sense to be admitted. I therefore consider this the obvious meaning of those words at the time, and in the circumstances in which the authors wrote." On this passage I would offer the following remarks

1. My worthy opponent is sufficiently aware, that Barrigw was used originally by the greek writers to express immersion. But they were "heathens!"* And will he affirm that the word was so applied by heathens only? Did not the Septuagint translators of the old testament, and Josephus, so apply it? If proofs of this be called for, they will be produced.

2. The word BarTw, from whence Barrigw is derived, it will not be denied, is used in the new testament for immersion. Thus in John xiii. 26. 'He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.' Luke xvi. 24. "Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water.' Rev. xix. 13. 'He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood.' In these sentences there is no idea of cleansing" of any kind; and in the last, the reverse of it.

3. Dr. Williams, to whose work Mr. Greatheed refers us, allows, and says, "It is universally agreed among the learned, that both Barrw and Barrigw, etymologically, and according to their radical, primary, and proper meaning, are justly rendered by the words tingo and mergo, to tinge or plunge." But every one knows, that to tinge is the opposite of, to cleanse. One would think that this acknowledgment were sufficient to settle the meaning of the word. And, as Dr. Williams elsewhere says, it is "neither fair, nor agreeable to the just rules of criticism, to interpret the words of an author allusively, improperly,

* Mr. Fuller afterwards added in a MS. Note, that Mr. G. in alleging, "that according to his statement the scriptures were not sufficient to determine the meaning of words, without going among the heathen," might as well have said, That the grace of God is sufficient to make a christian, without being indebted to nature in first making him a man.

+ Antipædobaptism Examined, vol. ii. p. 30.

or metaphorically, except when plain necessity urges," it must lie on him and his brethren, before they plead for any thing short of immersion being christian baptism, to prove that the primitive sense of the term in this instance involves an absurdity, and therefore that a secondary one requires to be admitted.

4. The term baptism, as applied to the sufferings of Christ, conveys a full idea of immersion, but none of "cleansing."

5. That water baptism, which is the christian ordinance, generally includes the idea of "cleansing," may be allowed; but it is only in a secondary or consequential sense, as he that is immersed in water is thereby cleansed. Cleansing, in water baptism, is that which its opposite staining, is in a vesture being dipped in blood: it is not the thing itself, but its necessary effect. Such is the idea conveyed in Acts xxii. 16. 'Be baptised, and wash away thy sins.' To render the first of these terms cleansed, would make the sacred writer utter a mere tautology.

"If the apostles used the term Barrioμos merely for immersion, then, it is said, every person who has been immersed, whether for health, diversion, or punishment, is a baptised person." True, he is so, though not with christian baptism.

"But if something more than simple immersion is meant, when the apostles speak of the baptism of their converts, and yet the primary and proper meaning is nothing but immersion, then the apostles used that term in a secondary or figurative sense, when they applied it to the initiatory ordinance of the christian dispensation." If there be "no flaw" in this argument, Mr. Greatheed thinks his point is gained. I think there is a flaw in it, and that it lies in confounding the act with the end, or the design to be answered by it. An act, say that of eating, may be one and the same, whatever be the end of it; whether refreshment, or a showing forth of the Lord's death. Nor is the term designed to express any thing more than the act: the design is to be learned from other

terms connected with it, and not from that. To represent different ends as giving a secondary or figurative meaning to the term which expresses the action, is what I apprehend no writer ever thought of on any other subject. At this rate, if I be said to walk, simply, or without an end, the term is literal: if for health, or to see a friend, it becomes figurative; and if to meditate and pray, like Isaac, it becomes still more figurative! The truth is, if I be not greatly mistaken, to baptise, to eat, or to walk, are each expressive of the actions, whatever be the end; and the term is no less literally used in the one case than in the other.

The last argument of Mr. Greatheed's, proceeds upon a principle which should not have been taken for granted; namely, that ẞatioμos signifies, any sacred cleansing. The 'divers baptisms' among the jews (to which the word BаTTIOμos, by the way, is applied, rather than to the christian ordinance) may relate not to divers modes of baptising, but to the divers cases in which persons and things were required to be immersed in water, and which cases were numerous and diverse. Thus, or to this effect, it is expressed by Grotius. Were I to speak of divers journeys, which my worthy friend has undertaken to promote the interest of evangelical religion, it would indeed imply some kind of difference between them; but it were putting an unnatural force upon the words to understand them as intimating, that in every journey he adopted a different mode of travelling.

DIVINE MUNIFICENCE.

Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing. Psal. cxlv. 16.

THIS passage expresses a plain and important truth, in a stile of peculiar beauty and simplicity. It represents the Divine Being as the Father of the whole creation, surrounded with an innumerable family, whose eyes all wait on him for daily food, while he, with paternal goodness, opens his liberal hand, and satisfies all their wants.

The desires however which God satisfies, are those only of his own creating. Men have a number of artificial wants, self-created appetites, and sinful gratifications: but God has not promised to supply these, nor would it comport with his wisdom that the profusions of his bounty should be thus misapplied. Those desires only which are natural and essential to man are provided for in the economy of providence, and these shall be satisfied.

Though God satisfies the desire of every living thing, yet not all in the same way, but according to their nature and circumstances. Many of his creatures are like the lily; they toil not, neither do they spin, but receive the bounties of providence ready prepared for them. Others, like the ant, prepare their meat in the summer, and lay it up in storehouses and barns. Man, though he liveth not by bread only, yet is doomed to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, and must labour for the meat that perisheth. Thus judgment is mixed with mercy, and it is a part of the divine goodness to render labour necessary to human life. Idleness is a soil which produces abundance of sin, as well as destroys our relish for the good we receive. Yet such is our dependence on divine care,

that except the Lord command a blessing, all our labour is in vain. Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but it is God that giveth the encrease.

In order to supply the wants of creation, it is only necessary that the Lord should open his hand, and the desire of every living thing is satisfied. The indigence of man renders great labour, foresight and contrivance necessary, in order to supply his wants. But the great Proprietor of all, needs only to open his hand, and the earth is full of his riches, and the whole creation is replenished with the profusions of his goodness. If he shuts up his hand, the heavens become brass, and the earth is as iron under our feet.

This language is intended rather to represent God's ordinary conduct towards creation, than what is universally the case. There are seasons of famine, when the Lord appears to shut his hand, on account of the sins of man. There are also cases more common than those of famine, when such a scarcity of provisions has been felt, that multitudes have not only laboured under the hardships of poverty, but have been smitten through for want of the fruits of the field. Luxury and covetousness have also contributed in many instances to encrease the distress of the poor and needy; but this is owing to the sins of men, and not to the want of divine goodness in making provision for all; for it is the general intention of providence to satisfy the desire of every living thing.'

The proofs of divine munificence are so abundant, that it is difficult to make a distinct enumeration. The following particulars may suffice.

The rich supplies of which we constantly partake, proclaim the goodness of God. These cannot be ascribed to our own labour as the proper cause: the whole of human skill is only that which applies the bounties of heaven to our various uses, but does not furnish them. We can produce nothing: we can only modify, change the form, and apply to different purposes the various stores of good which providence bestows upon us.