An Essay on Baptism; being an
Inquiry into the Meaning, Form, and
Extent of the Administration of that

Ordinance. With an Appendix. By
Greville Ewing. Second edition. 4s.
Duncan, and W. Baynes.

On Baptism: chiefly in Reply to the above. By Rev. F. A. Cox, M.Ă. 4s. 6d. Holdsworth.

THE mutual reproach and mutual vengeance with which disputants in the baptismal controversy have been in the habit of provoking each other, could not fail, in the estimation of many, to dishonour the sacred rite, and sink even religion itself into contempt. No bitterness of spirit, however, is discovered by the authors before us. We have dipped into their productions, and it is pleasing to say, that we have perceived hardly a tinge of that wormwood and gall which, in former days, were mingled so copiously with these "waters of strife." Most heartily do we wish this war to come entirely to an end. But we are persuaded that until some point of agreement, some axiom of interpretation be found, the quarrel respecting βαπτω and βαπτίζω is not to abate and as Mr. Ewing very affect ingly observes, "it should humble us all, to see the battle continuing to rage, without the smallest appearance of termination."

This principle of harmony, so very desirable, is not, we are convinced, to be found in the etymology of language. The extreme earnestness of Mr. Cox on this point, is rather amusing. "And now, once again," says he, "I demand of Mr. Ewing to point out the lexicon, which does NOT give dipping, plunging, or immersing, as the unquestionable and universally admitted PRIMITIVE SIGNIFICATION of the contested terms.'

There is a boldness in this challenge rather trying to a man's patience; but we will endeavour to meet it with calmness. Were the best critics and lexicographers all agreed to deny or affirm, what Mr. Cox calls "the primitive use of the word, the question must still be asked, What is the weight of their authority in fixing the import of Bapto in the New Testament? For, after all, it is not the philological, but the Scriptural, or, rather, the SACRAMENTAL sense of the

word, that must settle the controversy. A lexicon is only the repository of opinion. The meaning of an author is perfectly inIt is not uncomdependent of a lexicon.

mon for the same word from the same pen to denote very different ideas; and he must be far less skilled than Mr. C. is in the philosophy of language, who is not

aware, that to seek for the sense of a word in some cases by rummaging a dictionary, would be to obscure the truth. The dust of far-fetched criticism often blinds the eye of judgment, so that the light of simple evidence shines upon it in vain. It is easy to conceive how eager inquiry for knowledge on this subject, fatigued with digging for Greek roots, and bewildered in the thicket of Greek branches, may be seen resting upon "the stump of some cut down word," only for the sake of rising with greater vigour to propose the tedious question, "What, after all this toil, is to be understood by the scriptural word Baptizo, in reference to the ordinance which it is intended to describe ?”

By referring such an individual to the best critics and lexicographers, you relieve not his anxiety; for when the influence of learned opinion is mutual, in different scales, the balance of a regulated mind feels only the restlessness of indecision. At the best, it remains only to quiver at equilibrium, being unable to determine whether bapto means to plunge, or to paint; to pour or to sprinkle. He hesitates to conclude which is the best critic, the scholar who can refer to a passage in an ancient author, where bapto is employed to show the force of a weapon plunged into the heart of a foe; or he who has marked the page on which bapto represents the application of vermilion to the cheek of artificial beauty. Really, his honest mind is perplexed, not knowing which is the most approved writer in the Greek language, the man who selects bapto to show how a drowned man sinks, and how a ship foundered at sea, may be imagined to "go down into the water ; or, the writers that use the very same word in speaking of a lake tinged with blood, and of a human body drenched with the dew of heaven.

"

What then is to be done? We must first of all think upon the nature of the ordinance itself. Baptism is a sacred institution, a ceremony of purification. Its ob

servance was enjoined upon the apostles, without the mention of any specific mode of dispensing it. They were Jews, whose associations of mind would, we judge, naturally remind them of the accustomed manner of administering their "divers baptisms." "A clean person," says the record, "shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon all the persons that are there."

Now, since the apostles were simply commanded to baptize, having no direction whatever respecting how the service was to be done, is it credible that they should presume to devise a new method of performing it? How our Baptist brethren can still contend for the submersion of the whole person, as the only legal way of administering this ordinance, is to us utterly mysterious, as it is in obedience to no command, and since a single example of their mode of baptizing appears not within the sacred annals of at least four thousand years! In this confidence we are glad to be supported by the strong authority of Mr. Ewing. "I have not,' says he," been able to meet with an instance of immersion-baptism in the Holy Scriptures"!

Mr. E. allows that there are many instances in which baptizo signifies 66 to immerse, that is, to plunge or sink completely under water; as in the cases which he cites from Josephus, of a ship that (6απTIO@EVTOS) sank in the Adriatic sea, and of the boy betrayed by murderers, who put him under water (GaπT GOVTES) and kept him there till he died. 66 These," says Mr. Ewing, "I conceive to be genuine instances of immersion-baptism." Is this the pattern of baptizers and the baptized? Shall we illustrate the office of the apostles of Christ by the work of providential destruction, or that of a murderer? It is impossible to apply such examples as a rule of Christian baptism. According to their (the Baptists,) views," 1 continues our author, " baptism is a twofold symbol, representing two things of distinct and equal importance, the first representing the death, the other the resurrection of Christ." Now, if this be the

case, the word baptizo is a name for the one half of their ordinance of baptism. It entirely fails them in the other half. 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."

We have been not a little pleased with at least the symptom of an interesting concession, which may perhaps lead our Baptist brethren to adopt the rational and armonizing principle, that baptism is "a

GENERIC term," which admits of various modes of operation. We now allude to the very sensible remark of Mr. Cox, in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, whose body is said to have been baptized with the dew of heaven." It does not," says he, "imply the manner in which the effect was produced, but the effect itself; not the mode, by which the body of the king was wetted, but its condition, as resulting from exposure to the dew-a body exposed to eastern dews would be as wet as if plunged in water."

Very well, then, in our friend's opinion, to be drenched WITH dew, and to be im. mersed IN water, are synonymous. At length the dispute respects not the fact, but the mode of the fact; and it remains only to be determined whether Mr. Cox's plunging or Mr. Ewing's pouring, is the more proper way of drenching. No matter now whether the subject be popped into the water, or the water popped upon the subject, provided always that he be wetted sufficiently a shower-bath or a river; a vapour-bath or a well, may be equally appropriate, though not quite equally convenient. And probably it is not very material whether the bath be a cold or a warm one but yet, to any thing comfortable in "going down into the water," some devout persons, even in this month of February, might object, because it would certainly do away all self-denial in the ordinance, they could not so literally perform it with fear and trembling.

66

But to return. WILL our Baptist friends concede the point, that this Christian ordinance may be administered in various forms, if care is taken that the subject be thoroughly immersed or drenched? We fear they will refuse to do so: they tell us, Any mode is not right; for in the Scriptures it is said, 66 they went down into the water:" John baptized in Jordan, and we are buried with Christ by baptism," &c. A person," says Mr. Cox, " may indeed be immersed by means of pouring, but immersion is the being plunged into water, or overwhelmed by it"! This is a strange sentence, written on page 94 of Mr. C.'s book; and compared to his very judicious remark just noticed at page 41, it appears most marvellous! But really system-SYSTEM devours good sense and learning, and consistency, and every thing good. Was Nebuchadnezzar, then, whom Mr. Cox has allowed to be in a state of immersion, was he plunged into dew, or overwhelmed by dew!

In reply to what we would name the allusive arguments of our Baptist brethren, we can do nothing more efficiently than request our readers to peruse Mr. Ewing's

excellent remarks on the "Manner and Form of the Ordinance," together with "Objections Answered." They are in a neat style of language, and discover that acuteness of judgment and amiable temper of mind, which are inseparable from the man, and impart a kindred worth to his performance. See 2d edit. p. 49-142.

With the highest esteem for Mr. Ewing's talents and erudition, we will not conceal our regret at finding his odd translation of the word baptism retained in this improved edition of his Essay. We are not prepared to reject as spurious the rules he follows in tracing the elements of words. Though from Mr. Cox's critical remark on the word soxeïov, this favourite scheme of analysis appears not supported by "the ancient and high authority of Aristotle;' it is nevertheless sustained by men of great literary fame.* The analogical theory itself is not yet to be despised, however sorry we may feel for that excessive use of it, which has made our learned friend interpret Sanтw, overmuch. The crucible that melts bapto down into pop, is, we confess, somewhat rather too fine. What is TоT? A little bit of fresh Greek-a specimen of new literary coinage, which, impressed as it is with an image and superscription taken from Johnson's Dictionary, looks not in good taste, we fancy. Mr. Cox has written thirty-nine pages in octavo to prove it counterfeit, and to prevent its currency. These pages, if they do not discover all that urbanity, which we know belongs to the temper of their author, they evince that he is a clever man and a scholar. We lament sincerely the occasion for their being written; but they really deserve to be read. It shall not, however, greatly concern us: for, at the worst, it is but a small blemish, a speck upon a mirror, otherwise bright and true; and when Mr. Ewing sees it as Mr. Cox does, and, as we do, it will be easy for his careful hand to rub it off.

Unwilling further to pursue the etymological part of the litigated questions, we will turn our eye for a moment upon those parts of the volumes which refer to the proper subjects of the Christian ordinance. And, aware that it better becomes a writer to mark excellencies than to find faults, it is with sincere regret that we proceed to notice what we regard as the imperfect ground in which our bap

* Vide Valckenær, Lennep, and Everardus Scheidus, de Analogia Linguæ Grecæ. Appendix to Dawes's Miscellanea Critica. Dr. Murray's History of the European Languages. Disquisitions on Greek Prepositions, by James Bonar, F.R.S.Edin.

tist author has unhappily planted the roots of his arguments on the disputed points of infant baptism.

The first mistake into which our friend appears to have fallen, arises out of a partial and defective view of Christianity as a system of religion." It is, says Mr. Cox, "ever to be considered as a spiritual dispensation, whether viewed in its essential doctrines, precepts, and promises; or, in its implantation as a principle and spring of eternal life."

No sound divine can object to the above statement of scriptural truth, so far as it goes; but certainly it does not mention all the truth that ought to have occurred to Mr. Cox in this description of Chris'tianity. He should have given the character of the persons whom he denominates the subjects of "Christianity as a system of religion." Are they also "ever to be considered as spiritual men?" It appears next to impertinent in us to remind our friend Mr. Cox and his brethren, that "Christianity, as a system of religion;" or, in terms more scriptural, that the Kingdom of Christ-the reign of Messiah, extends its sceptre as well over the rebel, as the loyal heart-that the gospel pro claims his authority alike over his foes and his genuine friends. How often have the people of his faithful ministry heard Mr. Cox exclaim in the name of his master, "these mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me!" It really does appear to us, that our friend, intent upon throwing round his cause a stronger shield than ever yet defended it, lost his consistency; and, for the moment, overlooked the nature of Christianity itself, whose claims on this principle, he has unwittingly relaxed. The truth of the case, in our view, may be stated thus: As all who live under the British government, whether young or aged; whether contented with the laws or disaffected toward them; are nevertheless the subjects of the crown: every human being under the gospel dispensation, which is called "the kingdom of heaven," is a subject of that kingdom; and as such, ENTITLED, of course, to all its immunities and honours; which, if not actually enjoyed, is owing to personal disability, or want of essential qualifications in the subject himself. Such defects, therefore, belong not to the nature of the kingdom, whose laws secure to every subject within the realm of mercy, all that laws can secure, an equal right to live-" to live for ever." Now then, we are ready to avow, what Mr. Cox will think quite anomalous, that persons may be baptized into Christ, that

is to say, initiated into Christianity-not as a principle of spiritual vitality-but as a system of religion," who not only cannot then profess Christianity, by reason of their tender age; but who may be, what, alas! many apostate baptists have become, its future OPPONENTS and DESPISERS." It is not, therefore, we judge, as Mr. Cox and Mr. Birt have viewed the subject; namely, that it is the very essence of religion, which is the cause of difference between us and our baptist brethren; but it is the very nature of the Redeemer's kingdom that forms "the ground

on which they are at issue both with themselves and with us. The first section, then, of Mr. Cox's elegantly written book is disposed of thus:-Its reasonings are admissible; but, proceeding on assumed data, they are necessarily inefficient. The lever, formed with ingenuity and worked with skill to up-turn the system so strongly defended by the ability of Dr. Wardlaw and Mr. Ewing we have examined; it proves to be weak in its fulcrum, and, in our opinion, pedobaptism remains unshaken by it, and looks perfectly secure.

The second mistake which we have been sorry to notice in Mr. Cox's performance, has less claim to the character of a certain degree of originality, which belongs to the former. It is an adopted error, common to all writers on his side of the controversy. In imitation of his brethren Mr. C. resolves that baptism is in one sense exactly like circumcision, an entirely positive institution. He very gravely assures us that "both the one and the other rest on the simple statutory principle of the command." This is the basis of Mr. Abraham Booth's elaborate pile of words, and it is still adhered to, as the living rock which promises everlasting durability to the Baptist system. Here our mistaken brethren still rest, just as if they were garrisoned with the very omnipotence of truth. Hence the infallible confidence with which they look out from their supposed security upon their brethren opposite; and then returning to this strong hold, they mutter to each other so complacently this saying of Mr. Cox's, "The popular feeling is their's, the ARGUMENT

ours!"

To be serious:-Does Mr. Cox really imagine that the able authors whom he resists, would for a moment argue the point in debate, if they believed with him, that baptism is entirely a positive rite? Certainly they would be the last men in the world to offer such an affront to common sense. Is it then right for him to attack his brethren on a principle of argument which they deny? He should be

more thoughtful than first of all to hang over their heads the cloud of his own thoughts, that he may be prepared more effectually to immerse them with an incessant rain of words.

We have again perused the divine com→ mand relative to baptism; and it is obsti. nate rationality that forces us to declare, that baptism in our opinion is NOT a rite, entirely positive. What we mean by a positive institution, the paschal supper, for example, will explain. There the pecu liarities of the custom are exactly arranged and determined. The Lamb, the mode of its preparation, the uses of its blood; the guests, their attitude and dress, together with the time of the supper and its annual recurrence, are all marked with the most accurate precision. This was entirely a positive institution. But is the ordinance of Christian baptism distinguished by any such speciality of enactment? The Apostles were directed to "make disciples of all nations," baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The history of the Apostolic age shows that the first preachers administered the rite, by water, to persons in Judea and in heathen lands, who believed their testimony, or who made a profession of "Christianity, as a system of religion," and, "To THEIR HOUSE." This we will allow to be positive, or nearly so. All else, relating to the practice of the ceremony does not "rest on the simple statutory principle of the command," if by this we are to under stand the command in its simple form. If this is not our friend's idea why then, baptism does not rest on a simple principle, but on a mixed one; and is seen to be, what Dr. Williams has correctly called it, "an institution partly positive and partly moral."

The regular practice of our Baptist brethren themselves concedes this definition; but, in words, they cannot yet be prevailed on to acknowledge it. For example; a person called a candidate for baptism, requests to be submersed. He is not, however, allowed to approach the sacred stream, till his religious experience has passed the ordeal of a church-meeting-for, in their mind, even going down INTO the water is not baptism, if the subject is not "born again.' At length, however, cæteris paribus, his request is complied with "the transparent wave covers him." But after all, they do not know, for a certainty, that the brother is indeed baptised; because, as for them, how can they tell that his "heart is right with God?" They can only guess at it; and often they guess wrong. But here we pause; for it is not for us now to blame the interference of this "court of

conscience," nor to dispute the force of human eyes to pierce with curious wonder into the soul of man. O no: All this process of investigation is quite to the purpose of our argument. It goes to show, that our friends, in ascertaining the proper subjects of baptism, condescend to employ a moral scrutiny quite rigid enough. Thus, do they, in fact, publish all that a pedo-baptist would now contend for; namely, that baptism is NOT entirely a positive institution. On the whole, therefore, we do sincerely conclude, that, if our worthy brother would only consider this one point, he would in a future edition of his book, mark with less emphasis, that expressive phrase: "the argument is ours!"

But Mr. Cox elucidates the subject. His words are these:

"Baptism is a branch of the tree of Scriptural knowledge; or, if you please, a leaf."

We could now fancy ourselves hearing a Baptist brother, expressing himself in some such words as these: "Since a branch; or, if you please, a leaf partakes the verdure of the stem on which it hangs; and as baptism is a leaf of the tree of Scriptural knowledge, THEREFORE one naturally agrees with our friend Mr. Birt, that baptism is THE ESSENCE of religion!" Very pretty! How extremely natural it is, for a sharp-sighted fancy to fix, at once, on the very image of the mind's notion. A pedo-baptist, with an imagination even as lively as Mr. Cox's, would never have seen this figure. He might, perhaps, call Christianity, by way of rhetoric, a Temple, and in his "mind's eye," baptism might look like a ceremony; but a branch would be quite out of sight; except, indeed, the branch of hyssop dipped for the purpose of casting the sprinkled shower," in which the bow of mercy greets his eye, with all its lovely variety of grace, while it stretches itself to tell that," the promise is to us, and to our children." Mr. Cox, we are sure, will not despise this play of fancy, since it is indulged simply to evince, that al though illustration may be taken for definition, yet, that it is not the same thing. For the former excellence of a writer, his imaginative genius and ready flow of eloquence have admirably prepared him.

There is yet a third pillar, which appears to sustain the reasonings of Mr. Cox, in replying to Dr. Wardlaw, which, in our opinion, is sadly defective. We refer to the distinction which Mr. C. makes between, what he calls the "Abrahamic Covenant and the ancient law of circumcision." He affirms, very positively, "that truth requires them to be considered as altogether distinct."

1

After this saying, the words of the covenant are cited at length from Gen. xvii. 1-14. Now Mr. Cox chooses his

ground, starts at full speed, and runs on just like a chariot on the even sand. The celerity of his movement fires the wheels of his thoughts, and they really seem to require, not a sprinkling to quench them. See pages 131-135.

We too, can discern a difference between the covenant, and the token of the covenant-" To be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee," is the expression, which describes the essence of the covenant. It is a habit of language employed as the epitome of religion, through all the dispensations of the divine mercy, from the moment in which the promise was given to Abraham, to the day in which the last of his spiritual sons shall cry in ecstasy-"this is OUR GOD, we have waited for him." To this promise of spiritual and eternal blessedness, the grant of worldly advantages is united, that "godliness might ever be profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." To this covenant in the days of Abraham, the divine Being appended the rite of circumcision as a sign, a token, a seal. With this plain idea on the above interesting subject, we may well lift up our head in astonishment, to hear so sensible a man as Mr. Cox exclaim so vehemently: "I demand of Dr. Wardlaw, whether the covenant made with Abraham, many years before the covenant of circumcision, namely, that of which the apostle speaks, as confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, and which expressly secured spiritual blessings, was the same with the covenant of cir cumcision." We cannot say how Dr. Wardlaw would meet this demand: but we should answer it by simply saying, YES. Because, we cannot see, with Mr. Cox, that the covenant of circumcision, so termed by him, has "expressly limited its stipulations to temporal blessings." Indeed, we are sincere in affirming, that we see no such limitation in Gen. xvii. There we discern the original grant of Divine favour, or covenant of Grace, republished and enlarged-and Abraham presented with a new edition of it; which he received as a warrant that bore the signs of Divine authority; that declared him justified, and published again his adoption, as the friend of God. Abraham believed the testimony. Hence, the blessing is called 'the righteousness of faith. To this righteousness declared in the promise, was affixed the confirmatory rite; which, to speak by a figure, sealed the document containing the aforesaid promise of righteousness to Abraham and his