we grant the sacred writer designed by the words all the Jewish purifications, by sprinkling as well as by dipping; it will no more follow, against the universal use of the word, that it here signifies to sprinkle, than that mucro, for instance, in Latin, signifies the hilt of a sword, because it is sometimes put for a sword, but strictly signifies only the point of it. So here; granting for once that sprinklings are included in the writer's design, yet the word only signifies dipping, and is put by a synecdoche a potiori, to signify all their purifications, this being one part of them but it is no consequence, that therefore the word signifies each part singly, or that it belongs as properly to one part as another, or that it ever signifies any of the other parts, without or distinct from this of dipping; which nevertheless, as absurd as it is, is our author's inference. Just as if, because Cicero, in one of his Letters, calls his wife and daughter charissimæ animæ, some wonderful critic should thence pretend anima in Latin signifies body or matter, as well as mind or spirit.

Though the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, Matt. xxiii. 23, by a synecdoche, denotes the whole ceremonial law; yet I suppose our author will not go about to say, dúorμov, the original word for mint, signifies sacrifice; and that avn@ov anise, is as properly a burnt-offering, and kúμvov, which is rendered cummin, comprehends in its signification, the holy water of separation, or the legal sprinklings. In like manner circumcision is frequently put for the whole law, and so is sacrifice; yet no man can

s Lib. xiv. Famil. Epist. 14.

be so inconsiderate as to urge from thence, and insist on such instances, to prove that either of these words signifies what the other does: and yet Mr. Wall's argument from this passage is, at best, no other; for he supposes the words here are put for all the washings, or rather all the parts of the purifications by water; and thence concludes, the word signifies one as well as the other, sprinkling as well as dipping. And even this is grounded on a very false and precarious supposition, viz. that the original word is of as large an acceptation as the English word by which it is rendered: but the Greek is as much against him, as what I count the more literal and truer English, viz. divers bathings or dippings, would be; for so it should be translated, which every one will say is quite opposite to his supposition; for divers bathings or dippings,' undoubtedly are not some dippings and some sprinklings. And this being agreeable to the true sense of the word, till I can see a good reason to the contrary, I must think this place means nothing else.

The last place Mr. Wall mentions is Matt. xxvi. 23; He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, &c.; and all the use he makes of it, is only to observe the word does not here mean the dipping of the whole hand. But this is nothing to the purpose: for the question is not about the whole, or a part of the subject, but whether the Greek word signifies only to dip, or any thing else. And therefore this is shuffling off the question, and seeming to say something, when in reality he says nothing at all, but even by this tacitly allows all we demand. For all other considerations aside, if it be true that

BaTTi does only signify to dip, it is all we ask, and shall but desire our adversaries so far to acknowledge the truth, and our present dispute is at an end.

There is another fancy of Mr. Wall's which is almost too trifling to be taken notice of; he pretended to establish the sense of the word from these two particulars :

1. The plain application of it in Scripture, to signify to wash, by sprinkling or pouring on water; and this we have been examining. 2. That the 'sacramental washing is often in Scripture expressed by other words besides baptizing, which other words 'do signify washing in the ordinary and general " sense'.' The truth of this observation I shall not go about to question, I grant it is a plain case; but what is this to the business in hand? He is to shew BaTTi does signify any kind of washing, and to that purpose he tells you, the sacramental washing is expressed by words which signify to wash in general. And what of that? Why here the force of this argument, if it has any, must lie: the word, which is sometimes used to express the sacramental washing, signifies any kind of washing in general; therefore this sacrament may be administered by any kind of washing. And again, by another there'fore,' the word Banτiw, especially when applied to this sacrament, must, if it agrees to the thing it is applied to, signify any manner of washing too. To discover what admirable logic this is, let us invert his argument thus: Barri(w, it is plain, in all other instances, signifies to dip, and not one t Part ii. p. 221. [331.]

instance can be given where it ever signifies any thing else; therefore the sacramental washing, which is very commonly and indeed most properly expressed by it, (for it is named baptism,) was and is to be administered by dipping only. And therefore,

2. All the other words, whatever they are, which are applied to this sacrament, though it were partí¿w itself, aye, or even σμικρῶς καταρραίνω, must signify nothing less than to dip likewise.

But the unhappiness of this way of arguing is, that it will equally prove contraries true, and the same thing to be true and false, so that nothing will be gained by it: and thus it falls out with Mr. Wall; he proves by it that Barrio signifies to pour or sprinkle, or any kind of washing; and after the same manner I have proved that λouw, the word on which he grounds his argument, and all the other words which he will say signify to sprinkle, &c., do always and necessarily signify to dip, and only to dip.

You see, therefore, this form of reasoning concludes equally on both sides, and consequently in reality it proves nothing at all.

But if it be not a fault to treat so ridiculous a fancy more seriously, let me ask you, whether you can easily imagine that Mr. Wall is himself persuaded there is any thing in what he says; for he must needs know well enough, that words, like our ideas, which they are the signs of, must have their genera and their species: some are of a very large comprehensive notation; but the several things such words comprehend, have besides a more proper peculiar word to be distinguished by, which is not

therefore of so large a signification. Take a familiar example: we compassionately say, such a man is a poor creature; but would any one therefore imagine that the word 'man,' or 'that particular 'man,' and the word 'creature,' are synonymous terms, equally large and comprehensive in their significations? Could any body be so absurd as to infer, that the word 'man' signifies any created being, an angel, a horse, a worm, a stock, &c., because the generical word creature' comprehends, and is equally applicable to all these? Yet this is Mr. Wall's own argument to a tittle.

Thus, supposing Barrioμois, Heb. ix. 10, does, as he would have it believed, signify any sort of washing, will it follow that the Jewish sprinklings, which he says are meant there, may be performed by any kind of washing; and that the words used in the law for sprinkle, signify so too? Or because Aouw, the same word he argues from here, expresses the legal washings, will he say any kind of washing might be used at liberty; and that it was enough to sprinkle those things which God directly commanded should be put into the water, Lev. xi. 32; or that a signifies to wash in general, and to sprinkle as well as any thing else, merely because the washings are expressed sometimes by a general word, which comprehends all the kinds of them? It is, I think, much more reasonable to say, that words, to which common use has appropriated a more particular sense, should be allowed to determine what any others have expressed more generally and at large; the words of a more determinate sense giving a more particular and exact account of the matter.