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 you have the term pop, which is the root required." p. 22.

"Will the reader, then, have the good ness to accustom his ear to the following sounds? Pop-to, pop-tizo, pop-tistes, poptos, pop-tismos, and pop-tisma. In this identical form the root occurs, in Greek, in Latin, and in English. In Greek we have TояTÚ, I blow, hiss, or whistle, cheer my horse by calling to him or patting him with my hand, stroke, or applaud; also the nouns πόππυσμα and ποππυσμός, a puf, 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.

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 us next attend to what Mr. Cox has to say in the way of reply. The combatants, it will be seen, are "Arcades ambo, et cantare pares et respondere parati."

and

"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: Οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀχνύμενοί περ, ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ ἡδὺ γέλασσα i. e. Although distressed, they smiled pleasantly upon him ;-for though it is to be regretted that a person of learning and himself to treat this subject so ludicrously, various attainment should have allowed yet it produces no emotion of anger; 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 ex"Mr. Walker, after giving in his Dic-planation of roz, pop, we have at full length tionary Johnson's explanation of pop, adds, the definitions and illustrations of Johnundoubtedly derived from the noise caused son's English Dictionary! by the sudden expulsion of some small "Suppose, then, we first proceed in our body. This is true, but it is only part of author's own manner. He admits, that by the truth; for the word pop applies equally the same rule the root may be pronounced to the noise caused by the sudden impulsion bob or bab. This, indeed, is obvious; forof some small body. In short, it is the Discard the terminations, and you have noise caused by the agency of body in the syllable bap; change the vowel a into motion upon body, and that in any direction, and the labial consonant p into the whatever. It may be entrance or exit, ascent or descent. We say, to pop in, to pop out, to pop forth; to pop up, or to pop down; to pop into; to pop upon; 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, comes 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

to

pop

labial consonant b, 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-tistes, bob-tos, bob-tismos, 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 lurk in a gossip's bowl,
In very likeness of a roasted crab;
And when she drinks, against her lips I bob,
And on her withered dewlap pour the ale:

Shakspeare's Midsummer Night's Dream.
They comb, and then they order every hair;
A birth-day jewel bobbing at each ear.

Dryden.
I'm rich in jewels, rings, and bobbing pearls.
Pluck'd from Moor's ears.
Dryden.

"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 of an illustration, to afford the reader some

MR. COX'S REPLY TO MR. EWING ON BAPTISM.

general idea of the curious method he has 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 the word is not limited in its application to fluids,") the slight application to the lips or the neck, so as to resemble, for instance, the jogging of the elbow when a person is drinking, (vide example from Shakspeare,) or the motion of an earring. Hence, in fact, baptism may be bobbing in any way. It is not always that the analysis is of so easy and satisfactory

a nature !'

to

179

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 writings 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 having corrected some errors of translation into which Mr. E. has fallen, thus sums up the amount of the investigation:

"By the rules already laid down, our root may be pronounced vap; and 'in Latin,' as Dr. Murray remarks, 'vap, wet, Having given the passage from Arisblow, ventilate, cool, dry by the wind, or totle in its connection, let us now inquire, produce evaporation by exposure to the to what purpose it has been adduced by air, produced vap-or, in Greek atmos, from our author? That any suffrage of the at, blow. In this we may feel a little ancient philosopher is given to Mr. E.'s perplexed to determine whether the proper method of analysis, by which his present action is to dry, or to wet, or to blow; conclusions are sanctioned, will surely not some one might ingeniously conjecture, be contended; and from its utter irrelethat a vapour bath is intended! In the vancy to any such end, we infer, could present instance I am unable to find the never have been designed; although the verb to vap in Johnson; but he gives us manner of its introduction was calculated vapour, which, amongst other significa- to occasion this misconception. But as tions, is said to mean to brag, and also to no other purpose appears answered by this scatier in fume or vapour. Perhaps a cer- quotation in Mr. E.'s pages, it would seem tain reviewer had both these explanations that his intention was to point out a coinin his eye when he wrote-The body of cidence between his own views and those of evidence which the author has adduced Aristotle, with regard to an ultimate part of completely overthrows the doctrine of ima word; this is obvious also from his having mersion; that is, vaps, vapours, or evarendered Telov, a root. But the slightest porates it! attention to the language will shew that "The convenience of this term is sur-Torov, in the Greek sentence, is not to prising; for, as a witty friend has ob- be understood of a grammatical root, but served-Discard the terminations, and you of an elementary letter. If, therefore, the have the syllable bap; change the inter- scope of our author's analytical labours be mediate vowel a into o, and the labial conthe same with the element of the Peripasonant b into the labial consonant m, and tetic philosopher, he has prematurely stopyou have the term mop, which is the root ped short in his enterprize. Pop cannot required. This derivation possesses the be the sound, because it is not the element confirmatory circumstance, that (Johnson to which the ultimate etymology proceeds; also being witness) we can go to the Latin this would be one of the letters or undilanguage and find mappa, and (ourselves vided sounds, o, 6, a, or some of their being judges) to the Greek also, where we interchangeable vowels or consonants. If, happily discover paπiew, per Syncop. for on the other hand, he quits Aristotle, and μаprés; from μаρrão, capio, prehendo, to adopts the common idea of the term root, take, that is, in any way; and metonymi- he has proceeded much too far; inasmuch cally, to surprize. Hence to marp, or map, as Ton is no Greek word whatever, and the or mop, may be to take a person or child, verb in the present tense, Bánrw, has all and surprize him by popping upon or mopthe appearance of the theme to which the tizing his face with water. I am indis-other tenses are reducible: or if we seek posed to pursue the ludicrous applications a simpler form, it will be presently shewn of this new term, but they may be easily how it may be legitimately traced."

conceived."

But, farcical as Mr. Ewing's analysis of the word baptize may seem to us, he

Our limits do not permit us to lay 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 :

:

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 Bánтw 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, Barri must be considered equal to Bάπтw, which he said was to tinge, as dyers? He replied to this effect-that if there be a difference, he should take the former to be it signified a total immersion. This conthe strongest. He fully assured me, that versation took place August 27, 1807.' Baptismal Immersion Defended, pp. 13, 14, &c.)"

"Were the attempt to press the imaginary root in question into the consideration of the elements of the word Baptism, as successful as it is vain and futile, no single point would be gained.-Admit that bapto is popto, and that baptism is poptism; 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, to pop off; is the great etymological question determined? Is there less variety 'in the senses of the term poptism 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 institution, it leaves untouched the question of the mode and subjects of baptism; and decides nothing with regard to apostolic practice. Instead of In the next chapter, Mr. Çox prosaying that John or the disciples of Christ ceeds to consider the correspondence baptized the people, Mr. Ewing insists between Baptism and Burial, implied in upon our saying that he poptized them: be the metaphorical allusion, Rom vi. 4. it so-in christian courtesy, were it not at and Col. ii, 12. It is admitted on all feast for the ludicrous sound of the expres-hands, that some correspondence is imsion, 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? 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 оя, 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 is 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

tion is, wherein does it consist, and is it
ported in these allusions; but the ques-
such as favours the Baptist or the Pædo-
baptist 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 inter-
ment, 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 im
port of the verb "to bury," and not the
preparatory rites, which have each their
term burial. On this part of the argu-
appropriate expression distinct from the
short extract.
ment we can only make room for a

"It is our happiness," says Mr. Ewing, "to know that our blessed Saviour never was finally interred." Whence the peculiar satisfaction of such a discovery can arise, I am really at a loss to imagine; especially as this remark is followed by the immediate citation of the words, 'he was buried, and he rose again the third day.' In Acts xiii. 29, 30. it is recorded, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre; but God raised him from the dead;' and yet we are instructed to deduce peculiar consolation from the thought, that he was never finally in

MR. COX'S REPLY TO MR. EWING ON BAPTISM.

terred!' Surely he 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 corruption? 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.

66

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."

181

for what he stated, and three witnesses to
the truth of it, whose testimony no sophistry
or cross-examination can overthrow-ETY,
MOLOGY, USE, and ANTIQUITY! Mr. Ewing
knows well that EVERY AUTHORITY is
against him, and in favour of Dr. Camp-
bell. 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 con-
cede the etymological point at once; and
if he or any of his brethren will bring for-
word 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
Pædobaptist 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 It seems that Mr. Ewing, in the course his pop, seems to have advanced but of his "Essay on Baptism," had fallen little that is new. He brings forward foul of the character of the late Princi- the old hackneyed remarks respecting pal Campbell, whom he charges with the communication of the Spirit-the dogmatism, inconsistency, and insin- vast labour which it is supposed immercerity, because in his translation of the sion would occasion-and the import of four Gospels, he had presumed to trans- certain Greek prepositions that occur in late v údarí, in water; and, moreover, connection with baptizing. Without had affirmed that in both sacred and wishing to detract in any measure from classical writers, Barrile, signifies to the force of Mr. Cox's replies, on any of dip, plunge, or immerse. Mr. Cox acted these topics, there is one of his oppovery justifiably in throwing a shield nent's-arguments, should we call them? around the character of Dr. Campbell; which we think may be disposed of in a but we scarcely think he needed to have more summary manner than he has displayed the warmth he has done on done it. We refer to the sentiment that the occasion-for certainly there was pouring can be the import of BanTwo or little danger of the Doctor's reputation, BaTTiw. Nothing can be plainer than as a Greek critic, suffering from any that these are active verbs, consequently attack which Mr. Ewing could make the nouns governed by them are the upon it. We all indeed know that Mr. objects of the action performed. Persons Ewing published a Greek Lexicon a which stand in this relation to Bar of few years ago; but we know also that it BaTTiw, may be the objects of immerwas such a Lexicon as any school-boy sion, of sprinkling, or of washing, but might put together by the help of a can never be the objects of pouring. pair of scissars and a little paste, who Fluids may be poured, but persons canhad just made his way through the Col-not. When it is said, "He shall baplectanea Græca Majora!

"I venture to add," says Mr. Cox, "that Dr. Campbell had the best reasons

tize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," how would it do to substitute pouring, and to say, "He shall pour you