versies on the subject; and at a time, too, if we believe the Baptists, when every person baptized was immersed. Yet the Latin translators, if the Baptist system be correct, must first have left a word untranslated, for which they had terms in every respect corresponding and appropriate. And secondly, they must have done this with the rite of baptism continually before their eyes, performed by immersion, on account of which they would be the more inexcusable. But these things are not so. They found the words employed in a ceremonial sense; they therefore retained the original words themselves, leaving to the institution itself to make known its mode. They therefore latinize the Greek words, and give us baptizo, baptisma, baptismus. However, for doing so, they had high authority; the authority or example of the HOLY SPIRIT; and that, too, in a similar case. The Hebrew word, pesach, is retained by the inspired writers of the New Testament, in the Greek word pascha. The Latins latinize the same word.— Prof. Elliot, pages 81, 82. These cases are parallel-one referring to the institute of the passover, and the other to the institute of baptism.

But Mr. B. tells us that Dr. Carson, a Baptist writer, says that “baptizo, in the whole history of the Greek language, has but one meaning. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other meaning."-Sermon, p. 28. Mark that, candid reader, as I shall, in the course of the argument, place JOHN the BAP

TIST, ST. PETER, and ST. PAUL, all against this Dr. Carson!! At present, however, I shall only place one doctor against another. Dr. Adam

Clarke, Commentary, Matt. iii, 6, asks, " Were the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is CERTAIN bapto and baptizo mean BOTH." "When Greek meets Greek, then is the tug of war." As these doctors disagree, I shall call in other witnesses presently. Perhaps, reader, you are ready to ask me, if this is the same Dr. Clarke quoted by Mr. B., Strictures, page 15, in support of immersion, as the exclusive mode? Yes, identically the same. Mr. B., I perceive, has left the doctor out of his cloud of witnesses, in his sermon. I suppose he began to suspect he had not treated the doctor very fairly in the first publication. But it may be that he may wish to suggest that Dr. Clarke was a sprinkler, like the king, bishops, and translators, and that his account of the matter was influenced by his creed, or practice of baptizing. Very good; and Dr. Carson was a dipper-his criticism, no doubt, was influenced by his practice in baptizing;—so in this, at least, they are about equal. Which of the doctors was the greater scholar, and consequently best prepared to judge, I shall not attempt to decide; I leave that to the reader.

Dr. Carson, however, has made a concession on this subject, which will go a great way in destroying the weight of his testimony. While he contends that baptizo always signifies to immerse, he acknowledges that "all the lexicographers and commentators are against him in

that opinion."-Carson, Bapt., p. 79, as quoted by Dr. Miller. How far the confidence which, in the face of this acknowledgment, he expresses that they are all wrong, and that his interpretation alone is right, is either modest or wellfounded, must be left to the judgment of the impartial reader.

Mr. B. says that "Professor Stuart, as a Biblical critic, is perhaps not excelled by any man in the United States;" and this critic says of Dr. Carson, "He lays down some very adventurous positions, in respect to one meaning, and one only, of words; which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth contradicts, and always must contradict."-Stuart on the Mode of Baptism, p. 100. So much for Rev. A. Carson and his translation of baptizo.

One more remark relative to the translators of the common version. It is not only unchristian to trample upon the ashes of dead men, by impugning their motives and misrepresenting their conduct, but it is ungenerous to charge them and the bishops with making a translation to favour sprinkling, when half the evidence, at least, which the Baptists adduce to favour immersion is drawn from the manner in which these same translators have rendered the Greek prepositions,-in Jordan-out of the water, &c. When, if they had indulged any design to deceive, they might have given them fairly a different rendering. Here, as the Baptists will tell you, we have a translation, partly supporting sprinkling, and partly against it. Surely,

candid reader, these same forty-seven translators, who produced the common version in 1613, were either very stupid, or very honest. I think the latter.

I shall next take some notice of Mr. B.'s list of Pedobaptist witnesses. Sermon, pp. 30, 31, and Strictures, pp. 14-16. Some of these wit

nesses I shall be obliged to pass by, as I have not their works at hand to refer to. The reader may be able to judge of the fairness, or rather unfairness, with which Mr. Booth and Mr. Broaddus have treated them all, from a specimen or two which we expect to give.

We

The reader will bear in mind, that Mr. B.'s proposition which he wishes to sustain is, that "immersion, or dipping, is the only proper mode," or that "baptizo means to dip only.' Strictures, p. 15. And he brings these Pedobaptist witnesses into court to prove this. shall see whether he allows them, in his hands, to tell the whole truth in the case. I hope he will not do as some people do, in quoting the words of Christ as a witness for unconditioned perseverance, viz., "Of all whom thou hast given me, I have lost NONE;"-so far, the witness seems to support the position; but suffer him to speak on," BUT the son of perdition.” Ah, this puts quite another face upon the text; as I hope to do, upon the testimony of, at least, some of these witnesses. Attend to me patiently, gentle reader-I am, in part, pleading the cause of dead men, represented as having lived and died "inconsistent," and who are not here to

speak for themselves, but whose record is on high. I shall begin with Dr. A. Clarke. Mr. B., in his Strictures, page 15, after quoting part of a sentence from Dr. Clarke's Commentary on Romans vi, 4, says, "I do think I have proved, beyond all question, that baptizo means to immerse, and nothing else." "It has but one meaning; these learned men knew it, and their candour forced them to acknowledge it." Reader, does Dr. Clarke acknowledge it? Hear him fully on Romans vi, 4: "It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion; I say it is PROBABLE but not absolutely certain that he does so, as some imagine; for in the next verse, our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is also denoted by our being planted or grafted together in the likeness of his death and Noah's ark floating upon the water, and sprinkled by the rain from heaven, is a figure corresponding to baptism, 1 Peter iii, 20, 21; but neither of these gives us the same idea of the outward form as burying. We must be careful, there fore, not to lay too much stress on such a circumstance." Does this prove Mr. B.'s position? I think not. He has taken great liberties with this witness; first he mutilates the sentence,— then gives it as a whole, putting a period in the place of Dr. C.'s comma, and then puts the words baptize and immersion in italics; and the word probable, which the doctor purposely italicised twice in the note, Mr. B. does not empha