to be idiots. " In 
 malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." 
 The gospel itself must have evidence ; and we are re- 
 quired to believe nothing without evidence. Is our 
 Saviour's condescension in blessing children any evi- 
 dence 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 1 It seems, how- 
 ever, that this passage does more than not exclude in- 
 fants from baptism, though, in such a lack of evi- 
 dence, that itself is a great deal. The blessing is ap- 
 parently 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 
 
 * To this day, Jewish chUdren are brought to the Rabbi, who lays 
 his hand on them, and prays. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 321 
 
 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, that is sub- 
 tile without penetration. Of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven, "that is to say," says Mr. Hallet, "the Icing- 
 dom 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 comprehends 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 
 another, which must be abundantly edifying ; " or," 
 says he " if any one would have the words so stiffly 
 rendered, Sttch'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 king- 
 dom 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 kingdom. The meaning 
 is not that the poor in spirit will obtain heaven as 
 their inheritance ; but that there is none in the king- 
 dom 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 
 heaven but the poor in spirit ; nor is there one in hea- 
 ven who is not such as the children. However, were 
 it even supposed that the expression was, " the king- 
 dom of heaven belongs to such," the import of the 
 term smh is not altered. Even such's is the kingdom, 
 makes no difference. Every way in which the words 
 can be understood, imports that the heirs of the king- 
 dom are such as children^ — not that they are children. 
 Observe the difference between the expression, Matt, 
 v. 3, from the expression in this place. In the former 
 it is aurwv " of them," in the latter it is roiouruv " of 
 such." The kingdom of heaven is of the poor in 
 epirit, and of them only : but it is not of children only, 
 
322 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 but of those who are such as children. They resem- 
 ble children in their character. Had auruv beea here 
 used iastead of toioutwv, 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 children were 
 included in that kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Hallet says, that if we understand the term 
 ^uch to refer not to the infants, but to persons resem- 
 bling 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 heaven is of such," cannot possibly mean 
 that the kingdom of heaven is of them. The term 
 such does not signify identity — cannot signify 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 
 argument. I will show him what concerns this argu- 
 ment, and I will insist that so far the meaning must 
 be what I contend for. 
 
 "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. Many have been hanged for for- 
 gery, 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 bap- 
 tism 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 link children, any little children, to come to 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 323 
 
 me. Does not the parallel passage, Mark x. 15. ap- 
 ply to children in general 'i It is the temper of chil- 
 dren to which our Lord gives his approbation, and 
 the things referred to are found in all children. Does, 
 not this illustration show this t Does not Matt, xviii. 
 1. confirm this? Why does Mr. Hallet look for a 
 reason of approbation, not only not mentioned by 
 Jesus himself, but different from that -which Jesus has 
 mentioned'? All children possess what Jesus here 
 approves. But while these dispositions of children 
 are such as to afford a proper figure to represent the 
 teachableness, humihty, &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 atone- 
 ment of the blood of Christ, while they afford a like- 
 ness to the character of the disciples. 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 com- 
 ■paratively 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 hunable 
 in the things of God. Our Lord may approve of 
 Ihildren here, just as he loved the rich young man in 
 unbelief. The young man had lived in such a man- 
 ner, that in his ovi^n view he had kept the law of 
 God from his youth up. To live so, was commenda- 
 ble, 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 approbation of children, is 
 their teachableness, humility, &c. and this as it re- 
 spects 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 refer- 
 ence for which I contend, does not admit doubt. 
 
 That children are capable of being brought to 
 
^24 SUBJECTS Of baptism. 
 
 Christ and blessed by him, is clearly established by 
 this passage ; and in this light it is of inestimable va- 
 lue. 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 
 m 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 ordinance of human invention, is to bring 
 them to Christ, but to increase their own sin. Had 
 man appointed an ordinance of imposition 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 
 whole argument may be reduced to a single sentence. 
 Children may be blessed without being baptized, therefore 
 the blessing of the children by Jesus is no argument for 
 infant baptism. 
 
 In short, whether our Lord's expression imports 
 that the kingdom of God consists of such, or is the 
 property of such, the term such must necessarily mean 
 not them, but persons like them — of such as children, not 
 of children such as these. The ground of our Lord's 
 approbation of children is their resemblance to his dis- 
 ciples in certain characteristics of mind, which are to 
 be found only in rational creatures ; and they are per- 
 mitted to come to Christ, because they are capable of 
 being blessed by him. 
 
 The fact here recorded, however, instead of af- 
 fording evidence for infant baptism, affords a fSre- 
 sumption against it. If infants were every day 
 brought to be baptized, why did the apostles object to 
 their being brought to be blessed 1 Mr. Ewing has 
 been aware of this difficulty, and has obviated it by a 
 resource 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. 3.) in order to be bap- 
 
StjBjeCTS OF BAPTISM. 325 
 
 tized. They only objected to their 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 1 
 What an eagle eye must he have that can discover 
 these things 1 But there is here a distinction never' 
 once made in the history of Jesus, — a distinction be- 
 tween 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 person- 
 ally 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 
 baptized, why did the apostles object to their coming 
 to Christ to be blessed 1 Jesus vindicates the propri- 
 ety of bringing children to him, by arguments that 
 equally apply, whether it is to himself personally, or 
 to his apostles acting for him. 
 
 But let this passage be ever so finely wiredrawn, it 
 cannot include infant baptism. It applies to children 
 in general, and not merely to the children of believ- 
 ers ; and though the children of believers only were 
 included, they may be brought to Christ for his bless- 
 ing 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 propagation of the gospel among the 
 Gentiles, in which family baptism is first mentioned, 
 is always 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 1 " Then Pe- 
 ter 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 
 28 
 
326 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to 
 your 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 baptized." Can language be more 
 clear 1 Are they not to be baptized into the remis- 
 sion of sins 1 Does not this show, that in baptism, 
 repentance and remission of sins are supposed with re- 
 spect to the baptized ] They are not to be baptized, that 
 repentance and remission 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 1 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 1 Chil- 
 dren denotes posterity, and not merely infant children, 
 and the promise of the Spirit is to them and to their pos- 
 terity, and to all that are afar off, only on their repent- 
 ance. It is not said, that when a man repents, his chil- 
 dren shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, whether 
 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 bap- 
 tized. Does Mr. Ewing believe, that when a man 
 believes the gospel, his infants, and all the unbeliev- 
 ers of his house, receive remission of sins, arid the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost 1 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 whom 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 pro- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 327 
 
 mise which was to the Jews first, and to their chil- 
 dren, should be to the Gentiles also, and to their chil- 
 dren." No, Mr. Ewing, this is not the plain mean- 
 ing. 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, 
 they 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, restrict- 
 ing 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 and, but added to the 
 whole, as a limitation. And does not the whole word 
 of God confirm this view 1 Do any receive the gift of 
 the Spirit, but such as are called 1 Do the unbeliev- 
 ing 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 will profit him nothing as to infant bap- 
 tism. Whatever the promise here may import, to 
 whomsoever 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 unbelievers of a believer's house, as 
 possessing the gift of the Spirit. This is a species of 
 unbelievers unknown to the word of God, — unbeliev- 
 ers possessing the Holy Spirit! 
 
 Nothing but perverseness, and an obstinate attach- 
 ment to a system, could make our opponents rely on 
 an argument founded on the indefinite phrase, your 
 children. Does not God promise to " pour out his 
 
328 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 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, of infant chil- 
 dren 1 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 per- 
 verse, as to contend for the unlimited sense of an in- 
 definite 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 children in this passage 1 I answer, no man 
 of common sense can mistake its meaning, if he takes 
 the meaning from the words. The 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 sal- 
 vation sent." Did not the Jews believe that the bless- 
 ings of the Messiah's kingdom would be confined to 
 themselves 1 How then, I might ask, would they un- 
 derstand this language ? Would they not have much 
 greater reason to conclude from this, that Paul con- 
 fined salvation to the Jews, than that Peter extended 
 the gift of the Spirit to the whole offspring of believ- 
 ers, without any respect to their faith 1 He says no- 
 thing 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 1 Yet Paul, on this occasion, speaks of it 
 as sent to the stock of Abraham, and such among 
 them as feared Godi Just so Peter speaks of the 
 promise to them and their children, but he exphcitly 
 limits the blessing to those whom God shall call. The 
 most prejudiced 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 pxplana- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 329 
 
 tion or restriction," &c. Without explanation or re- 
 striction ! How can Dr. Wardlaw use this language 1 
 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 capa,ble of being misunderstood. 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 receives the gospel, all his infants receive the 
 Spirit 1 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 1 But the promise is, that pe- 
 nitents shall receive the Spirit, and not that the chil- 
 den of such shall repent in time to come. Besides, if 
 there was a promise that all the children of all believ- 
 ers would repent, this would not entitle them to that 
 baptism that supposes repentance. 
 
 But if your children respects children, without limi- 
 tation from the concluding clause, then the promise 
 is, that all the children of a believer will 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 1 If not, does the promise import that un- 
 believing adult children will receive the Spirit ? Ac- 
 cording to our opponents, this promise secures the gift 
 of the Spirit to the children of beUevers, 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 beUeve. 
 
 Let it be observed, that the gift of the Spirit, as re- 
 spected his miraculous operations, was given to their 
 children with the hmitation for which we contend. 
 Some of them, ipdeed, might be children under age, 
 
330 SlTBjECtS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 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 daugh- 
 ters shall prophesy." This is the promise to which 
 Peter refers, and it was fulfilled, as far as concerned 
 miraculous gifts, in the gift of prophecy conferred on 
 their sons and daughters. Surely these prophesying 
 sons and daughters, were beheving sons and daugh- 
 ters, — 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 a:nd daughters 1 Nothing can 
 be more clear. But why do we waste time in ascer- 
 taining the nature and extent of this promise, or of 
 any other promise 1 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 believers; this does not imply their bap- 
 tism, 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 concern 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 sub- 
 ject. Our opponents have a popish perverseness in 
 clinging to arguments that have a thousand and a 
 thousand times been shown to be inefficient, and which 
 they cannot themselves say bear the weight of their 
 conclusion, but have merely some favourable aspect 
 toward it. It is a most vexatious thing, that, in the 
 dispute about infant baptism, the greatest part of the 
 arguments brought to support it, have no concern with 
 baptism at all. Is it not evident, on the very face of 
 the business, that infant baptism is not in the Scrip- 
 tures, when its advocates are obliged to shelter it un- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 331 
 
 der such subterfuges 1 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 as- 
 serts the interest which believers from among the Gen- 
 tiles 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." Family 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 Gen- 
 tiles, justification by the faith of Abraham, in the seed 
 of Abraham ? Is it not such only who receive "the 
 promise of the Spirit 1" Do any but believers receive 
 the promise of the Spirit 1 Is it not here expressly said, 
 that the "promise of the Spirit" is "through faith V 
 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 
 blessing, 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 de- 
 termines 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 founda- 
 tion 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 bap- 
 tized as well as their parents, because they were be- 
 lievers, 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 
 
332 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 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 extorted from ver. 27 ? Mr. Ewing, you might 
 as well assert that family 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 1 Can a righteous cause require 
 the aid of such support 1 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 reason- 
 ing 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 floundering in a quag- 
 mire, — every plunge to relieve yourself, will only sink 
 you more deeply. 
 
 " Unless we admit," says Mr. Ewing, " that in- 
 fants, nay, every relation, both of afiSnity and de- 
 scent, 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 un- 
 believing wife, have from him a right to all the ordi- 
 nances of Christ. Well, this is extravagant,, but it is 
 only consistent. Others have founded an argument 
 for infant baptism on this passage, but they incon- 
 sistently 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 apphes equally 
 to the Lord's supper j he therefore, instead of giving 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 up the armment, as proving too much, boldly adopts 
 all its co^Jpuences. 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 rjght 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 1 Is 
 this like the kingdom of Christ 1 Can any thing be 
 more contrary to the Scripture accounts of baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper 1 Faith is necessary to entitle 
 to admission into a church ; faith is necessary to eat 
 the Lord's Supper without condemnation ; faith is ne- 
 cessary for baptism. How, then, can an unbelieving 
 wife, or unbelieving children, be admitted to such 
 privileges by this passage 1 Can any passage in the 
 word of God give a warrant to persons to eat and 
 drink condemnation to themselves 1 Can any passage 
 warrant the admission of unbelievers info a church 
 from which the Lord has excluded them ? Can 
 any passage sanction the baptism of unbelievers, 
 when all the accounts of baptism require faith 1 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 ati extrava- 
 gance that, in a person who has any notion of Chris- 
 tian fellowship, and the nature of a church can never 
 be exceeded. 
 
 With respect to the passage referred to, it is visu- 
 ally and sufficiently explained, by an allusion to Ezra 
 X. 3, 44 ; Neh. xiii. 23, 24. The sanctification refer, 
 red 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 transgress that law, or are converted af- 
 ter marriage, they are not, like the Jews, to put away 
 their wives and children on repentance. The mar- 
 riage is to continue, and the relation is sanctified, just 
 
334 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 as their food is sanctified or blessed to-Uieir use. 
 Now tiiis is an important, a most impo^pat thing. 
 As Jesus commands his disciples „to marry in the 
 Lord, had no provision been made, every marriage 
 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 unbeliev- 
 ers are lawful, and the offspring legitimate. Cer- 
 tainly — because they are according to the law both 
 of God and man. But as Christ commands his peo- 
 ple to marry in the Lord, to marry otherwise is con- 
 trary to God's law. Neither such marriage, then, nor 
 the offspring of it, would be legitimate according to 
 the law of God, except by this provision. The mar- 
 riage might be legitimate according to the law of man, 
 andthe childrenlegitimateaccordingto thelawof man, 
 but neither would be legitimate according to the law 
 of God. This provision, then, is most bountiful 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 pas- 
 sage. But if any will choose to understand it other- 
 wise, let them have it their own way. In no view of 
 it, can it countenance the baptism of infants or unbe- 
 lievers. This sanctification, whatever it is, is a mar- 
 riage sanctification, and not the sanctification of the 
 Spirit through the belief of the truth, which is the 
 only santification that entitles to any Christian privi- 
 lege. If such infants were even as holy as the infant 
 John the Baptist, it would not imply their baptism. 
 They may possess the holiness that will 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 unbelievers. If this 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 335 
 
 passage will give a right to introduce the unbelieving 
 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 dispensed with in 
 this threatening ] The same explanation that will 
 baptize an unbeliever, or admit him to the Lord's 
 Supper, will introduce him into heaven, in defiance of 
 the damnation pronounced against him by the Sav- 
 iour himself What a wretched thing it is for a 
 Christian to be given up by God to justify the tradi- 
 tions 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 bap- 
 tism — baptism on the ground of property ! The un- 
 believing 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 do- 
 minions of an absolute king] I call upon all Chris- 
 tians to reflect on this monstrous avowal. Is it not 
 self-evident that the cause that demands this defence, 
 is not the cause of God and truth ] That the bap- 
 tism of the unbelieving wife is the necessary conse- 
 quence 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 consequence. Mr. Ewing being judge. 
 
336 SUBJECTS OF BiPTISM. 
 
 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 show only their disposition. It will 
 not save their cause. This holiness of the unbe- 
 lieving wife and children, is a holiness not of the 
 truth nor of the Spirit ; and therefore cannot entitle 
 to any ordinance of Christ's kingdom. It is a holi- 
 ness of marriage, which is an ordinance of God for 
 his people, in common with all men. It is a holiness 
 which is here expressly said to belong to unbelievers ; 
 and therefore can have nothing to do with ordinances 
 that were intended for believers. It is a holiness that 
 demands the believing husband 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 unbelieving holiness admit to the ordi- 
 nance 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 heaven as an unbeliever. 
 
 But why are unbelievers of this description bap- 
 tized rather than any other unbelievers 1 Because, 
 says Mr. Ewing, salvation 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 salvation has not come 
 to her, except the Gospel is false, and she can be 
 saved as an unbeliever. Why, then, should she be 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 337 
 
 baptized, or receive 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 reason to 
 give her an ordinance that implies faith and sanctifi- 
 cation of the Spirit through the truth. This, how 
 ever, is not certain, for the reason by which the hus- 
 band 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 knowest thou, 
 O wife, whether, thou shall save thy husband? or, 
 how knowest thou, man, whether thou shall save 
 thy wife 1" Here the mere possibility of the future 
 salvation of the unbelieving husband, or wife, through 
 the means of the other party, is urged 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 expression, " sal- 
 vation is come to this house," than this passage. The 
 utmost that the apostle states as a ground of not foP"- 
 saking the unbelieving 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 baptism, we 
 might baptize any person ; for we do not know but 
 he may yet receive the truth. 
 
 But I appeal to the corrimon sense of all my read* 
 ers. If it had been the custom to baptize the unbe- 
 lieving husband or wife on the faith of the believing 
 partner, would there ever have been a question 
 with respect to the propriety of living with such! If 
 the unbelieving husband or wife was admitted to bap- 
 tism, 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 
 admitted to the ordinances of Christ's kingdom, was 
 not sufficient for the sanctification of marriage 1 
 
 Mr. Ewing has had the boldness to carry the prin- 
 ciples that justify infant baptism to their proper ex- 
 tent. But he has done no more. Many persons 
 who hold the argument from this passage, will be 
 
 29 
 
338 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 shocked with his sentiment. It is impossible to vindi- 
 cate the baptism of infants from this hoUness, without 
 affording equal ground for the baptism of the unbe- 
 lieving husband or wife. Mr. Ewing has the perspi- 
 cacity to see this, and he has the hardihood to adopt it. 
 He is just like Mr. Hume with respect to the philoso- 
 phy of his time. Mr. Hume, in rearing a system of 
 universal skepticism, did no more than carry the ac- 
 knowledged principles of philosophy to their just con- 
 sequences. Granting him his first principles, which 
 were universally taken for granted, he, with the great- 
 est ease, overturned heaven and earth, matter and spi- 
 rit. 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 ex- 
 travagance. I hope Christians, who have any regard 
 for the ordinances'of Christ's house, and the spirituality 
 of his kingdom, will beled toexamine, with more atten- 
 tion, 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 name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, may — 
 must be given to a professed worshipper of Jupiter, JVep- 
 tune, and Apollo, with the thousands of inferior gods, if 
 the person is the husband, or the wife, or the slave of a 
 believer, and will condescend to submit to this Christian 
 institution!!! 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 prac- 
 tice recorded in the New Testament, I shall now exhi- 
 bit 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 al- 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 339 
 
 ways supposed that the sins of those who are bap- 
 tized are already washed away. Now this can be 
 supposed of none but beUevers. Infants dying in in- 
 fancy, if saved, have their sins washed away. But 
 millions of persons who have their sins washed away, 
 have not had them washed away in infancy. With re- 
 spect to such, then, baptism, that supposes sins already 
 washed away, could have no proper application in 
 their infancy. 
 
 From Johrj iii. 5. we see that baptism is a figure of 
 regeneration. They who are bap'tized are represented 
 as born again. Now this is peculiar to believers. 
 Even if there was a certainty that an infant would be- 
 lieve in future time, it would 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, which we have done, but ac- 
 cording to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of. 
 regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here 
 baptism is called the bath or laver of regeneration. In 
 the figure, it is the place of birth. The baptized per- 
 son is represented as born in the ordinance, and is 
 supposed to be already born, or renewed by the Spi- 
 rit. 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 1 The 
 multitude of saved adults were not born again in 
 infancy. To say that it may represent that infants 
 will be born again, is absurd. For the ordinance sup- 
 poses, that they are born again. Besides, it is not cer- 
 tain that they will be born again. Their new birth is 
 not a matter of course. It would not be the same or- 
 dinance, if, when applied to infants, it represented 
 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 
 
340 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever," 1 
 Pet. i. 23. 
 
 Agreeably to this Ananias says to Paul, " And now, 
 why tarriest thou 1 arise, and be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins, caUing on the name of the Lord," 
 Acts xxii.j 16. Here we see baptism figuratively 
 washes away sins, and supposes that they are previ- 
 ously 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 f 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. 1 2. explain baptism in a 
 sense that suits believers only. They who are bap- 
 tized, are baptized into Christ's 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 1 Are infants 
 risen with Christ through faith of the operation of 
 God 1 If not, they are not among the number of those 
 that were baptized. 
 
 In like manner, 1 Cor, xv. 29, all who are bap- 
 tized 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 repre- 
 sented 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, be- 
 longs only to believers, is seen in Ephes. v. 26 ; " That 
 he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of 
 water, or the laver of the water, by 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 have 
 had in th§ belief of the WQid, Infapts ^.re OQt saRc-- 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 341 
 
 tified by the word, and therefore have nothing to do 
 with that laver of water that is appointed for those who 
 receive the word, to their salvation and sanctification. 
 
 In 1 Cor. vi. 1 1, they who are baptized are sup- 
 posed 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 baptisms. 
 If, then, there is but one baptism, there can be no in- 
 fant 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 baptized 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 internally united by faith. None are here 
 supposed to be baptized upon the expectation, or pro- 
 bability, 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. iii. 27, " For as many of you as have been bap- 
 tized into Christ, have put on Christ." Here, baptism 
 is represented as implying a putting on of Christ : 
 Surely this is peculiar to believers. Infants cannot 
 put on Christ. Dr. Wardlaw thinks he has entirely 
 overturned this argument, but his reply to it has no 
 just application. He quotes Gal. v. 2 — 6, as a paral- 
 lel to the above phraseology. " Behold, I Paul say 
 unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
 you nothing. For I testify again to every man that 
 is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole 
 law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whoso» 
 ever of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from 
 29* 
 
343 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 grace." " In the 27th verse of the third chapter of 
 the same epistle, the apostle says, ' For as many of 
 you as have been baptized unto Jesus Christ, (or, 'ye 
 whosoever have been baptized unto Jesus Christ,') 
 have put on Christ.' From this expression," 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 interpreta- 
 tion, or of inference, be applied to the passage quoted 
 from the ffth chapter. It is an address to adults ; it 
 expresses things of which adults only were capable. 
 Are we, then, to infer from this, that adults only were 
 circumcised? We certainly ought, on the same prin- 
 ciple 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 entirely 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 figure 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 who 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 circumcision, 
 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 bap- 
 tism was no evidence of their being in the faith j 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, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 343 
 
 which yet is divinely appointed for those who are not 
 supposed to "put on Christ," and he will do some- 
 thing to his purpose. Were the Jews ever addressed 
 with such language as this? Was it ever said, "who- 
 soever of you have been circumcised in your flesh, 
 have been renewed in your hearts by the Spirit of 
 God 1" No, this could not have been said ; for cir- 
 cumcision never imported this. 
 
 The Abrahamic 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 dis- 
 covered this in the covenant that God made with 
 Abraham. Of course, that covenant has been much 
 discussed on 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 supposed connexion of the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant with the subject of infant baptism, could produce 
 such a diversity of opinion in explaining that cove- 
 nant. 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 con- 
 vinced that truth must be copsistent with itself, I 
 have no fear that any real evidence can ever be de- 
 duced from the Abrahamic covenant, in opposition to 
 what the Lord has so plainly established in the New 
 Testament. The covenant with Abraham, I am con- 
 vinced, is, like every other part of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 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 necessary fully to examine that cove- 
 nant. 
 
344 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 I entirely agree with those who consider this cove- 
 nant as having a letter and a spirit. For the accom- 
 plishment 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 constitu- 
 tion, that makes all believers the children of Abra- 
 ham. The unbelieving Jews were Abraham's chil- 
 dren 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 protec- 
 tion of Israel in Egypt, — his delivering of them from 
 bondage, — his taking them into covenant at Sinai, — 
 and all his subsequent dealings with them in their 
 generations, till they were cast off by their rejection 
 of Christ. This promise is fulfilled in the Spirit, by 
 God's being a God to all believers, and to them alone, 
 Rom. 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 posses- 
 sion of the heavenly inheritance. In accordance 
 with this double sense of the promises of this cove- 
 nant, the kingdom of God in Israel, with its oflicers, 
 laws, worship, &c. is a visible model of the invisible 
 kingdom 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 doctrines of grace. What a striking 
 emblem of the incarnation have we in God's dwelling 
 in the tabernacle and temple ! How 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 atonement by the blood of Christ," in 
 the sacrifices of Israel ! 
 
 This appears to me to be the only view of the cove- 
 nant of Abraham^ that will suit every thing said of it 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAFTISM. 345 
 
 in the word of God. That it has a letter and a spirit, 
 is true, and analogous to every part of the Old Tes- 
 tament. But as long as Christians look at this co- 
 venant, on the one side to make it a foundation 
 for a New Testament 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 inge- 
 nuity on either side, to set it in a light that will per- 
 plex the simple. If any one can say with the Psalm- 
 ist, " I opened my mouth and panted ; for I longed 
 for thy commandments," let him come with me be- 
 yond the cloud that has been raised round the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, and try what we can discover in the 
 sunshine 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 covenant of Abraham was the New Cove- 
 nant. Now, for argument's sake, let it be the New Co- 
 venant, 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, io 
 any view that represents them as interested in it. It 
 is a vulgar mistake of theologians 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 ihey are not saved as adults, by 
 the truth believed. That sacrifice, which ig 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 applies that sacrifice to adults only through faith, 
 can apply it to dying infants without faith, — for faith 
 has Ro merit wore than works. Jt i^ only the dW 
 
346 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 vinely appointed medium. Theologians have mani- 
 fested a great want of discrimination on this subject. 
 That necessity of faith which the Scriptures apply to 
 adults, and adults only, theologians have applied to 
 infants, without warrant, as if God was bound to pro- 
 ceed towards them as he does towards adults. There- 
 fore it is that even in Dr. Dwight, we find that strange 
 fanaticism, that speaks of the infant faith of John the 
 Baptist ; as if God could not save or sanctify an in- 
 fant without faith, because none who hear the gospel 
 can be sanctified without faith. Surely it ought to 
 make every sober mind suspect that there must be 
 something 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 1 
 
 But this view not only leads to absurdity, it takes 
 its origin in that principle of self-righteousness that is 
 so prone, even in Christians, to work itself into every 
 subject of divine revelation of which they are ignorant. 
 It supposes that it is so necessary for a man to do 
 sometiiing as to his acceptance with 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 
 covenant'? 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 or- 
 dinances, will attempt to estabhsh the ordinances of 
 man. Even the pious Henry speaks in this antichris- 
 tian style. So true it is, that we cannot oppose any 
 part of the divine counsel, without loss. Every error 
 is in some way injurious to the grand truth of the gos- 
 pel itself. 
 
 Theologians, justly considering that infants have 
 sinned in Adam, have also justly considered that they 
 jKiust 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 given for the salvation of believers. But 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 347 
 
 they can have nothing to do with a covenant that re- 
 quires faith for salvation. Were it true that infants 
 could not be saved but by this covenant, none of them 
 would be saved. This would denounce to condem- 
 nation all who die before the|belief of the gospel. The 
 New Covenant knows nothing of any salvation but 
 through faith. " He that believeth shall be saved ; 
 he that believeth not shall be damned," is the testi- 
 mony from which it never for a moment swerves. 
 Such a covenaot 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 be- 
 tween the Father and the Son, in which he engaged 
 to lay down his life as a ransom for his chosen, whe- 
 ther infants or adults. Though infants are not saved 
 by faith, they can join in the son^ 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 Covenant. " 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 greatest." 
 Here wc/See that all who are included in this cove- 
 nant, haVe the laws of God put into their mind, and 
 written oir their heart, by himself. Can this be said 
 of infaats? 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 instruction 1 
 If not, there are no infants in this covenant. The 
 sacrifice of the Son of God, was as necessary for in- 
 
S48 SUBJESfS Ot BAPTISM. 
 
 fants as for adults. But had it pleased God that all 
 the elect should die in infancy, there would have been 
 no need of the New Corenant at all. The gospel 
 would then have never been preached. To keep in 
 mind this distinction, would preserve theologians free 
 from many of their embarrassments. The necessity 
 of faith, and the necessity of atonement, are not of the 
 same kind. Ignorance of this, has led to great ex- 
 travagance. In order to save infants, some have been 
 led to assert that they have faith ; others, that they 
 have imputative faith ; and others, that they have ha- 
 bitual faith. Now, all these opinions are grounded on 
 ignorance of the difference between the necessity of 
 faith, and the necessity of redemption or atonement. 
 2w My second observation is, that the infants even 
 of Abraham himself, were not saved, when they died 
 in infancy, by Abraham's covenant. He was not the 
 spiritual father of his own infant seed. It is a com- 
 mon opinion, that Abraham, by that covenant, was 
 constituted the head of all the redeemed. But this 
 is a grand mistake. He was the head of believers 
 only. By that covenant he was constituted the fa- 
 ther 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 cir- 
 cumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that 
 faith" which 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 cove- 
 nant, no spiritual connexion between Abraham and 
 his infant seed. His justification was not the pattern 
 of theirs. He was justified by faith : his infants dy- 
 ing in infancy were not justified by faith. They were 
 saved, as all saved infants were saved from the begin- 
 ning 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 show where 
 the spiritual connexion between believers and their 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 349 
 
 infant seed, established by this covenant, is cut off. I 
 cut it off by showing that it never existed. 
 
 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 rela- 
 tion between every believer and his infant seed. 
 
 But even had this covenant constituted a new rela- 
 tion between Abraham and his infant seed, Dr. Ward- 
 law is wrong in throwing the burthen of proof on his 
 opponents, with respect to the supposed similar re- 
 lation between every believer and his infant seed. 
 There might have been such a connexion in the case 
 of Abraham and his seed, without involving the ne- 
 cessity of a similar connexion between other believers 
 and their seed. Dr. Wardlaw contends, that if such 
 a connexion existed in the case of Abraham, it lies on 
 his opponents 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. Be- 
 fore 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 Abraham and his seed by 
 this covenant, is not proof that such a connexion ex- 
 ists between other behevers and their seed. The 
 latter must be proved before it is admitted. Grant- 
 ing, then, that there was a spiritual connexion con- 
 stituted between Abraham and his infant 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 blessirig of a 
 spiritual connexion between beUevers and their seed, 
 but the blessing of having faith counted for righte- 
 ousness, or of being justified as Abraham was justi- 
 fied. What that blessing is, we see in verse 9. 
 " So then they which be of faith, are blessed with 
 
 30 
 
350 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 faithful Abraham." None, then, are blessed with 
 faithful Abraham, but " they which be of faith." In 
 verse 7, it ia said, " Know ye, therefore, that they 
 which are of faith, the same are the children of 
 Abraham." Abraham, then, has no children spirit- 
 ually, 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 with 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 every be- 
 liever in every age. Let us take a look at this cove- 
 nant, as it is recorded in Gen. xii. 1 . " Now, the 
 Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy 
 country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's 
 house, unto a land that I will show 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 bless- 
 ing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse 
 him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all the fami- 
 lies of the earth be blessed." Is it not absolute lu- 
 nacy to suppose, that this covenant is made with all 
 believers 1 Has God promised to every believer that 
 he will make of hira a great nation 1 Has God pro- 
 mised to every believer that he will make his name 
 great 1 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 to- 
 ward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to 
 number them : and he said unto him. So shall thy 
 seed be. And he believed in the Lord, and he 
 counted it to him for righteousness. And he said 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 351 
 
 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 numerous 
 as the stars of heaven 1 Is every believer to have 
 the land of Canaan for his posterity ] It is said 
 that every believer has a provision from God. This 
 is granted, but is that a fulfilling of this promise 1 
 This is Canaan ; and the whole earth, with the ex- 
 ception 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 Abraham, 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 father of many nations 
 have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding 
 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 everlasting 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 everlasting possession ; and I will be 
 their God." Now, can any one think that this cove- 
 nant is made with every believer! Has every be- 
 liever a promise that kings shall descend from him 1 
 This covenant is indeed everlasting. It is everlast- 
 ing to the carnal seed, first, as the covenant of roy- 
 alty was everlasting to the seed of David, and as the 
 covenant of the priesthood was everlasting to the seed 
 of Phinehas. But m all such promises there is a spirit 
 and a letter. The covenant of Abraham is everlast- 
 ing in the full sense of the word, for by it all Abra- 
 ham's spiritual seed are blessed with him, by having 
 
352 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 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 off- 
 spring 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 Phi- 
 nehas, " And he shall have it, and his seed after him, 
 even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood," 
 Numb. XXV. 13, a posterity is secured by this promise. 
 But believers often have no posterity, therefore 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 pro- 
 mise 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. Abraham'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 Abraham's posterity, by all his wives, to the 
 end of the world, should be heirs of heaven, other be- 
 lievers 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, estabhshes the 
 identity of the Abrahamic covenant and the new co- 
 venant so clearly, that it is a matter of surprise that 
 any should doubt it. " And the Scripture, foresee- 
 ing that God would justify the heathen through faith 
 preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 358 
 
 In thee shall all nations be blessed." But this doea 
 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 gospel, because 
 the giving of the law through a mediator was a figure 
 of Christ. Every part of the legal dispensation 
 preached the gospel, and still preaches the gospel, 
 Rom. X. 4. Will Dr. Wardlaw say, that there was 
 nothing in the covenant of Abraham but the gospel 1 
 And that all its promises are promises of the gospel, 
 to be fulfilled to every believer 1 Is it a part of the 
 gospel, that God will be a God to the seed of believ- 
 ers, as he was to the seed of Abraham 1 Is this con- 
 tained in the promise, " In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed 1" This is the declaration that is said to have 
 preached the gospel to Abraham prophetically. But 
 it says nothing to Dr. Wardlaw'e 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 secure to any individuul 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 pro- 
 mises of that covenant, that any other individual 
 should be childless ; nay, that the most righteous man 
 of his race might either have no children, 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, naight have been totally cut off for their sins, 
 §0* 
 
354 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 without any violation of Abraham's covenant. No 
 IsraeUte, then, except Isaac and Jacob, had Abra- 
 ham'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 who be- 
 lieve, while in some respects the whole Jewish nation 
 had the covenant of Abraham. Granting, then, that 
 believers now have the covenant of Abraham, even as 
 his own 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 will 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 spiritual or a carnal seed, is not promised by 
 that covenant. The covenant secures this to Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob only ; for to these it was indi- 
 vidually 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 as the light of 
 heaven, and it overturns all the elaborate deductions 
 that have been drawn from the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 6. My sixth observation is, that the promise, " I 
 will be a God to thy seed," has a letter and a spirit. 
 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 necessary, and other Scrip- 
 tures demand a distinction. Whether it has not an 
 inferior sense in the letter, must be determined 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 whole Jewish nation, 
 even in the worst periods of their history. This can- 
 not imply that he was theii God, in the full sense in 
 which he was the God of Abraham. 
 
 Let us take a glance at a few passages that esta- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 355 
 
 blish this distinction. Exod. xxix. 45, " And I will 
 dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their 
 God." This is spoken of the whole Jewish 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 ad- 
 dressed as saints, though there might be some who 
 were not really such. But this is not an answer. 
 All in the New Testament churches had given evi- 
 dence that they were believers, though afterwards 
 some of them turned out not to be such. But no 
 such thing was ever supposed with respect 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 after- 
 wards 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, 
 why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people .?" — 
 " Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil 
 Signinst 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 pro- 
 mise 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 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 ihis, God is every where in the Old 
 Testament considered as the husband of Israel ; and 
 this relation is acknowledged even in her adulteries. 
 Isaiah iii. 14, "Turn, O backsliding children, saith 
 the Lord ; for I am married unto you." But it would 
 be endless to quote passages. Now, God was the 
 
356 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 husband of Israel only in the letter, which was ac- 
 complished in Jesus becoming 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 dispensa- 
 tion, and is the only thing that can harmonize it 
 with the New. The temple was the house of God 
 in the letter ; believers ate so in the spirit. To call 
 any house the house of God, is as much below the 
 sense -vyhich 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 applied to the spiritual Israel. Be- 
 sides, 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 removed 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 ever. But in the spirit, it is accom- 
 plished in its utmost extent. God will dwell in the 
 temple of Christ's body for ever. 
 
 7. My seventh observation is, that when a promise 
 has a letter and a spirit, it is fulfilled when it is ac- 
 complished in either the letter or the spirit. It has 
 two distinct accomplishments, and may be fulfilled in 
 either, or in both. The Scriptures afford 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 cove- 
 nant do not make the distinction. But the distinc- 
 tion is seen in the history of the fulfilment of the pro- 
 mises, and in the explanation of these promises. Paul, 
 in his Epistle to the Romans, clearly shows the dis-^ 
 tinction between the two seeds; and the history 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 357 
 
 shows US that the nation in general* enjoyed the tem- 
 poral promises, but only few of them enjoyed the spi- 
 ritual. Nothing 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 nei- 
 ther signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant 
 of Abraham, to the individuals to whom it was by di- 
 vine 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 Ja- 
 cob, 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 represented in their circumcision. Circumcision 
 marked no character, and had an individual applica- 
 tion 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 ; cir- 
 cumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have 
 been a sign of this. But it did not sign this to any 
 other. Any other circumcised 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 promised that all nations should 
 be blessed ip 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 
 
358 SUBJECTS op BAPTISM. 
 
 given, and not implied in their 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 strangers and slaves who were not of 
 Abraham's posterity. The covenant promised Ca- 
 naan 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 individu- 
 ally. For upwards of four hundred years from the 
 institution of circumcision, Abraham's posterity did 
 not enjoy Canaan, and millions of infants died with- 
 out having enjoyed it. To these, then, circumcision 
 could not be a sign of their enjoyment of that land. 
 If it is said, that though they did not possess it, they 
 had a right to it, I reply, that they had no right to it 
 more than possession, for God would not do wrong in 
 depriving them of their right. What was the ground 
 of their right 1 Had they a promise or grant 1 They 
 had not. The land was promised to the seed of Abra- 
 ham 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 promised, as also to Isaac and Ja- 
 cob ; 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 bet- 
 ter country denoted by the promise of Canaan, and so, 
 though they died not having received the promises, 
 they died that they might receive them. When a pre- 
 diction, 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 en- 
 jpyed what was promised. The promise of the land, 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 369 
 
 then, must in the letter have respected Abraham's 
 posterity, while it was accomplished to himself in a 
 higher sense. He died, not disappoiated, 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 pos- 
 sessing Canaan, with respect to those who did not 
 possess it, the reply of Mr. Innes is abundantly suffi- 
 cient. " 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 com- 
 manded to receive it, had no interest in such bless- 
 ings." 
 
 Much stress has been laid on Rom. iv. 11, in which 
 circumcision is called " a seal of the righteousness of 
 the faith which Abraham had, yet being uncircum- 
 cised." It is said that it was a seal of spiritual bless- 
 ings. Undoubtedly it was a seal of spiritual bless- 
 ings, but not a seal to the individuals who were cir- 
 cumcised, 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 righteous- 
 ness. This is what is sealed when applied to Abra- 
 ham ; this is what is sealed in every instance of its 
 application. But it did not seal, even to Isaac and 
 Jacob, that they had this righteousness. It sealed the 
 same truth when apphed to Ishmael or Esau, or the 
 slaves bought with money, as it did when applied to 
 those who walked in the steps of Abraham's faith. It 
 had no individual application to any man but Abraham 
 himself. Words cannot more expressly assert, that 
 the thing of which circumcision is a seal, is therighte- 
 ousness of the faith of Abraham. It was not a seal to 
 others that they possessed the faith of Abraham. Dr. 
 
360 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 Wardlaw supposes that such a marked reference tO 
 Abraham, would be inconsistent with farther trial. 
 But this is a strange observation from an experienced 
 Christian, deeply conversant 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 ussurance 
 that the Christian receives 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 re-, 
 ceived his Father's testimony by a voice from hea- 
 ven, 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. Wardlaw alludes to it, but he cannot be said even 
 to have assailed it. Every position of Mr. Innes re- 
 mains unshaken. Ishmael was circumcised, who 
 was expressly excluded from the covenant. Abra- 
 ham's slaves were 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 circumcised," 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 unto him," 23. Dr. Wardlaw 
 supposes that submission on the part of the adult slaves 
 must have been voluntary. But this is not necessary. 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 361 
 
 As a master, he had power to enforce obedience, and 
 this commission authorized him. Abraham would 
 have been justified in circumcising his slaves, had 
 every one of them submitted with reluctance, or had 
 endeavoured to resist. If, then, this is the law of 
 baptism, it will justify the Spaniards in compelling the 
 American Indians to be baptized. Nay, it 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. Wardlaw speaks of force as being 
 a profanation of a divine ordinance. To this Mr. 
 Haldane's reply 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 V 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 1 When it is not 
 in all respects applied according to institution. It 
 cannot be a profanation of the ordinance of circumci- 
 sion, to apply it to those to whom it is expressly en- 
 joined. Had murderers and adulterers been-included 
 in the command to baptize, and to eat the Lord's Sup- 
 per, it would have been no profanation of divine ordi- 
 nances 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 pro- 
 fane in God 1 Man has no right to use force with 
 respect to divine appointments, because God has not 
 given that authority. But God is a sovereign in all 
 respects, and may in justice enforce obedience. Ac- 
 cordingly, he commanded the Canaanites to be cut 
 off, and all idolaters to be destroyed out of Israel. 
 This is a grand distinction between the Jewish dis- 
 
 Eensation and the Christian. The subjects of Christ's 
 ingdom 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 
 
 31 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 to receive circumcision is not a profanation, for Abra'- 
 ham'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 bap- 
 tism 1 Is any man to be baptized who is willing to 
 submit to the ordinance 1 Dr. Wardlaw endeavours 
 to obtain some relief from the faithfulness of Abra- 
 ham, 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 command 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 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 know- 
 ledge or- faith of Abraham's slaves ; and they were 
 commanded to be circumcised, not on account of their 
 faith or knowledge, but on account of being the pro- 
 perty of Abraham. 
 
 The circumcision of the slaves, which destroys the 
 system of our opponents, is not only consonant to 
 our views, but appears as suitable 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 in- 
 heritance ; so the circumcision of the slaves bought 
 with money, represented that all who enter into 
 Christ's kingdom are bought with his blood. The 
 circumcision of thp slaves is as instructive as the cir- 
 cumcision of Isaac. He had a typical holiness, per- 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 fectly the same with the natural posterity of Abraham. 
 The purpose of God in the circumcision of both 
 Abraham's posterity and of their slaves, was totally 
 independent of personal character. 
 
 Such a circumcision, then, could not imply, that 
 the individuals had an interest in the spiritual pro- 
 mises of the covenant. Indeed, the circumcision of 
 slaves did not make them partakers even of the tem- 
 poral promises. "Servants," says Mr. Haldane, 
 " although circumcised, did not possess the privileges 
 of the children of Abraham, 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, when they would lose all privi- 
 leges of Israel. This also manifestly appears from 
 many considerations. In many of the laws, the dis' 
 tinction between Israel, who 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," DeuL xiv. 2L 
 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 thereby become entitled to the 
 privileges of the children of Abraham, 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 promises they were 
 
364 SUBJECTS OF BA.PTISM. 
 
 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 I 
 
 But that circumcision as a seal, had a personal re- 
 ference to infants, is impossible. Our opponents ge- 
 nerally say, that circumcision 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 Abra- 
 ham. Circumcision, then, cannot seal what is not 
 true. To all infants it is equally unsuita- 
 ble AS A SEAL. None of them possess the faith of 
 the righteousness of which circumcision was the seal. 
 The argument, then, from circumcision for the bap- 
 tism 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 spiritual or emblematical meaning of circum- 
 cision, the change of the heart by the Holy Spirit, is also, 
 without pei-sonal reference to the circumcised infants. 
 Infants are circumcised in the flesh, but were not cir- 
 cumcised in the heart. Fanaticism itself cannot sup- 
 pose, that all the male infants of Israel, and of the 
 slaves of Israel, were renewed by the Holy Spirit be- 
 fore 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. 
 Ihat when a stranger desired to eat the passover, all 
 the males of his family must be circumcised. "And 
 when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will 
 keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be 
 circumcised, and then let him come near and keep 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 365 
 
 it," Ex. xii. 43. Here there is no faith required in the 
 person who desires to eat the passover,nor in his adult 
 males, whether children or slaves, who are to be cir- 
 cumcised 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 re- 
 quires 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 circumcise 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 there is no plausi- 
 ble foundation in the word of God. Yet the thing is 
 so generally received, that it is taken for granted as a 
 first principle. To overturn it, nothing more is neces- 
 sary than to call for its proof. Coll. ii. 11, 12, is usu- 
 ally 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 unintelligible. Now, it is very 
 strange how this passage can be made to speak so 
 decisively on this point. Let us hear it speak for it- 
 self : " In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- 
 cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body 
 of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : 
 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
 with him through the faith of the operation of God, 
 who ha^h 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 1 Why, by the help of a little ma- 
 nagement. He represents the apostle assaying, " Be- 
 ing buried with Christ by the washing of baptism, 
 they are circumcised with the circumcision made with- 
 out hands." Ah, Mr. Ewing, can your conscience 
 allow you to put so profane a hand on the word of 
 God 1 He that can take this liberty with the Scrip« 
 31* 
 
366 SUBJECTS or baptism. 
 
 tuiesj may prove or disprove any thing. Does the 
 apostle say, "Being buried; ye are circumcised'?" 
 This makes the apostle assert, that they were circum- 
 cised with the circumcision made without hands, by 
 baptism. But this is not the apostle's assertion. He 
 asserts, that they were circumcised with the circum- 
 cision of Chriist, in or by the putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. 
 What is said of baptism is something additional. By 
 no torture are the words capable of Mr. Ewing's gloss. 
 The apostle himself minutely explains how they were 
 circumcised in Christ. It is a circumcision made 
 without hands. It cannot, then, be baptism ; for it is 
 not without hands. This circumcision consists in 
 putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. The ex- 
 ternal 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 
 circumcision made without hands, to distinguish it 
 from its type, the circumcision 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 perversion. The 
 circumcision here spoken of, could not possibly be 
 baptism ; because it is a circumcision which Chris- 
 tians are not only said to have without any external 
 operation, but which they have in Christ : " In whom 
 ye are circumcised." Christ himself performs the 
 circumcision, and we have it in him. 
 
 This passage clearly shows us what came in the 
 room of circumcision. The circumcision made with- 
 out hands, came in the room of the circumcision made 
 with hands ; the putting off the body of the sins of the 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 367 
 
 flesh, came in the room of the cutting off the foresiiiii; 
 the circumcision of Christ came in the room of the cir- 
 cumcision of Moses. All Christians ai'e circumcised 
 in heart, as all Jewish males were circumcised 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 substi- 
 tute or successor. 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 
 corresponding ordinances. For any thing which we 
 could learn from 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 Pass- 
 over is sacrificed for us." The Lord's Supper is a 
 feast of like nature, but with this fundamental differ- 
 ence, which equally applies to baptism and circum- 
 cision, it does not belong to the same persons. The 
 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 cha- 
 racter. The persons whom John drove from his bap- 
 tism, had as good a right to all the Jewish ordinances 
 as John the Baptist himself. The Scribes, and Phari- 
 sees, and Sadducees, with the whole unbelieving 
 body of the Jewish nation, enjoyed 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 ordinances of the church 
 
368 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of Christ. The former shadowed good things to come, 
 and were appointed for the nation in general, whicii 
 had only a typical holiness ; the latter are appointed 
 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 1 But why 
 shall we labour to overturn a mere figment? There is 
 no need to estabhsh, 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 ia the highest authority. It rests on no bet- 
 ter evidence than the doctrine 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 circum- 
 cision, this does not import that it must have the 
 same subjects, or be regulated by the same laws. How 
 far they agree, and how far they differ, must be learn- 
 ed from what is said of them respectively. It is impos- 
 sible 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 cir- 
 cumcision is to regulate baptism, the posterity of a be- 
 liever have a right to baptism, to the remotest genera- 
 tions, if all their intermediate progenitors were athe- 
 ists. The child of a Jew must be circumcised with- 
 out any respect to the faith of the parent. If, then, 
 none but believers have a right to obtain baptism for 
 their children, the law of circumcision does not ap- 
 ply 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 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 369 
 
 greater than those of the Christian Church. As rea- 
 sonably 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 ser- 
 vants 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 circum- 
 cision 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 explained 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. Cir- 
 cumcision is here taken for the whole legal dispensa- 
 tion 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 privi- 
 lege to the females to be freed from this painful rite. 
 Indeed, nothing can more clearly prove that circum- 
 cision 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, from which the spiritual Is- 
 raelites 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 apos- 
 tolic 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 
 
370 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 old, without taking into the account any ordinance in 
 the room of circumcision. 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 privi- 
 leges 1 The child of the Christian is perfectly, as to 
 spiritual things, on the footing of the children of the 
 Jews, for circumcision implied nothing to them indi- 
 vidually. It did not mark them as the children of 
 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 bless- 
 ing, 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 na- 
 tions : it could not then be a spiritual privilege to indi- 
 viduals. The edification that it contained 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 indi- 
 vidual, 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 ap- 
 pointed to designate the heirs of the everlasting inhe- 
 ritance, it must have been extended to females. It 
 is said, the Abrahamic covenant contained spiritual 
 blessings : infants had its seal ; why, then, shall not 
 infants have baptism ? I reply, the one half of Jew- 
 ish infants had not the seal, which demonstrates that 
 the seal had no personal application to the indivi- 
 dual. 
 
 It is said, that there is no better evidence that wo- 
 men should eat the Lord's Supper, than there is that 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAfTlSM. 871 
 
 infants should be baptized. Now, were this true, 
 what is the consequence ? Not that we should bap- 
 tize 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 in- 
 duce Protestants to receive the traditions of the Ro- 
 mish Church. They tell us, " Ye have changed dip- 
 ping into sprinkling by the authority of the church ; 
 ye have no better authority for infant baptism itself: 
 why then do ye not receive transubstantiation on the 
 same authority ?" I always reply, that my brethren, 
 who 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 another. They 
 tell us also, that we have no authority for the change 
 of the Sabbath, but the authority of the church ; and 
 some psedobaptists tell us, that we have no better au- 
 thority for the Lord's day than for infant baptism. 
 I give the same reply to both. As soon as I am 
 convinced that this is the case, I will give up the 
 Lord's day. Much as I value that day, I will not 
 receive a cargo of Romish trumpery in order to 
 license me to retain it. If the Lord's day has no 
 better authority than the tradition of the church, 
 or the arguments that support infant baptism, let it 
 fall. But this is not the case. The Sabbath rests 
 on pillars as firm as those of creation, being appoint- 
 ed before the entrance of sin, and grounded on rea- 
 sons that are as lasting as the world. And the par- 
 ticular day is ascertained in the New Testament, 
 as the first day of the week, and the Lord's day. 
 But I will not here enter into proof, because it 
 has nothing to do with this controversy. Even 
 granting that it has no better proof than infant 
 baptism, the latter is not relieved. In like man- 
 ner, if there is no better authority for the eating 
 of the Lord's Supper by females, than there is for 
 infant baptism, both must fall together. 
 
37^ SUBJiECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 But they who make this objection, must have reatl 
 the Scriptures with little reflection. That women 
 did eat the Lord's Supper, there is the fullest and 
 most direct evidence. " And upon the first day of 
 the week, when the disciples came together to break 
 bread," Acts xx. 7. Here it is said of the disciples 
 without any exception, that they came together to 
 eat the Lord's Supper. If then, women are disci- 
 ples as well as men, there is here the most direct 
 evidence that they ate the Lord's Supper. Paul de- 
 livered the Lord's Supper with the rest of the ordi- 
 nances to the church at Corinth, without exception, 
 1 Cor. ii. 23 ; if then there were females in the 
 church, they are included equally with the males. 
 That females were members of the churches, is clear 
 from the same chapter : for Paul speaks of a regula- 
 tion with respect to them. Besides, from the whole 
 account, it is evident that all in the church are equal- 
 ly concerned in eating the supper : "When ye come 
 together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat 
 the Lord's Supper." This shows that the primary 
 intention of their meetings was to eat the supper ; 
 and that they partook of it without exception. The 
 word translated man also in the directions, verses^ 
 28 — -34, includes both male and female. Besides, it 
 is expressly said, that under this dispensation, there 
 is neither male nor female. 
 
 But though I have shown that there is direct proof 
 that women ate the Lord's Supper, I do not consider 
 that this is necessary. Had I no other evidence than 
 that they were baptized, I would consider this per- 
 fectly sufficient, if no restriction were given in any 
 other part of Scripture. I do not object to inference. 
 On the contrary, I receive what is made out by in- 
 ference, just as I receive the most direct statement. 
 But an inference is not a guess, or conjecture, or pro- 
 bability, or conceit, drawn at random. It must be 
 the necessary result of the principle from which it is 
 deduced. If it is not, it should not be dignified with 
 the name of inference. The person who is admitted 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 373 
 
 lo one ordinance of a church, is admitted to all if 
 there is no limitation. Indeed, the person who is ad- 
 mitted into a church, must have all the ordinances of 
 the church, if there is no limitation. Is it not for these 
 ordinances that a church exists ? But are we for this 
 reason to infer, that as infants under the Jewish dis- 
 pensation received circumcision, a rite that supposed 
 no character in the person circumcised, they should 
 under the Christian dispensation receive baptism, 
 which supposes that all baptized persons are washed 
 from sin through the belief of the truth? In giving the 
 Lord's Supper, had any directions been added tliat 
 confined it to males, as the commission confines bap- 
 tism to believers, then no inference could establish 
 the right of females. There is not the smallest simi- 
 larity between the cases^ 
 
 It is often said that the Jewish Church was the 
 same with the Christian. There is just such a por- 
 tion of truth in this assertion, as to enable it to im- 
 pose on the ignorant. But with respect to every 
 thing which can concern this argument, it is mani- 
 festly false. Is the church that rejected the great 
 body of the Jewish church, the same with the church 
 which, by God's own appointment, contained those 
 that were rejected ? Was the church into which its 
 members were born, the same with the church 
 whose members must be born from above, --born, 
 not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor lof the 
 will of man, but of God ? Was the church that ad- 
 mitted any stranger to its passover, without any con- 
 dition of faith or character, merely on complying 
 with a certain regulation that gave circumcision to 
 their males, without any condition of faith or cha- 
 racter, the same with the church that requires faith 
 and true holiness in all who enjoy its ordinances ? 
 Was the church that contained the Scribes, and 
 Pharisees, and Sadducees, — the most cruel, deter- 
 mined, open and malignant enemies of Christ, — the 
 same with that church into which such persons could 
 not enter without a spiritual birth ? The church of 
 
 32 
 
374 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Israel was the nation of Israel, and as a whole could 
 no more be called the church of Christ, in the sense 
 of that phrase in the New Testament, than the na- 
 tion of England can be called the church of Christ. 
 It is said that a similar corruption has taken place 
 in the church of Christ. But this observation pro- 
 ceeds on a fundamental mistake. The very consti- 
 tution of the Jewish church recognized the member- 
 ship of carnal persons. It did not make the distinc- 
 tion between those born after the flesh, and those 
 born after the Spirit. There was no law to exclude 
 the Pharisees, or even the Sadducees, from the Jew- 
 ish Church. Their doctrines and practices were 
 condemned by the Old Testament ; but it was no 
 corruption of the constitution of the Church to con- 
 tain them. On the other hand, the constitution of 
 the churches of Christ rejects such persons, and pro- 
 vides for their expulsion. It is a corruption of the 
 church that receives or retains them. The distinc- 
 tion between the two cases is as wide as the distance 
 between earth and heaven. 
 
 As to the ordinances of the Jewish Church, they 
 are, all abolished. Christ himself, when on earth, 
 could not be a priest in it, but he is the only priest 
 of the Christlan'Church. " For the priesthood being 
 changed, there is made of necessity a change also of 
 the laW;" Whatever unity may be supposed to be 
 in the., Jewish Church and the church of the New 
 Testament, it does not consist in sameness of mem- 
 bers, or of ordinances. The one, by its constitution, 
 included carnal members ; the other, by its constitu- 
 tion, admits spiritual members only. This, then, is 
 the only point of view in which the subject can have 
 any reference to the controversy on baptism. This 
 difference existing, no number of points of coincid- 
 ence can avail our opponents. 
 
 The Church of Israel was the type of the church 
 of the New Testament, containing no doubt the bo- 
 dy of the people of God at that time on the earth, 
 and in this point of view, may be called the same. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 375 
 
 Both are called the kingdom of God, and both were 
 such, but in a different sense. The one was a king- 
 dom of this world ; the other is a kingdom not of 
 this world. God's kingdom of Israel contained ma- 
 ny who did not belong to his spiritual kingdom ; 
 and some belonged to his spiritual kingdom, who did 
 not belong to the typical kingdom. All the believ- 
 ers belong to the church of Christ, but all believers 
 did not belong to the church of Israel. 
 
 As the church of Israel was the church of God, 
 typical of his true church, and containing in every 
 successive age a remnant of the spiritual seed of 
 Abraham, according to the election of grace, the 
 New Testament Church is spoken of in the Old un- 
 der the figure of Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, God's holy 
 mountain, the tabernacle of David, &c. &c. This 
 cannot possibly apply literally, and is explained by 
 the apostles as referring to the calling of the Gen- 
 tiles. In like manner, the book of Revelation speaks 
 of measuring the temple. The reality is spoken of 
 under the name of that which was its type. The 
 restoration of the Jews, also, is spoken of as a re- 
 union into their own olive-tree. A correct view of 
 this peculiarity is of great importance, and I perceive 
 that it is very much misunderstood by our oppo- 
 nents ; but as it has no concern with this controver 
 sy, I will not enter on any discussion foreign to my 
 subject. As to this controversy, I care not what 
 sameness our opponents may pretend 1o find between 
 the church of Israel and the church of Christ, as long 
 as they are different in members and ordinances. 
 
 9. My ninth observation is, that baptism is not the 
 seal of the New Covenant. That baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper are seals of the covenant, is a doctrine 
 so common, and a phraseology so established, that it 
 is received without question as a first principle. 
 They who measure truth by the attainments of our 
 ancestors, look upon the questioning of this dogma as 
 a kind of impiety and heresy ; and even the modern 
 Independents, who have professed to be guided solely 
 by the Bible, have very generally continued to speak 
 
376 SUBJECTS or baptism. 
 
 in the same language. While I highly respect and 
 value the ancient writers who speak in this manner, 
 I strongly protest against it as unscriptural, and as 
 laying a foundation for receiving other things on the 
 authority of man. Let our ancestors have all the 
 esteem and gratitude to which they are entitled, — but 
 that esteem is much misplaced, if it leads us to follow 
 them in any thing in which they have not followed 
 Christ. In many things their attainments were great, 
 and their writings are worthy of the most careful 
 study. But in some things they were mistaken, and 
 reverence for them ought not to induce us to receive 
 their errors. It is disgi-aceful to Christians, that they 
 continue to ho^^d the errors of their worthy ancestors, 
 and to feel a reverence for the unscriptural phraseolo- 
 gy of ancient divines, similar to that of the Pharisees 
 for the traditions of the Elders. Is there any Jewish 
 tradition more void of scriptural authority, than that 
 which designates baptism and the Lord's Supper seals 
 of the New Covenant? There is not in the New 
 Testament any single portion that can bear such a 
 meaning. And what can the wisest of men know 
 about these things, but what God has told us ? He' 
 has not said that baptism is a seal. Circumcision 
 was a seal of the righteousness of the faith of Abra- 
 ham. This was God's seal to that truth, till the letter 
 was abolished. The spirit of the truth is the seal, 
 and the circumcision of the heart by him is the thing 
 signified by circumcision in the flesh. The circum- 
 cised nation was typical of the church of Christ, for 
 the Apostle says, "we are the circumcision, which 
 worship God in the spirit;" and "circumcision is 
 ihat of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." 
 The circumcision of the Jews was the letter, of which 
 the circumcision of the heart in Christians is the spirit. 
 The Christian, then, has a more exalted seal than cir- 
 cumcision. He has the Spirit of God, "whereby he 
 is sealed unto the day of redemption," Ephes. iv. 30. 
 When sinners believe in Christ, they are sealed with 
 that Holy Spirit of promise, which is " the earnest 
 of their inheritance until the redemption of the pur- 
 
SUfiJECl'S OP BAPTISM. 377 
 
 chased possession," Eph. i. 13. The seal, then, that 
 comes in tlie room of circumcision, is the seal of the 
 Spirit. Circumcision sealed God's truth to Abra- 
 ham, and all who ever shall have the faith of Abra- 
 ham. It was applied to the typical nation without 
 respect to character, but the seal of the Spirit is ap- 
 plied to none but believers, and to believers of all 
 nations as well as Jews. When the Holy Spirit him- 
 self, in the heart of the believer, is the seal of God's 
 truth, there is no need of any other seal. Baptism 
 represents the belief of the truth in a figure, and takes 
 it for granted that they are believers to whom it is 
 applied — but it is no seal of this. They may appear 
 to be Christians to-day, and therefore ought to be bap- 
 tized ; to-morrow they may prove the contrary, and 
 therefore they cannot have been sealed by baptism. 
 He that is once sealed by the Spirit, is secured to 
 eternity. 
 
 10. My last observation is, that to place the 
 grounds of infant baptism on the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, is to make intelligent obedience impossible to 
 the most of Christians. If no believer can know 
 what the Lord requires in this matter, till he under- 
 derstands the covenant of Abraham, very many could 
 not act at all. Can any man think that God would 
 leave the grounds of this duty so enveloped in dark- 
 ness ? When the most illiterate heathen, the most 
 ignorant savage, believes the gospel, five minutes 
 will be enough to prove to him the duty of being 
 baptized as a believer. But if he has children, when 
 will he be able to baptize them by his knowledge of 
 the covenant of Abraham ? The most acute writers, 
 who have been all their lives engaged in the study of it, 
 and in defence of infant baptism from it, are not able 
 to keep themselves from speaking in many things 
 like children. And after all their striving, they have 
 not been able to make out a consistent scheme. It is 
 only the prejudices of the public, which are univer- 
 sally and strongly in their favour, that screen them 
 from the ridicule of the most childish trifling. Many 
 32* 
 
378 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 of themselves, after wasting perhaps a quarter of a 
 century in adjusting a scheme, are obliged to tear it 
 down with their own hands. In my ignorance, I 
 made the attempt, as well as others; but I must either 
 give up the Bible, or give up infant baptism. If, 
 then, it is so difficult a thing, to make out a plausible 
 case in defence of infant baptism from the Abrahamic 
 covenant, even with all the advantages that constant 
 study affords, what must be the situation of the 
 newly converted pagan ? Has God left him in such 
 a condition that he cannot know whether he ought to 
 baptize his children, till he can penetrate the deep 
 recesses of the covenant of Abraham ? Mr. Ewing 
 complains that many persons go over from the Inde- 
 pendent churches to the Baptists, before they are 
 thoroughly acquainted with the subject. Now this 
 may be true, if he means that they are not able to 
 discuss with him the popping system, or the Abra- 
 hamic covenant. But it is not true, as respects the 
 knowledge of the scriptural grounds for that ordi- 
 nance. Five minutes are sufficient to convince any 
 man, who is open to conviction, and who comes to the 
 Scriptures like a little child, I have written a large 
 book to prove what I believe might be clearly pointed 
 out in a few minutes, if all the disciples of Christ had 
 in all things the teachableness of a little child. Every 
 believer must be as a little child ; he cannot receive 
 the truth but as a little child. But it is only with 
 respect to the truth itself, that all Christians are of 
 this character. With respect to any thing in which 
 we are not taught by the Spirit, we are as unteach- 
 able and perverse as the world. Christ's institutions, 
 therefore, it is much to be lamented, are despised and 
 corrupted, even by his own children. How soon 
 was the Lord's Supper corrupted by the church at 
 Corinth ! And by our long sojourning in Babylon, 
 we have been so accustomed to &peak her language, 
 that we have in a great measure corrupted our own, 
 Babylonish words, Babylonish accent, Babylonish 
 rites, may still be discovered in the School of Christ 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 379 
 
 It is well if ever we fully recover the language of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 There is not one of all the ordinances of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that has been left untouched by the 
 wisdom of man. Some of them have been abandoned 
 as worn out by time : others of them have been en- 
 tirely new-modelled, so that not a feature of them 
 remains as it came from his Lord : and many things 
 have been added, of which no vestige is found in 
 the word of God. Baptism has been changed both 
 in its form, and in its subjects ; and it is lamentable 
 to observe, with what perverseness even Christians 
 cling to the innovations. In this we see remarkably 
 fulfilled what our Lord charges on the Pharisees. 
 The commandment of God requires children to sup- 
 port their parents when destitute, but the Pharisees 
 delivered men from this commandment by substi- 
 tuting something for it. " Thus," says Christ, 
 " have ye made the commandment of God of none 
 effect by your tradition," Matt. xv. 6. Now, the 
 like has taken place with respect to baptism. The 
 ordinance that Jesus appointed was an immersion in 
 water, as a figure of the death, burial, and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, and of the believer with him. The 
 wisdom of man has changed immersion into pouring 
 or sprinkling a little water on the face, without any 
 reference to death, burial, and resurrection. This 
 is the substitute for the Lord's cemmandment. Is 
 not this the very thing that Christ charges on the 
 Pharisees ? The Pharisees told their disciples that 
 the corban or gift would be a substitute for obeying 
 the commandment of God } and we are told, that 
 though immersion was the original mode of baptism, 
 yet pouring or sprinkling will answer the same end, 
 and be sufBcient for baptism. Others whose princi- 
 ples will not allow them the use of this antichristian 
 liberty, do still greater violence to the Scriptures, by 
 forcing them to speak what they wish. Ah, my fel- 
 low Christians, why will ye follow the Pharisees in 
 making void the commandment of God ? 
 
 In like manner, the invention of man in baptizing 
 
380 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 infants has totally set aside the ordinance of God. 
 Jesus commands believers to be baptized ; but since 
 men have introduced infant baptism, Christ's baptism 
 is not known, so far as the other extends. The bap- 
 tizing of persons in infancy is made to stand as a sub- 
 stitute for the baptism of believers, which Christ ap- 
 pointed. Christ's ordinance, then, has been totally 
 abolished, and a human invention both in mode and 
 subjects has taken its name. So true it is that every 
 invention of man in the things of God, has a tendency 
 to supplant some part of divine truth. 
 
 Thus have we seen, from the most impartial ex- 
 amination, that infant baptism has not in the word of 
 God an inch of solid ground on which to stand. The 
 apostolic commission commands the baptism of be- 
 lievers, and of believers only. No lawful interpre- 
 tation can introduce infants into that commission, or 
 give authority to dispense with the baptizing of be- 
 lievers. No instance of the baptism of an infant is 
 to be found among the documents of the apostolic 
 practice. A child may perceive the insufficiency of 
 the argument from the households. The Abrahamie 
 covenant has no bearing on this subject. Baptism, I 
 have shown to be immersion, by a strength of evi- 
 dence, that no true scholar — no sound critic — will 
 ever attempt to overturn. Let the children of God 
 renounce the traditions of men ; let them submit with 
 humility and with gratitude to the ordinance of 
 Christ. In the keeping of his commandments, there 
 is a great reward. " He that hath my command- 
 ments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and 
 I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. 
 This is the love of God, that ye keep his command- 
 ments. — Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not 
 the things that I say ?" 
 
AN EXAMINATION 
 
 DR. DWIGHT'S DISCOURSES 
 
 BAPTISM, 
 
 CONTAINED IX 
 
 HIS SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED. 
 
 BY F. L. COX, D. D. LL.D. 
 
 OF LONDON. 
 
 NEW- YORK : 
 PUBLISHED BY C. C. P. CROSBY 
 
 1832. 
 
EXAMINATION. 
 
 The celebrity of the writer, not the force of his argu- 
 ments, induces me to notice distinctly, but briefly, the 
 erroneous statements of Dr. Dwight, on the subject of 
 baptism. They occur inthe volumes, entitled "Theology," 
 which have obtained an extensive circulation in this coun- 
 try ; but, in remarking upon them, so far am I from any 
 desire to detract from the general merits of the publication, 
 that I hail its appearance, and rejoice in its popularity. 
 
 The discourses in question 'comprehend a view of the 
 reality and intention of baptism — the objections against 
 infant baptism — the direct arguments in its favour — the 
 subjects — and the mode of its administration. 
 
 In the first of these Sermons, there are many just and 
 important sentiments, and only one passage that requires 
 particular animadversion. The Doctor states, that " when 
 children die in infancy, and are scripturally dedicated to 
 God in baptism, there is much, and very consoling reason 
 furnished, to believe that they are accepted beyorid the 
 grave." He further says, "there is, I think, reason to 
 hope well concerning other children, dying in infancy ; 
 but there is certainly peculiar reasons for christian parents 
 to entertain strong consolation with regard to their off- 
 spring." 
 
 Will it be believed, that the only passages Dr. Dwight 
 adduces, in support of his theory, are in direct opposition 
 to it 1 Yet such is the fact ; and how so sensible a divine 
 could have been betrayed into such an inconsistency, seems 
 really inexplicable ; unless it be imputed to the grossest 
 prejudice. He quotes from Matt. xxi. 16. "-Out of the 
 mouth of babes and sucklings, thou hast perfected praise ;" 
 which is our Saviour's application of the prophecy in the 
 viiith Psalm, to the circumstance of the children in the 
 temple, crying " Hosannah to the Son of David." What 
 application have these passages to the baptism of infants, 
 or to their dying in infancy ? Dr. Dwight, indeed, has 
 attempted to excite in his reader's mind the idea that there 
 
384 cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 
 
 is some relevancy, by insinuating that " it is, perhaps, im- 
 Dvoper to say, that praise is perfected on this side of heaven," 
 How can it be improper to say so when Christ has himself 
 declared, that it was the case — that, in whatever sense the 
 term is to be understood, it was perfected in the celebra- 
 tions of the children in the temple ? Besides, whether 
 perfected in heaven or on earth, were these exulting chil- 
 dren infants, and were they the baptized offspring of be' 
 Ikving parents? Dr. Dwight also adduces — " Suffer the 
 little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven." Did they come to be 
 baptized 1 Surely not, but to be " blessed" Were these 
 little children the offspring of believing parents — and is 
 the language exclusive in its meaning, or discriminating 
 in its terms 1 Were they not a promiscuous assemblage ? 
 And admitting that the words are applicable to the state 
 beyond the grave, do they not comprehend all children — 
 children as such- — children of every class ? — The only 
 other citation is, " The promise is to you and to your chil- 
 dren ;" and the comment is sufficiently curious — " If this 
 promise is extended in any sense to those who die in infan- 
 cy, and conveys to them any blessings, they must be found 
 beyond the grave." Whether any one ever thought of so 
 extending it, or whether the Doctor intended his doubt to 
 be taken for proof, we cannot tell ; in either case, the state- 
 ment does not merit a formal refutation. Where then is 
 the "-peculiar reason," for the exclusive consolation which 
 christian parents may, it is supposed, entertain ? And 
 why, if baptism is to confer the heavenly glory, is there 
 reason to " hope well" of " other children ?" — Really, the 
 confusion that pervades this whole paragraph, is such, 
 that had it been found in the work of a judicious and sen- 
 sible divine of a distant age and another language, few 
 critics would have hesitated in pronouncing, from intrinsic 
 evidence, upon its spuriousness ! 
 
 The next discourse relates to the proper subjects of bap- 
 tism ; these are, it is said, " all those who believe in Christ, 
 and publicly profess their faith in him," and " the infant 
 children of believers :" the latter doctrine, it is added, has 
 been extensively disputed and denied; Dr. D. therefore 
 proposes to state, and answer the objections against it. I 
 shall not now mquire, whether he has omitted to mention 
 any of the objections, but examine his replies to those 
 
Crox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 358 
 
 ■which he has introduced. For the sake both of brevity and 
 perspicuity, I shall adopt a methodical arrangement of the 
 objections, the Doctor's answer, and my own reply. 
 
 -Obj. I. "It is stated by the opposars of this doctrine 
 {Infant Baptism,) that it is not enjoined by any express 
 declaration in the Scriptures." 
 
 Dr. Ifs Answer. There are majiy duties incumbent 
 on us which are neither expressly commanded nor declared 
 in Scripture. The principle on which the objection is foun- 
 ded is, " nothing is our duty which is not thus commanded 
 or declared in the Scriptures." According to this, women 
 are under no obligation to celebrate the Lord's Supper — 
 parents to pray for their children — mankind to observe the 
 Sabbath — rulers to defend the country, or to punish crime. 
 It is impossible the Scriptures should specify all the doc- 
 trines and duties necessary to be believed and practised. 
 
 Reply^ Dr. Dwight has confounded in his argumentj 
 the obvious distinction between a positive duty and a 
 moral obligation. A moral -duty is commamded, because 
 it is right ; a positive institute is only right, because it is 
 commanded. All moral duties arise out of general prin- 
 ciples ; the principles being given, the diversified applica- 
 tion of those principles does not require to be slated in 
 detail. For instance ; the kind offices of the good Samari- 
 tan were not perfornied from obedience to any specific 
 command ; but his sympathies being excited by distress, 
 his duty arose out of the principle involved in the general 
 precept, *' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." On 
 the other hand, all positive institutions are founded on ex- 
 press Scriptural directions.; so that the obligation to 
 observe them can be traced to no other source than simply 
 the expression of the divine will. Consider for a moment 
 the flexibility of Dr. Dwight's argument, and how a Pro- 
 testant would be annoyed by it were it in the hands of a 
 Papist. The latter would require nothing more of his 
 Protestant antagonist, than tire admission of a principle 
 which should confound this distinction. Once admit the 
 inferential reasoning with regard to positive institutes, 
 which is legitimate as applied to moral duties, and you 
 open a door wide enough to admit all the mummeries of 
 Popery. 
 
 Obj. 2. " There is no certain example of infant bap- 
 tism in the Scriptures." 
 
 Dr. Ds Answer. There is no instance in which it is' 
 
386 cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT, 
 
 declared in so many terms that infants were baptized.— 
 There are instances in which the fact is involved : — house 
 and household denote children. 
 
 Reply. If according to the doctor's concession, there 
 is no instance in which it is declared infants were baptizr 
 ed, the objection is valid ; for of course there could be, by 
 his own showing, no example of infant baptism. If it 
 were even involved, there is still no example \ it is only 
 inference, and an inference which has nothing to sustain 
 it ; for that house and household necessarily denote chil- 
 dren we deny, both on critical and historical grounds. 
 
 Obj. 3. " Children cannot be the subjects of faith ; 
 and faith is a necessary qualification for baptism." 
 
 Dr. Us Answer. John the Baptist was filled with the 
 Holy Ghost from the womb ; and was " unquestionably a 
 subject of faith in such a manner, that, had he died in in^ 
 fancy he would certainly have been received to heaven. 
 
 Reply. The doctor has confounded the distinction be- 
 tween faith and holiness. An infant may be sanctified 
 from the womb, but cannot believe. The remark there- 
 fore, amounts to nothing, as directed against the principle 
 which requires faith, not holiness, as prerequisite to bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Obj. 4. " Infants cannot make a profession of faith ; and 
 such a profession is a necessary qualification for baptism.' ' 
 Dr. Ifs, Answer. That a profession of faith is neoes- 
 sary in all instances cannot be proved. Cornelius and 
 they that were with him made no such profession, and 
 none was demanded by Peter, Acts xi. 
 
 Reply. Of the persons in question it is said that they 
 spake with tongues, and magnified God. The Doctor has 
 not informed us how those who spake with tongues, and 
 magnified God, were silent and passive recipients of bap- 
 tism ! Suppose, however, it were proved that a profession 
 of faith was not demanded, did the apostles dispense with 
 the possession of that principle ! It is for the possession of 
 faith we contend, and for the evidence of that possession. 
 The objection is not fairly stated ; we demand either pro- 
 fession or evidence in all cases ; the latter is generally 
 given by means of the former, as well as by the geueraj 
 conduct of the individual. But infants are incapable 
 either of professing or giving evidence of that of which 
 they cannot be the subjects. 
 
 Obj. 5. " Persons baptized in infancy prove that they 
 
cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 387 
 
 were improper candidates for this ordinance by the future 
 degeneracy of their conduct." 
 
 Dr. Ds Answer. The real amount of this objection 
 is, that no persons can be proper subjects of baptism, to 
 the human eye, who, after their reception of this sacra- 
 ment, prove themselves to be unrenewed. The objection 
 fails because it proves too much. If we are required to 
 baptize none but those who are regenerated, it is necessary 
 we should know whether the candidates are regenerated 
 or not. 
 
 Reply. It is necessary that we should have satisfactory 
 evidence of the regeneration of the candidate for baptism 
 prior to the performance of the rite ; to hnow what is the 
 state of the heart is the exclusive prerogative of Deity. 
 With respect to those who have arrived at the period of 
 personal responsibility evidences may be obtained, accord- 
 ing to our Saviour's declaration, " By their fruits ye shall 
 know them :" they are capacitated to repent, and to " bring 
 forth fruits meet for repentance." But what can be said 
 of unconscious infants, who are altogether incapable of 
 supplying evidence of any kind that they are the proper 
 subjects of baptism, if the sanctification of their incipient 
 powers be a prerequisite to the administration of this ordi- 
 nance 1 They are heirs of a depraved nature ; and what 
 evidence can any one give that he is or ever will ber the 
 subject of that grace which alone can sanctify the soul ? 
 That all are not renewed in infancy is lamentably evinced 
 by the subsequent lives of thousands with regard to whom 
 the symbolical representation of their regenerate state is 
 awfully premature. That some may be sanctified from 
 the womb we do not question ; but we' possess no means 
 of distinguishing between them and others ; the difference, 
 wide as it is, can only be evident to him in whose pur- 
 poses of sovereign mercy they are included. This, how- 
 ever, is not the condition of adults, who are both capable 
 of professing their faith in Christ, and of proving the 
 genuineness of their profession by the purity of their con- 
 duct. That these signs may, in some instances, be coun- 
 terfeited is nothing to the purpose. In fact, Dr. Dwight 
 has confounded the distinction between being misled by 
 false evidence, and acting without any evidence at all, — 
 A jury may be deceived, and often have been, by false and 
 perjured witnesses ; but who would thence infer the safety 
 of condemning men without evidence ? The application 
 
388 cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 
 
 of the principle of Dr. Dwight's argument to judicial 
 proceedings will at once illustrate its fallacy: It would 
 be a singular position, indeed, that the absence of all evi- 
 dence is a sufficient ground of action. The question, 
 therefore, returns, — Would the apostles have baptized any- 
 one without even the' slightest evidence that the candidate 
 was the subject of that moral transformation which the 
 rite of baptism was designed to symbolise ? Let our op- 
 ponents seriously consider and candidly answer this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Obj. 6. " All baptized persons are, by that class of 
 Christians to whom I have attached myself, considered as 
 members of the Christian church ; yet those who are bap- 
 tized in infancy are not treated as if they possessed this 
 character. Particularly they are not admitted to the sa- 
 cramental supper, nor made subjects of ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline." 
 
 J)r. D's Answer. The conduct and opinions of those 
 with whom I am connected are, in a greater or less de- 
 gree, erroneous and indefensible. If baptized infants are 
 members of the Christian church, we are bound to deter- 
 mine and declare the nature and extent of their member- 
 ship. That they are members of the church I believe. — 
 All persons are baptized not in but into the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; that is, they are 
 introduced into the family of God, and are called godly, 
 christians, spiritual, sons and daughters of God, and chil- 
 dren of God, throughout the Scriptures. All persons 
 baptized, therefore, are members of the Christian church. 
 Still they are not members in the sense commonly in- 
 tended by the term. The word church has various sig- 
 nifications ; denoting the invisible kingdom of Christ, 
 consisting of all who are sanciified~r~ihe visible kingdom 
 consisting of all who have publicly professed religion, 
 and their baptized offspring — any body of christians, hold- 
 ing the same doctrines, and united in the same worship 
 and discipline — and christians who worship together in 
 the same place. Hence, when persons baptized in infancy, 
 are said to be members of the church, the word cannot be 
 used in all these senses, and therefore something beside 
 baptism, or a profession of religion, is necessary to consti- 
 tute a membership of any particular church. When per- 
 sons are dismissed from one church to another, they are 
 not members of any particular church till they have uni- 
 
cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 389 
 
 ted to the other church in form. A minister, by his ordi- 
 nation, is constituted not a minister of a particular church, 
 but of the christian church at large : hence, a person 
 may be a member of the church at large, and not a mem- 
 ber of a particular church. When the eunuch was bap- 
 tized, he became a member of the church general only, 
 not of a particular church. Thus persons baptized in in- 
 fancy, are members of the church of Christ, that is, of 
 the church general. Baptism renders any person capable 
 of membership in a particular church, if he is disposed, 
 and otherwise prepared ; but neither this, nor his profes- 
 sion of religion will constitute him such a member ; this 
 is to be done only by means of a covenant between him 
 and the church. Persons baptized in infancy, are baptiz- 
 ed on the ground of that profession of religion which 
 their parents have made — whenever they themselves 
 make the same profession, they become entitled to com- 
 munion at the sacramental table. I have therefore shown, 
 that a profession of religion is necessary to constitute us 
 members of the church of Christ, and that what may be 
 called a church covenant is indispensable to constitute us 
 members of particular churches. 
 
 Reply. At the very outset of this statement, our oppo- 
 nent is guilty of the most glaring sophism. He dexter- 
 ously changes the term, baptized infants, to persons, add- 
 ing, they are introduced into the family of God, and 
 are called godly, christians, spiritual, sons and daughters 
 of God, and children of God. But who are so introduced, 
 and so called ? Baptized infants, or persons 1 Di-. 
 D wight himself, at the conclusion of the passage, denies 
 that the former are introduced into the family of God, for 
 he declares, that baptism only renders a person capable of 
 membership if he is disposed. Perhaps, it may be said, 
 that he limits the statement here to a particular church •■ 
 be it so — will our paedobaptist brethren admit, that baptiz- 
 ed infants are introduced into the family of God ? Here 
 is, in fact, another sophism, lurking under a change of ex- 
 pression ; for the argument would fail, even upon his own 
 principles, unless the phrases, church, general, and family 
 of God, were to be deemed synonymous. But even a pro- 
 fligate may be a member of the church general, if baptiz- 
 ed in infancy, using the term in the vague sense in which 
 our author employs it ; for, according to him, that is suf- 
 ficient to constitute such membership ; but, is a profligate 
 33* 
 
390 cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT 
 
 therefore introduced into the family of God ! If not, 
 then baptized infants are not so introduced, although 
 adult persons may, by giving evidence of their piety : in 
 this case, however the two phrases have different signifi- 
 cations, and yet are applied to the same thing. Besides, 
 are baptized infants denominated godly, christians, spirit- 
 ual, sons and daughters of God, and children of God ? — 
 Our opponents will not contend it ; consequently, though 
 persons (or individuals in the exercise of their understand- 
 ing, and under the influence of genuine piety,) may be so 
 designated, the description is totally inapplicable to in- 
 fants. 
 
 We may further demand, what is the church general, 
 as distinct from the collective bodies of particular churches* 
 In what conceivable sense can it be said, that a person be- 
 longing to no one of the churches that constitute the 
 church general, nevertheless is a member of that church 
 general 1 And what is the church general^ if it be not 
 the family of God ? And yet, it is presumed, that an in- 
 dividual may be actually a member of this family, and 
 yet not qualified to be a member of it ! If any thing is 
 here maintained, it is that a person may be a member of 
 the family of God, and not a godly person ; which is cer- 
 tainly not a very intelligible statement for so distinguished 
 a divine. 
 
 Dr. Dwight, and many of our psdobaptist friends, con- 
 tinually assume that an infant is a member of the visible 
 church, or church general ; but where do they find the 
 proof? It is assumed, as necessary to the support of paedo- 
 baptism, and of episcopalianism, of which the former is 
 an essential pillar, and without which a national church 
 could not easily be founded. On the other hand, we as- 
 sume nothing in our argument without positive demon- 
 stration, and demonstration which even our opponents 
 admit to be conclusive in its nature. For instance, we 
 assert and substantiate by an evidence which all parties 
 acknowledge to be valid; \)\aX. adults were baptized, and 
 that they were baptized upon a declaration or an evidence 
 of their faith. The narrative of the eunuch, and the rest 
 of the cases in the Acts, are precisely in point, and will 
 be admitted as proofs of this statement ! if our brethren 
 proceed to aver, that infants were also baptized, of course 
 •without profession, and when incapable of it, and made 
 members of the visible church, the onus probandi devolves. 
 
cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 391 
 
 pon them, and it is a burden •which they cannot sustain. 
 If, in the New Testament, persons of any class, baptized 
 children or adults, are represented as members of the 
 church, either general or individual, while destitute of faith 
 in Christ, let the paragraph be cited ; for ourselves we dis- 
 tinctly affirm, it is no where to be found ; and if it be not, 
 Dr. Dwight's whole statement is sophistical and utterly 
 fallacious ! 
 
 Having thus noticed several objections without refuting 
 them, our author proceeds to " direct arguments for infant 
 baptism." Three are specified ; of which the first relates 
 to the Abrahamic covenant. The reasonings here are 
 similar to those of Dr. Wardlaw and others. 
 
 The second consideration adduced is, that " all the ob- 
 servations made on this subject in the New Testament 
 accord with his view of it, and confirm the doctrine of 
 infant baptism." What are these? The expression of 
 Christ, in Mark ix. 3 1, to " receive a child in the name of 
 Christ," is, he affirms, " to receive him because he be- 
 longs to Christ ;" which is "no other than that of receiv- 
 ing infants into th«., church." His own brethren differ 
 from him in this interpretation ; besides, the* expres- 
 sion is not as here quoted, but " whosoever shall receive 
 one of such children in my name ; and the Syricuc, Arab- 
 ic, and Persic versions, agree in rendering it one like to this 
 child. Our Lord also refers afterwards expressly to " one " 
 of the little ones who believe in him." Two other pas- 
 sages, (Mat. ix. 13 — 15; and Acts ii. 38, 39.) have been 
 often explained, and seen perfectly plain. How Christ's 
 blessing them in the former case, and speaking of the 
 posterity of the Jews in the latter, implies either baptism 
 in the one instance, or infants in the other, is inconceiva- 
 ble! Mr. M'Lean has most forcibly argued, with regard to 
 the former passage, that so far from countenancing infant 
 baptism, it is a clear example to the contrary. " Here are 
 children brought to Christ, declared of his kingdom and 
 blessed, and thus became visible subjects ; yet we read 
 nothing of their baptism. We are sure that Christ did 
 not baptize them, for he baptized none, (John iv. 2.) and 
 it is certain his disciples had not baptized them formerly, 
 else they would not have forbid their being brought to 
 Christ ; nor did our Lord command them then to baptize 
 them, though he declares them of his kingdom, and bless- 
 es them. Hence wo learn, that infants may be ac^nqw? 
 
392 cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 
 
 ledged to be of the kingdom of God without baptizing' 
 them." The only remaining example is taken from 
 1 Cor. vii. 14. "The unbelieving husband is sanctified 
 by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the 
 husband, else were your children unclean ; but now 
 are they holy." It denotes, says our author, that the 
 unbelieving parent is so purified, by means of his relation 
 to the believing parent, that their mutual offspring are not 
 unclean, but may be offered to God ; or, as he before ex- 
 plains it, may come into his temple. The children of 
 believing parents may therefore be offered to God in bwp- 
 tism. The Doctor has evidently here lost sight of the 
 distinction between the legal and evangelical senses of 
 the term holy. The unbelieving parent is purified by the 
 believing one ! Is this a doctrine to be found in Scripture? 
 Does it accord with the universal representation through- 
 out its hallowed pages of the personal nature of religion ? 
 How is an unbeliever purified by a believer ? The apostle 
 moreover, is not writing upon the subject of baptism, but 
 obviating the scruples of Christians about the continuance 
 of their marriage relation with infidels. The children, he 
 says, would not be holy unless the parents were so ; the ho- 
 liness mentioned therefore must be of the same nature in 
 both cases, and the meaning is^ the marriage continued to 
 be law'ful, and neither Tpa-ity should be discarded on ac- 
 ' count of the Christianity of the other, because this would 
 produce endless difficulties and litigations with regard 
 to posterity. The argument is, "You must not put 
 away your unbelieving wives, if they are willing to 
 remain with you, otherwise you must also discard 
 your children, as the law of separation from the hea- 
 then obliged the IsraeHtes to do with regard to the chil- 
 dren who were conjoined with the unclean party (Deut. 
 vii. 3. Ezra x. 3.) Under the Gospel dispensation, both 
 the unbelieving party and the children are to be retained." 
 
 Dr. Dwight also maintains, as a third direct argument, 
 that infant baptism was uniformly practised by the early 
 Christians. It is singular enough, that Dr. Dwight, and 
 others, who profess to trace infant ba.ptism to the apos' 
 ties, quote only incidental allusions from one or two wri- 
 ters of at least a century or more afterward,s, and from 
 passages of questionable authenticity and doubtful mean- 
 ing! 
 
 In the last discourse upon the subject (Sermon 159) 
 
cox's ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 393 
 
 there is little to require particular animadversion ; the 
 former part of it consists, jin fact, of a repetition of the sen- 
 timents already discussed ; the latter part respects ths 
 mode of administration. The point of difference regard 
 the assertion, that " water may be administered indif- 
 ferently, either by sprinkling, affusion, or immersion," 
 He afiirms, that "the body of learned critics and lexico- 
 graphers declare, that the original meaning of Ba*Ti^£j 
 and Ba*To, is to tinge, staiTi, dye, or colour, and that 
 when immersion is meant, it is only a secondary and oc- 
 casional sense." This is passing strange, and I confess, 
 that the only way in which, upon the principles of Chris- 
 tian charity, I can account for so untrue a statement is, 
 by concluding that Dr. Dwight never examined them ! 
 Let any one look at Scapula: the first meanings are 
 mergo seu immergo, to dip, to plunge: let him consult 
 Stephanus, Hederic, Suicerus, Schleusner, all the authori- 
 ties. I demand only a simple inspection of them, as an 
 answer to this strange and erroneous representation. 
 
 I pass over several citations, which are refuted in the 
 discussion of Mr Ewing's statements, and I omit to com- 
 ment on the remarks, that it is incredible that John should 
 have immersed the people, and impossible that Peter and 
 his companions should have done so on the day of Pente- 
 cost, as really unworthy of a serious refutation. 
 
 " Christ has expressly taught us," says the Doctor, 
 " that immersion is unessential to the administration of 
 this ordinance." The attempted proof of this assersion is 
 founded or the narrative in the thirteenth chapter of John, 
 respecting the condescension of Christ in washing the feet 
 of Peter ; particularly the words of our Lord — " He that is 
 washed, needeth not save to wash his feet ; but is clean 
 every whit." The argument is, that symbolical washing, 
 that is, sanctification, of which the act in the present in- 
 stance is considered to have been the sign, is perfect, al- 
 though applied only to the feet ; as perfect as if applied 
 to the hands and head ; but the expression extends to 
 every other symbolical washing, and therefore to bap- 
 tism. 
 
 A remark or two will suiHce to show the entire fallacy 
 of this statement. 
 
 1. Christ has not expressly taught us any thing, in 
 this passage, upon the subject of baptism, if by the word 
 expressly, we are tQ understand " in direct terras," which 
 
394 OOX'S ANSWER TO DWIGHT. 
 
 is its essential signification. If any thing is taught, it is 
 obvious by implication only ; but that the implication is, 
 that "immersion is not essential to baptism," cannot be 
 maintained. 
 
 2. Were it admitted, that any thing is taught by infer- 
 ence respecting baptism, the fair deduction would be in 
 favour of the sentiment which Dr. Dwight opposes. — 
 There is an allusion in the narrative to washing the whole 
 body, and to washing the feet; but, in either case, the 
 washing is of a kind to imply immersion. Bathing, the 
 practice alluded to in the former case, will be allowed to 
 have been performed by immersion ; washing the feet is 
 also an act of immersion, as commonly performed, and as 
 specifically represented in this passage. Jesus "poured 
 water," — not upon the feet, but — " into a basin, and began 
 to wash the feet of the disciples." If this action, there- 
 fore, be considered as symbolical of baptism, so far as the 
 mode is concerned, it would require immersion. 
 
 3. There is a lurking sophism in the use of the expres- 
 sion, " symbolical washing." It maybe true,that the wash- 
 ing represented sanctification, or rather sincerity of heart ; 
 but, it is not said, to represent baptism ; it was not there- 
 fore baptism. " 
 
 If there were any propriety in the phrase, " symbolical 
 washing," or any such significance in the conduct of our 
 Lord as would sustain the poedobaptist objection, this must 
 have beeii, the performance of an ordinance, not a simple 
 expressidtiof humiUty. 
 
 It was iti every sense a common washing of the feet, and 
 not a symbolical rite : intended solely to give a practical 
 exhibition of the spirit which it became the disciples to 
 cultivate — " If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed 
 your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers' feet." From 
 the cleansing nature of the water, the Saviour takes occa- 
 sion to advert to the general purity of his followers, and 
 to the lamentable exception which existed in the parti- 
 cular case of Judas. 13ut are we justified in denomi- 
 nating this action a " symbolical washing," because our 
 Lord availed himself of the favourable opportunity of 
 allusively communicating some important truths ? And if 
 we were, has this any connexion with the rite of baptism ? 
 The argument of Dr. Dwight would amount to this — 
 " because Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, and be- 
 cause washing the feet was as good an emblem of sanctifi- 
 
cox's ANSWER TO DWIOHT. 395 
 
 cation aa washing the whole body, therefore baptism may 
 be administered by sprinkling or pouring !" Is it possible 
 to conceive of any statement more illogical and inconclu- 
 sive ? 
 
 If, however, it were even conceded, that there is an allu- 
 sion to baptism, it might admit of another inference which 
 would not be at all gratifying to our opponents, but which 
 would certainly be much more natural and obvious than 
 that which Dr. Dwight endeavours to establish. The in- 
 ference would be, not, as he says, that immersion is unes- 
 sential to baptism, but that washing the feet is essential, — 
 We might demand of our opponents, why they pour, and 
 sprinkle, and do not wash ? And why they pour or sprinkle, 
 or simply touch with a drop of water the face, and not the 
 feet, or the hands ? Where is their symbolical washing, 
 when they never attempt to wash at all? 
 
 The last citation intended to substantiate the poedobaptits 
 doctrine of the mode of administering baptism, is from 
 the thirty-sixth chapter of Ezekiel — " Then will I sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; and will put 
 my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my sta- 
 tutes." — " It cannot be denied," says Dr. Dwight, " that 
 this is symbolical language, in which God thought it pro- 
 per to denote regeneration, by the affusion of the Spirit 
 upon the soul." But it is obvious, that so far from repre- 
 senting the affusion of the Spirit v/pon the soul, God is 
 declared to put his Spirit within his people. Whatever 
 interpretation be given, it must be admitted, that jpouring 
 upon, or sprinkling, are very different acts from putting in 
 or implanting. Instead of this statement, being undeniable, 
 one would suppose it to be impossible not to perceive its 
 entire inconclusiveness and fallacy. 
 
 THE END.