instances, how this general idea was in the writer's mind, when he was using the term in a figurative sense. A word, the meaning of which thus appeared fixed, is, in the New Testament, given us as the description of a religious rite called baptism. In succeeding times, the Greck writers, when they have occasion to speak of this ordinance, do not inform us in what sense they use the term baptism, for that would have proved the meaning of the word was unsettled and uncertain; but when they are led to describe the Institution in its parts, for the purpose of commenting on its nature and design, or of showing the practical improvement to which it should lead, then we see, that what they meant by baptism was NOT sprinkling or pouring; all the terms they use show that it was immersion, and nothing else. Had the Greeks believed that to baptize meant to sprinkle, the same general circumstances would have shewn with equal clearness that their baptisms were not immersions, but the application of water in the smallest possible degree; but as we have already observed that is not the case; and we appeal to all who have been in this track of reading, whether it is not undeniably evident, that the Greek Fathers represented baptism as immersion, and that they never make an apology for an application of the word in a way different from its common acceptation.

the best Greek scholars that have in these later years appeared, whether Englishmen or foreigners, but on the word Banriw we read, Mergo s. Immergo, ut quæ tingendi aut abluendi gratia aquæ immergimus." This is the first sense given of the word, and all that follow, are of the same kind; some indeed are stronger than the first, for instance, submergo, obruo aqua, which shews the lexicographer meant that the word signified to overwhelm or cover with water. Now this we consider as a strong testimony; it is not referring to school-boys' lexicons, though even these are no inconsiderable authorities; it is going to the first work that the world has produced on the meaning of Greek words, and that work completely gives us the cause. It deserves attention also, that the same explanations were given in the first edition, which was printed in 1572; so that after the investigations of two centuries and a half, the definitions stand unaltered.

Baptists, as well as Pædobaptists, have been surprised how Dr. Campbell could reconcile his practice with his declared sentiments: bnt this is not the only instance that has occurred of the like nature; many eminent men whose concessions are Again, since the Reformation, to be found in BOOTH's Pædobaptism Greek literature has been very much examined, besides others whom he cultivated, and to the present mo- has not mentioned, have gone quite ment, is the favourite pursuit of as far as Dr. Campbell, and the difmany distinguished men; it may be ference between their language and therefore fairly presumed, that, if their conduct is equally great. How the supposed senses of any of the they reconciled them we know not; usual words in the Greek language all that we can say is, we have no had been mistaken, the talents and conception of any motive that could assiduity which have been long en- have led them to say what they did gaged in that department of litera-in favour of our views and practice, ture, would at least have done something towards detecting them. But so far from this being the case, respecting the terms under review, the Baptists still are left in possession of the field. The new edition of the Thesaurus of Stephens now published, brings forward to view the criticisms and observations of

except their conviction, that the ancient apostolical practice was Iм

MERSION.

The expressions in Mark vii. 2-4, are brought forward, and Dr. Campbell's criticisms are disapproved. To us it appears that this passage is often misunderstood. The Jews had, at least, two modes of purify

ing themselves from common defile- | binding on our minds; but for the

plain reason that an Englishman is more likely to feel the force of an allusion to a well-known transaction, when described by an English writer, than a foreigner would be, it is natural to conclude, that the ancientnativeGreek christians would be more likely to form a correct apprehension of the meaning of the apostle's imagery, than a man who many ages after, had to acquire a know

ments; for the lesser class, washing the hands with a little water was sufficient; but there were cases in which they required the hands to be dipped. Besides these, many things Occurred which required to be cleansed by an Immersion of the whole body. Now, without insisting on this last mode of purification as the sense of the writer, supposing the former only to have been referred to, (which is Dr. Lightfoot's hy-ledge of Greek, when it was a dead pothesis,) the passage is clear. It language; and if his explanation informs us that the Jews, before was contrary to that which had they eat bread, washed their hands always struck the minds of native in their usual way; but if they had Greeks, we should naturally say, it been exposed to any particular de- required the support of very clear filements, they dipped them. We and decisive proof. are told by Jewish writers of high authority, that there is a great difference between washing hands and dipping hands, and if we consider this passage as only applying to purifications of this kind, it is not only intelligible, but Dr. Campbell's criticism is supported.

Considerable attention is paid to Rom. vi. 4, &c. Mr. Ewing endeavours to take off the force of the passage, by a long discussion concerning the mode in which our Lord was buried, and the circumstances attending it; the design of which is to show, that in our sense of the term, Christ was not buried, and that there is no resemblance between the burial of Christ, and our method of baptism. One general remark here strikes us forcibly; it is very singular that the Greek writers who refer to this passage, or who paraphrase it, (as far as we have observed,) all considered the allusion clearly and strongly to apply to the immersion which was used in baptism. They evidently thought and wrote on the words of the apostle very much as we do; and considering that the Greek was their native language, and that the mode of burial described in the Evangelists, was probably more familiar to them than to us, it is a very singular thing if they should be so far in the wrong, as they must have been on Mr. Ewing's mode of reasoning. Here, let our readers observe, we attach no authority to their commentary as necessarily

In our author's view of the extent of the administration of baptism, the covenant of circumcision appears to attract his attention with great force; and to do him justice, he professes to adopt the law of circumcision to its extent. Here we are much surprised that he did not see whither this system would ultimately lead him. We are told that the persons baptized in the primitive church, were parents and children, and servants, that is slaves born in the house, or bought with money.-As all these classes were circumcised under the Old Testament, they were, and therefore are to be still baptized under the New Testament." p. 164. On this plan, should Mr. Ewing be removed by the providence of God from Glasgow, to the West Indies, and should his preaching be the means of converting a planter who had never been baptized, he might say, that he, and all his slaves were proper subjects of baptism, and church-membership; even though not one of the number should be converted from the error of his ways, except the planter himself. To us this appears the unavoidable consequence of Mr. Ewing's reasoning; but we cannot help asking, would he act on his own plan? No; we cannot think he would, he would see it would be pregnant with consequences of the most deplorable kind. We could easily point out many, but we must conclude; we have already gone beyond our limits. On parting

REVIEW.

with our author we shall only add, that though we cannot agree with him, yet should be happen to see our observations, we are desirous of assuring him of the bigh regard which he holds in our estimation, and of our sense of the handsome manner in which he has very often spoken of those who in this point are obliged in conscience to support a different system from that which he maintains in the essay we have reviewed.

The Continuance of Brotherly Love
recommended, &c. a Sermon by
George Pritchard. Barfield, Cox,
Holdsworth, 8vo. pp. 32, 1s.

a

We were present at the delivery of this Discourse, and most cordially united in requesting its publication: we have just attentively perused it, and most sincerely recommend it as worthy of the closest investigation, and the warmest regard of our readers. Considered as to the doctrines to which it refers, it is form of sound words;" as to the experimental truths it contains, it is "sound speech that cannot be condemned;" and as to the practical manner in which both these are enforced upon the consciences of those to whom it was addressed, they are "the things which become sound doctrine."

The object of the preacher is to show, the principles on which the exercise of Christian affection is founded, by what it is promoted, and -why it should be continued. The various particulars under each of these heads, are judiciously introduced and illustrated, and exemplify the expression of that " Brotherly Love," the aboundings and continuance of which are so desirable

and necessary.

relation to denote which the term brethren is so frequently employed in the New Testament, and to which it unquestionably refers in the words of the text? On this subject how much more have we to dread from deception than we have to apprehend from investigation! Having, it may be, long been accustomed to receive the title of brethren, and the ordinary tokens of respect and esteem attendant on this distinction, we may have been in danger of taking too much for granted, and of presumptuously adopting a conclusion to which we can only safely arrive by a process of serious and repeated examination. Let it be remem-'

bered, that the inquiry we suggest possesses this desirable recommendation, that, while it may detect a fallacy which might prove fatal, it will disturb nothing which ought to remain unshaken. In short, a benevolent concern lest any present should not finally be found among the brethren and disciples of Jesus Christ, impels us to entreat that this duty may not be neglected. It should never be forgotten, that the favour which confers these spiritual distinctions, and with which those of earth will bear no comparison, either as to excellence or duration, is inconceivably rich and free, and is, therefore, abundantly commensurate to meet every extreme of misery and wretchedness to which its healing and saving influence may be divinely applied. Come, then, my hearers, to this fountain of everlasting blessedness, for this is to be happy and honourable. But, to treat the representations of eternal mercy with disdain and opposition, is to incur an awful responsibility indeed, and must expose the transgressor to the punishment of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his

power.'

"

It is affecting to find, that the Monthly Meetings of the Associated Churches in London, should have required such an Address as that before us, to stir up the churches to the exercise of an united expression One extract will give a good idea of Christian love. We most sincerely of the spirit by which the preacher hope, that this well-intentioned atwas animated, while his heart tempt to re-enkindle the dying emyearned over the perishing condi-bers of the expiring fire, and to bring tion of his unconverted hearers,

other churches into the Association,

"In conclusion. Is there not, how-to increase the warmth and energy ever, an inquiry whose importance admits of no delay? Are we brethren? That is, do we sustain the spiritual

of Christian love among the London Baptist churches, may tend to effect important ends: we ardently wish