« AnteriorContinuar »
speech (as the lips, the teeth, or the palate) , be freely interchanged, as we .find them, actually to be in the practice of speaking. That part of the word which remains unvaried after these operations, falls to be considered as the radical term. Apply these rules to the words in question. Discard the terminations, and you have the syllable bap;' change the intermediate vowel a into o, and the labial consonant b into the labial consonant p, and yon have the term pop, which is the root required." p. 22.
"Will the reader, then, have the goodness to accustom his ear to the following sounds? I'op-to, pop-tizo, pop-tistes, paptos, pop-tismos, and pop-tisma. In this identical form the root occurs, in Greek, in Latin, audio English. In Greek we have iraniri\u>, I Blow, hiss, or whistle, cheer my horse by calling to him or patting him with my hahd, stroke, or applaud; also the nouns n6Tt7tvo[jix and wowa-off/ao?, a puff, hiss, or whistle, a smack or gentle sound with mouth or hands, expression of favour, applause, cheering, or soothing, a gentle stroke, a soft blow with the hand. In like manner poppysmus and poppysma in Latin, which are the same words as those just mentioned in Greek, and of the same signification. In English the term pop is thus explained by Dr. Johnson."—(Then follows a quotation of the several explanations and illustrations in his Dictionary.) p. 24.
"Mr. Walker, after' giving in his Dictionary Johnson's explanation of pop, adds, 'undoubtedly derivedfrom the noise caused by the sudden expulsion of some small body.' Thia is true, but it is only part of the truth; for the word pop applies equally to the noise caused by the sudden impulsion of some small body. In short, it is the noise caused by the agency of body in motion upon bodyt and that in any direction whatever. It may be entrance or exit, ascent or descent. We say, to pop in, to pop Out, to pop fotth; to pop up, or to pop down; to pop into; to pop upon; to pop out of, or out from; to pop off. I have to add, that the word is not limited in its application to solids or to the aerial fluid, but is with equal frequency applied to water, or any other fluid whatever. Finally, though a pop may be sometimes so powerful' that the noise shall be startling, it is generally caused by the stroke of a small body; and hence it is usually so slight and gentle, that the noise, though marked in the very sound of the word, conies in fact to be commonly nothing at all." p. 26.
"Keep in mind, now, the above explanation, and apply it to baptism, (pop-tism) and you are furnished with a key. which will naturally and consistently account for all its much disputed acceptations. You have only to observe, that a person or
thing may be either popped into water or any other fluid, or may have water or any other fluid popped upon, or popped into him or it, and the whole mystery vanishes." p. 27.
Now whatever of the air of burlesque there may be in all this, Mr. Ewing declares himself quite serious in offering it to public examination. Let tis next attend to what Mr. Cox has to say in the way of reply. The combatants, it will be seen, a,re "Arcades ambo, ct cantare pares et respondere parati."
"No one can deny, after entertaining himself with these passages, that our author has popped upon a very amusing, if not a very convincing etymology; but one is tempted to use the words of an Homeric stanza, though with a different application:
0/ 5i »at a-^f6fxt>oC *'Pi '*"' atrip rjiv ytXafffXt'
i. e. Although distressed, they smiled pleasantly upon him ;—for though it is to be regretted that a person of learning and various attainment should have allowed himself to treat this subject so ludicrously, yet it produces no emotion of anger; and were it not for the intimate association of the novel criticism with important truth, we should suffer it to pass with only the expression of "a pleasant smile." It is necessary to keep in mind, that for an eiplanation of Ttmt, pop, we have at full length the definitions and illustrations of Mnson's English Dictionary I
"Suppose, then, we first proceed in our author's own manner. He admits, that by the same rule the root may be pronounced bob or bab. This, indeed, is obvious; for— Discard the terminations, and you have the syllable bap; change the vowel a into o, and the labial consonant p into the labial consonant 6, and you have the term bob, Which is the root required. Will the reader, then, have the goodness to accustom his ear to the following sounds? Bobto, bob-tizo, bob-tiites, bob-tos, bob-timm. and bob-tisma. In English the word bob is thus explained by Dr. Johnson:—
To Bob. V. n. To play backward and forward; to play loosely against any thing.
And sometimes Im'k Tin a possip's bowl,
6hakspra:rt Midsummer HigM'i »«••
They comb, and then they order every hair;
A birth-day jewel bobbing at each ear.
I'm rich in jewels, rings, and bobbing pearls. Pluck'd from Moor's ears. Drydtn,
"It is not necessary to cite all the explanations and references, after the example of Mr. Ewing with regard to the word pop; since we are at present only in search «' an illustration, to afford the reader some 179
MR. COX'S REPLY TO MR. EVVING ON BAPTISM.
general idea of the curious method he hits adopted, and since the authority in question is universally accessible. Now, to pursue our author's strain, 'having thus translated the word baptism, we are prepared to shew that it signifies the sudden and slight application of water or some other liquid; but, in a more lax sense, the application of it in any manner, or for any purpose;' or rather the application of a solid, (''for tlie word is not limited in its application to fluids,") the slight application to the I ips or the neck, so as to resemble, for instance, the jogging of the elbow when a person is drinking, (vide example fromShakspeare,) or the motion of an earring. Hence, in fact, baptism may be hoiibing in any ivay. 'It is not always that the analysis is of so easy and satisfactory a nature!'
"By the rules already laid down, our root may be pronounced vap; and 'in Latin,' as Dr. Murray remarks,' vap, wet, Mow, ventilate, cool, dry by the wind, or produce evaporation by exposure to the *', produced vap-or, in Greek atmos, from *t, blow.' In this we may feel a little perplexed to determine whether the proper action is to dry, or to wet, or to blow; some one might ingeniously conjecture, "iat a vapour bath is intended! In the present instance I am unable to find the *erb to vap in Johnson; but he gives us U> vapour, which, amongst other significations, is said to mean to brag, and also to tcatler in fume or vapour. Perhaps a certain reviewer had both these explanations m his eye when he wrote—'The body of evidence which the author has adduced completely overthrown the doctrine of immersion;'—that is, vaps, vapours, or evaporates it\
"The convenience of this term is surprising; for, as a witty friend has observed—Discard the terminations, and you tave the syllable bap; change the intermediate vowel a into o, and the labial consonant 6 into the labial consonant m, and Jou have the term mop, which is the root rfquired. This derivation possesses the confirmatory circumstance, that (Johnson also being witness) we can go to the Latin language and find mappa, and (ourselves being judges) to the Greek also, where we happily discover /war tin, per Nyncop. for f«firei»; from fiMf*TM, (Mpio, prehendo, to We, that is, in any way; audjnetonyiuiCi»lly, to surprize. Hence to «.«.>■/>, or map, or mop, may be to take a person or child, and surprize him by popping upon or mopt'aing, his face with -water. I am indisposed to pursue the ludicrous applications of this new term, but they may be easily conceived."
But, farcical as Mr. Ewing's analysis <rf the word baptize may seem to us, tie
nevertheless endeavours, to support it from Aristotle. "I plead for no innovation," says he," but am supported by the ancient and high authority of Aristotle;" from whose writings he quotes a few lines which he thus translates. "The root (of a word) then, is an undivided sound; not every such sound, however, but one that is significant; for cries of beasts are also undivided sounds, but I do not say that any of them is a root."
On a careful examination of the entire passage in the wiitings of Aristotle, Mr.' Cox thinks he has discovered a little unfairness on the part of Mr. Ewing; he therefore gives the passage at greater length, and havingcorrected some errors of translation into which Mr. E. has fallen, thus sums up the amount of the , investigation:—
"Having given the passage from Aristotle in its connection, let us now inquire, to what purpose it has been adduced by our author? That any suffrage of the ancient philosopher is given to Mr. E.'s method of analysis, by which his present conclusions are sanctioned, will surely not be contended; and from its utter irrelevancy to any such end, we infer, could never have been designed; although the manner of its introduction was calculated to occasion this misconception. But as no other purpose appears answered by this quotation in Mr. E.'s pages, it would seem that his intention was to point out a coincidence between his own views and those of Aristotle, with regard to an ultimate part of a word; this is obvious also from his having rendered a-nrgum, a root. But the slightest attention to the language will shew that trriiytl-yj, iii the Greek sentence, is not to be understood of a grammatical root, but of an elementary letter. If, therefore, the scope of our author's analytical labours be the same with the element of the Peripatetic philosopher, he has prematurely stopped short in his enterprize. Pop cannot be the sound, because it is not the element to which the ultimate etymology proceeds; this would be one of the letters or undivided sounds »r, o, B, a, or some of their interchangeable vowels or consonants. If, on*he other hand, he quits Aristotle, and adopts the common idea of the term roof, he has proceeded much too far; inasmuch as xoir is no Greek word whatever, and the verb in the present tense, Bmrai, has all the appearance of the theme to which the other tenses are reducible: or if we seek a simpler form, it will be presently shewn how it may be legitimately traced."
Our limits-do not permit us to fay before the reader any thing like an analysis of Mr. Cox's refutation of his opponent's principle of Etymology, but he may collect some idea of the amount from the following paragraph:—
"Were the attempt to press the imaginary root in question into the consideration of the fitments of the word Baptism, as successful its it is vain and futile, no single point ivould be gained,—Admit that bapto is popto, and that baptism is ppptism; admit that to pop, is to pop in, to pop out, to pop forth, to pop up, or to pop down, to pop into, to pop upon, to pop out of, or out from, (o pop off; is the great etymological question determined? Is there less variety'in the senses of the term popiism than in those of baptism? Is the original idea, or is the practice ascertained better than before Mr. Ewing popped upon us with his critical alchemy, and pretended to the discovery of the grand secret? By whatever name we designate the institutron, it leaves untouched the question of the mode and subjects of baptism; and decides nothing with regard to apostolic practice. Instead of saying that John or the disciples of Christ baptized the people, Mr. Ewing insists upon our saying that he poptised them: be it so—in christian courtesy, were it not at least for the ludicrous sound of the expression, we should be willing to adopt it: but then the enquiry remains, what is poptism? Is it popping in or into, or under, or upon 1 Oh, says Mr. Ewing,' it is popping upon and upon the face. I assure you that poptizo signifies, I pop water upon the 'turned-up face' of the person poptized: I have consulted Johnson's Dictionary, and he quotes once from Addison, and once from L'Estrange to show that the verb to pop in certain cases means to pop upon; and this English sense is the undoubted radical notion of the Greek syllable *w, which has, moreover, the very sound of our own native word: and, believe me, it is not always that the analysis is of so easy and satisfactory a nature! !!'"
In opposition to the foregoing whimsical and untenable theory, Mr. Cox subjoins many testimonies of high authority, all tending to shew that Baptism \s immersion; and at p. 36 he gives the following anecdote from Dr. Newman, containing the opinion of the late Professor Porson, on the point in dispute.
"My friend, Dr. Newman, has recorded a conversation which he once held with Professor Porson, in company with a 'much respected friend,' and which, as a corroborative testimony of no mean consideration, may properly be inserted in this place. '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 Insti
tution. I was curious to bear in what manner he read Greek. He very condescendingly, at my request, took down a Greek Testament, and read, perhaps, twenty verses in one of the Gospels, in which the word $omTi>i 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 two of those in the Gospels, mentioned in this letter; I inquired, whether, in his opinion, Sjorrifw must be considered equal to Smrie, which he said was to tinge, as dyers? He replied to this effect—that if there be a difference, he should take the forniertobe the strongest. He fully assured me, that it signified a total immersion. This conversation took place August 27, 1807.' (Baptismal Immersion Defended, pp. IS, 14, &c.)"
In the next chapter, Mr. Cox proceeds to consider the correspondence between Baptism and Burial, implied in the metaphorical allusion, Horn vi. 4. and Col. ii. 11. It is admitted on all hands, that some correspondence is imported in these allusions; but the question is, wherein does it consist, and Is it such' as favours the Baptist or the Pffidobaptist practice? Mr. Ewing's method of disposing of the Baptist argument from these texts is, by considering the reference to be, not to the act of interment, but to the attendant circumstances or preparatory rites, such as embalming, anointing, and washing. This is a strange subterfuge,. as Mr. Cox clearly shews, inasmuch as it confounds the attendant circumstances with the act of burial itself. The latter is the import of the verb " to bury," and not the preparatory rites, which have each their appropriate expression distinct from the term burial. On this part of the argument we can only make room for * short extract.
"It is our happiness," says Mr. Ewing. "to know that our blessed Saviour never was finally interred." Whence the pecu| liar satisfaction of such a discovery arise, I am really at a loss to >m8Sine' especially as this remark is follow*a t>J' immediate citation of the words, M , buried, and he rose again thethiiu jIn Acts xiii. 29, 30. it is recorded, u J took him down from the tree and lata in a sepulchre; hut God raised mm ^ the dead;' and yet we are instruct ^ deduce peculiar consolation fro thought, that 'he was never ■fWV
MR. COX'S REPLY TO MR, EWING ON BAPTISM.
teited!' Surely lie was either interred or not—he was either laid in a sepulchre or not. Does Mr. E. intend to say he was not interred, because he did not see corrupt ion? or that he was not finally interred, because he did not remain in the sepulchre during a longer period than three days ?—or because his female friends had not time to finish the entire process of embalming him} Whether finally interred or not, was he Really interred? If Mr. E. intends to insinuate the negative (which he seems to do by representing that our Lord was not interred, but only prepared to be buried,) we must charge it upon him as a serious contradiction to Scripture testimony, and as tending to subvert one of the most important facts of Christianity, upon which our faith reposes; if he admit the affirmative, then his reasoning is ruined; he has virtually said nothing. Either horn of this dilemma will inevitably pierce his argument.
"Besides, so far as the notion of the interment not being final, can be supposed to have any foundation in fact, and any force in argument, it is altogether in our favour. * Our blessed Saviour was never finally interred;' the Baptists do not finally immerse, that is, they do not drown their candidates, but represent a spiritual burial with Christ, and a resurrection to newness of life, by a temporary, not a final submersion under water."
It seems that Mr. Ewing, in the course of his "Essay on Baptism," had fallen foul of the character of the late Principal Campbell, whom lie charges with dogmatism, inconsistency, and insincerity, because in his translation of the lour Gospels, he had presumed to translate i*6tm(, in water; and, moreover, had affirmed that in both sacred and classical writers, $airTi$», signifies lo iip, plunge, or immerse. Mr. Cox acted very justifiably in throwing a shield around the character of Dr. Campbell; but we scarcely think he needed to have displayed the warmth he has done on the occasion—for certainly there was little danger of the Doctor's reputation, as a Greek critic, suffering from any attack which Mr. Ewing could make upon it. We all indeed know that Mr. Ewing published a Greek Lexicon a lew years ago; but we know also that it was such a Lexicon as any school-boy might put together by the help of a pair of scissars and a little paste, who had just made his way through the Collectanea Grseca Majora 1
"I venture to add," says Mr. Cox, "that Dr. Campbell had the best reasons
for what he stated, and three witnesses to the truth of it, whose testimony no sophistry or cross-examination can overthrow—EtyMology, Use, and Antiquity 1 Mr. Ewing knows well that Every Authority is against him, and in favour of Dr. Campbell. If Mr. Ewing or any of his brethren will produce me A Single Case, in which it is shewn that sprinkling is more properly the radical idea than plunging, I will concede the etymological point at once; and if he or any of his brethren will bring forword One Single Instance Only of infant sprinkling from the New Testament or the Old, or One Single Command inculcating the practice, I will instantly concede the practical point, and attach myself to the Psdobaptist denomination. Will Mr, Ewing or any of his brethren Venture To Give Me A Similar Pledge?"—
The remainder of Mr. Cox's volume is occupied in replying to various scattered criticisms contained in his opponent's performance; and having done this, he proceeds to examine Dr.Dwight's Discourses on Baptism, in his System of" Theology, and concludes with a few Strictures on Dr. Wardlaw's Lectures on the Abrahamic Covenant; but on neither of these can we dwell at any length.
On what relates to the mode of Baptism, Mr. Ewing, with the exception of his pop, seems to have advanced but little that is new. He brings forward the old hackneyed remarks respecting the communication of the Spirit—the vast labour which it is supposed immersion would occasion—and the import of certain Greek prepositions that occur iu connection with baptizing. Without wishing to detract in any measure from the force of Mr. Cox's replies, on any of these topics, there is one of his opponent's—arguments, should we call them? which we think may be disposed of in a more summary manner than he has done it. We refer to the sentiment that pouring can be the import of gawTui or i8a7TTi?c». Nothing can be plainer than that these are active verbs, consequently the nouns governed by them are the objects of the action performed. Persons which stand in this relation to $x*tw or fiowTTifw, may be the objects of immersion, of sprinkling, or of washing, biit can never be the objects of pouring. Fluids may be poured, but persons cannot. When it is said, "lie shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," how would it do to substitute pouring, and to say, "He-shall pour you with the Holy Ghost and with fire?" The Paedobaptists attempt to get over this by introducing a preposition, and saying, "he shall pour upon you the Holy Ghost," &c. but whodoes not see that, in this case, it is no longer a person that is the object of the verb pour, but the thing poured!
The meaning of the Greek prepositions 'ato, «x, ils, iv, which occur in those passages that relate to Baptism, have often been the subject of remark, as well as the import of the Greek verbs $tarru and j8a!rri&. The former are frequently rendered out of, in or into, and that they bear this signification is indisputable. To what purpose, then, are a thousand arguments, grounded on the fact that they occasionally are used wijh a greater latitude of meaning? Dr. Ryland, in a letter addressed to Mr. Cox, on the subject of Mr. Ewing's book, very justly remarks, that
"Quibbles ' may be multiplied without end,' till the commoifpeople are persuaded, that nothing can be determinately expressed by the Greek prepositions. But though Mr. Ewing seems to think, that he has popped upon a better mode of settling this controversy, than any of his brethren thought of before him, yet I am as far as ever from being convinced, that we do not follow the directions and example of our lord and his apostles. Mr. Jiwing, however, appears to consider it as more difficult reverently to submit to infallible authority, in respect of one man's immersing another, than'in the rite to which Joshua attended at Gilgal, chap. v. I cannot account for his feelings."
As Dr. Dwight's System of Theology has obtained a very extensive circular lion in this country, and the author having devoted a few of his discourses to the subject of Baptism, Mr. Cux has embraced the opportunity afforded him in answering Mr. Ewing, to bestow a little attention on the train of his argumentation. There is, indeed, little that is new in it, for his reasonings are pretty much the same as are usually employed by Psdobaptists, as often as the subject comes before them. On one point, however, the Doctor acknowledges, that "the conduct and opinions of those with whom he is connected are, in a greater or less degree, erroneous and indefensible." This concession seems to respect the sense in which baptized infants are to be considered in relation to the Christion, church. "They are intro-'
duced," says he, "into the family of God by their baptism; but then they are not members of the church in the sense commonly intended'by the term; they are not members of the invisible kingdom of Christ, nor of any particular church, but of the. church general! And, therefore, a personal profession of religion is necessary before the parties can become entitled to communion at the Sacramental table." Mr. Cox very properly analyzes these singular positions, and exposes the inconsistency of reckoning baptized infants as introduced into the family of God, and being members of the church general, without their being members of any particular church, or collective bodies of those who make up the general church. In fact, the learned President has left the difficulty where he found it; he has not succeeded in giving any more distinct view of what is meant by the church-membership of infants, than those who have preceded him in the controversy. On the general question, of the right of infants to baptism, Dr. Dwight has advanced nothing new in the way of argument; but with respect to the sense given to the words j8«rTo> and BairriZui by lexicographers, he makes a most singular assertion, viz. that the majority of them declare the primary meaning of the words to be, to tinge, stain, dye, or colour, and immersion only a secondary and occasional sense. "This," says Mr. Cox, " is passing strange; and I confess that the only way in which, upon the principles of Christian charity, 1 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 mcrgo sen immergo, to dip, to plunge; let him consult Siephanus, Hedericus, Suicerus, Schleusner, all the authorities. I demand only a simple inspection of them, as an answer to thi* strange and erroneous misrepresentation."
The last thirty pages of Mr. Cox's volume are devoted to an examination of Dr. Wardlaw's Lectures on the Abrahamic Covenant; and he informs us in the Preface, that his Strictures were written before he knew of Mr. M'Lean's masterly Reply to Dr. Wardlaw, which he expresses his regret is so little known in England. As a new edition of this pamphlet has been recently published at the office of our Magazine, we hope Mr. Cox's commendation of itwili'seive