also find some important pen of Professor Stuart.

exegetical remarks from the critical Upon the whole, we are inclined to adopt this exposition, as best agreeing with the context, and the circumstances of the case.

It cannot be certainly proved from any of the cases of baptism mentioned in the New Testament, that the ordinance was administered by immersion; but it may be conceded, that in some of them this is more probable than the contrary, from the language employed in the description. This probability, however, is more than counterbalanced by the strong improbability that this was the mode in other cases, where the circumstances are recorded. Let it be granted, as probable, that John baptised in Jordan by immersion, and that Philip baptised the Eunuch by immersion; still the impartial reader must acknowledge, that in the baptism of the three thousand, and of the people at Samaria, of the gaoler and his family, of Cornelius and his family, and of Paul, some other mode was used. And let it be remembered, that a demonstration that immersion was sometimes used, does not in the least militate with our opinion, so long as it cannot be proved that this mode was the only one used.

We have already expressed our opinion, that the primary signification of the word Banzi is not to immerse, but to dye. This opinion, though not new, is acknowledged to be at variance with that of most of our lexicographers, and will therefore demand particular confirmation. We regret that our limits will not admit of a minute and extended investigation of this point; for we feel satisfied that the evidence for our opinion might be made to appear so strong, as to win the assent of all impartial judges. We shall be able only to touch the subject lightly.

We take it for granted that there is no marked difference between Barrio and its root Bartw, as to their signification. Some have taught that the root signifies to dip, but that the derivative should be taken as a diminutive, and consequently should mean something less than dipping: while others have held the very reverse, and asserted that Barrio has the force of an augmentative. There is no authority for either of these opinions; and although the Greeks might have perceived a shade of difference in the literal meaning of these words, we are, at this day, unable to discover any. We shall therefore consider them as synonymous. It is, however, worthy of special remark, that Bantw, in none of its forms, is ever ap

plied to Baptism; and that the derivative BartıČo is never used in the New Testament but with some relation to a religious washing, except when taken figuratively.

There are two methods of ascertaining the radical, primitive signification of a word. The first is to trace it through all its ramifications and compounds, and catch the idea which is common to them all. The other is to examine all the passages where the word can be found, and to consider that as the radical meaning which will suit the connexion in every instance. According to both these methods of investigation, the result will be that the primitive, literal meaning, both of Barto and Bastia is to dye. For let any scholar turn to the root Basto in such a Lexicon as that of Scapula, (where words are etymologically arranged,) and he will there find the following derivations: Bappa and saibaμμa, a tincture or dye; Bayes, the act of dying; Badros, dyed; Bawrpia, a female dyer; Baarixos, that which may be dyed; Baon, a colour, a tincture; Baqixos, that which relates to dying; Bapeus, a dyer; αβαφος,not dyed; αιμοβαφης, dyed in blood; ακροβαφης, dyed on the top; δρυοβαφης, dyed with oak; κισσινοβαφης, dyed with ivy; xpoxobans, dyed with crocus; noλvba¶ns,dyed much; Sibapos, double-dyed; xorobaons, dyed with bile; xpvoobaons, tinged with gold.

This list might be considerably increased, but we think that no one who is capable of judging in this case, will easily avoid the conclusion to which we ourselves have come. And we believe, the same result would arise from an examination of all the passages in the Greek classics, where this word, in any of its forms or branches, is used. We have time to mention only a few. a few. The first, is the famous passage in the BATTLE OF THE FROGS, V. 212. Where it is said εβαστετο S'aquari riun, the lake was dyed, or stained with blood.

Aristophanes, in Pluto, Act II, scene 5, has these words, ovo ipatiwy Bastov, not with dyed garments.

Again, speaking of the actors colouring, or staining their faces with wine lees, his words are βαπτομενος βατραχείοις; and he also speaks of Bastos opvis, a coloured bird.

Aristotle, in his book De Coloribus, says: "All these things by means of heat and moisture enter the pores ov Bastoμevov, of such things as are dyed in them:" and De Animalibus, speaking of a certain colouring substance, he says, When it is pressed, βαπτει και ανθίζει την χειρα, it dyes and stains the hand."

VOL. III. No. IV.-3 P

Plutarch, in his Life of Lycurgus, says, "He forbade Baqixny, the art of dying:" in another work, "That which is naturally black, is not Barov dyed." And speaking of a certain Roman general, who was wounded he says, "He set up a trophy, and Bacticas, having tinged his hand with blood, he wrote an inscription with it."

Plato, De Republica, describing the method of dying, says, "They cull out the finest wool, and prepare it with great care, that it may take the grain, then Baarovs, they dye it; but" says he, "substances not prepared in this manner, no matter in what dye (Barn) they are dyed," &c. Again, "Our aim, with regard to soldiers, is to cause them to receive the laws as the cloth receives Bapny, the dye."

And in the first Epistle of Lysis we have, "As oc ßapels, the dyers first cleanse and wash the clothes, ra bafipa zur pation, about to be dyed, that so they may take a more durable colour ẞapny."

Thus also Xenophon, in his Anabasis, speaking of the younger Cyrus, says, "Gautieto his sword in blood," that is, he stained his sword with blood.

In fact, there are few instances in which the meaning of this word does not bear some analogy to the art of dying; and therefore the Latin authors commonly translated it by the word tingo. And it is not difficult to understand how it acquired the meaning of immersing, as the common method of dying was the dipping of the substance to be coloured, into the liquor impregnated with the dye-stuff.

We should have thought it unnecessary to take so much pains in ascertaining the primary signification of this word, had not so much stress been laid upon it by those who maintain that immersion, is the only proper mode of baptism; and had not the thing been misunderstood by many of our best philologists, who have followed one another in asserting that the radical meaning of Basra, is to dip.

There still remains one inquiry, before we dismiss the mode of baptism. It is, whether the mode of immersion is necessary to express, or to express forcibly, the thing represented by baptism. The Baptists strenuously maintain the affirmative; asserting, that by this rite is exhibited the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, of which the ordinance cannot be an emblem, unless performed by immersion. We object to this representation, and deny that there is any authority in the word of God, for considering baptism as a figure of Christ's burial and resurrection. The principal emblematical

signification of baptism, is undoubtedly the purification of the soul by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The being "born of water" is an external sign of being "born of the Spirit." Now the operations of the Holy Spirit, in the regeneration and sanctification of the soul, are often represented by distilling, sprinkling, pouring, &c. but never, that we recollect, by dipping. As far then as the action of baptizing is significative of something internal and spiritual, the argument is greatly in favour of the other usual modes of applying water to the subject, above that of immersion. And let it be observed, that even if it could be proved that immersion was the mode of baptism practised by John, and by the Apostles; yet if there is nothing in this mode connected with the thing intended to be represented in the ordinance, we are under no obligation to follow that particular mode. In other analogous cases, we do not feel ourselves bound to imitate every circumstance in the mode of attending on a divine ordinance, if it is evidently a thing merely indifferent, which may be as well performed in another way. Thus, although, we know that the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the evening; in an upper room; with unleavened bread; in a recumbent posture; yet we feel at liberty to deviate from all these circumstances, because we are persuaded that they enter not at all into the essence of this sacrament; but were circumstances which arose out of the common customs of the country, or from the time and occasion of the institution. So also, if it was customary to administer baptism to men stripped of their clothing, in a country where bathing was customary with all ranks, we should not feel obliged to follow them in this. And if baptism was originally administered by totally immersing the subject in water, in the warm country of Judea, why should we think it needful, scrupulously to imitate this in colder regions, and where habits and customs are different-unless we had reason to believe that something was intended to be taught by the immersion of the subject. If it can be shown that this action was practised, and also that it was not an indifferent circumstance, but significant, we shall then acknowledge that it is important to administer baptism in this way. Otherwise, the manner of applying water in this ordinance, appears to us to be as much a matter of indifference, as the colour of the wine, or the quality of the bread, or the attitude of the participant, in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is evident, that there is no greater need of much water, to represent the operations of the

Spirit in regeneration, than of much bread or much wine, to show forth the death of Christ. Besides, if the advocates for dipping are so precise, as to require that the ordinance be performed in this mode only, they should be able to show us how the immersion ought to be performed; whether in a river, or in stagnant water; with the face turned upward or downward; three times, as ecclesiastical history informs us was done in the ancient Church, or only once. In all these respects different modes are practicable, and it does not appear why they are not as important as the circumstance of covering the body entirely with water by immersion.

We therefore, think, that when this matter shall be impartially considered, and well understood, we shall have no further controversy about the mode of baptism; except to insist that it be with water, by an authorized minister, and in the name of the Trinity.

ART. III.-REPLY OF DR. COX.

To the Editors of the Biblical Repertory.

RESPECTED BRETHREN:

AN apology is perhaps due to you and your readers, for attempting a reply, to your review of my sermon, contained in your number for April, 1830, at this late period. I will tell the truth, whether it become my apology or accusation. At that time I was so employed with parochial cares, as well as the general business of the cause in which we are in common engaged, that after a cursory glancing at what it pleased you to say, I laid the number aside, till a less hurried interval might furnish me with the opportunity of doing some justice to it. I was well aware that a matter so interesting, so absorbing indeed in its intrinsic importance as I view it, would not brook to be lightly despatched; and could not be suffered to assert its own gravity, without pressing out certain duties that justly claimed the precedency. Accordingly, I have never read your review till this same month of August, 1831, and am too straitened now for time adequate to the occasion. If this appear strange, the solution is a glorious one: I have been more and more engrossed as a christian pastor in home duties. Souls, literally by hundreds, have, within the year,