It strikes me, that if all those of whom I have spoken, failed to discover in the Bible this important doctrine, it must be taught, if taught at all, most obscurely. If Mr. C. had taken the ground, that it is really taught in the Scriptures, though with much obscurity; there might have been perhaps some plausibility in the declaration, at least a possibility, that he is in the right. But when he asserts, that it lies upon the very surface, that it is so clearly taught, that nothing but folly or perverseness can prevent the discovery of it; we are bound to believe, either that he is wholly mistaken, or that the multitudes of apparently wise and good men of whom I have spoken, were in truth most perversely rebellious or most profoundly stupid! When we read of such men as the celebrated Commentator, Dr. Thomas Scott, (and he is one among hundreds) who for long years carefully searched the Scriptures, that he might know the truth on this subject, coming finally to the clear conclusion that baptism is scripturally performed by pouring or sprinkling; shall we be told, that the Bible most plainly teaches, that nothing short of immersion is christian baptism? I repeat it-this discovery, if indeed it be true, is certainly the most singular of all the discoveries made since the commencement of the christian era!

Three things, and only three, have been commonly regarded as essential to the validity of baptism, viz: 1st. That it be performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; 2d. That it be administered by an ordained or properly authorized minister of the Gospel ; and, 3d. That water be the fluid employed. The precise mode of applying the water has been regarded as essential by only a mere handfull, compared with even Protestant christians. I shall indeed be surprised if Mr. C. should now make it manifest, that they were all deceived in a matter so important as he regards this.

My worthy friend has proposed to take the common translation, (King James',) and rest the whole controversy upon it. But he was careful not to make this proposition, until he had appealed to the Greek lexicons, ancient and modern! But having first adduced these authorities, and having heretofore proclaimed from Dan to Beersheba, that the common version is not a translation, but a gross perversion of the original Greek; he gravely proposes to determine the whole controversy by the English translation! If he had ventured to make this proposition at first, I might with perfect safety have accepted it. But he has appealed to the Greeks, and to the Greeks we will go, though, I think, with less obscurity of criticism than has characterized his remarks.

The evidence in support of his views, he would have us believe, is so abundant, that he has a great deal to spare. I am inclined to think, that he will need it all. Perhaps it would be wise in him not to be too gene

rous.

Much of his criticism I am obliged to consider wholly incorrect. If I ean understand him, he maintains, that when a word has in it a leading syllable, as bap, in the word bapto, it never in any of its inflexions loses the original or radical import-that bap expresses dip, and consequently, wherever you find bap, you find the idea of dipping or immersing. Now it is certain, (and I can prove it by some of the most learned men on his own side of the question,) that there is no such general rule. Take, for example, the English word prevent. It is derived from the Latin words pre and venio, and signifies literally to come before; and then to anticipate, and in this sense it was first employed in the English

language.

But is this the sense in which it is now used by correct writers and speakers? The word retains the leading syllable vent; but, I ask, has it not entirely lost its original meaning? Is it not now universally employed in a secondary sense, to hinder? When Mr. C. was about to give a new translation of the New Testament, he asserted that this word had lost its original meaning, and, to prove it, quoted the pas sage" Mine eyes prevent the dawning of the morning." And this was one of the evidences of the necessity of a new translation. I agree with him, that this word has lost its original meaning.

Again—what is the literal or radical meaning to the word conversation? It signifies turning about from one thing to another. Hence it was formerly used to signify conduct; and in this sense it is almost uniformly used in our translation of the Bible. But is this its present meaning? Has it not lost its original import and assumed a meaning quite different? It is now certainly used in the sense of talking-oral com

munication.

Mr. Carson, one of the most learned critics who has written in favor of immersion, fully sustains the principle for which I am contending. He asserts, that words very often lose entirely their original signification, and a secondary meaning comes to be the true and proper meaning. It is not true, therefore, that words of any class always retain their original philological import. On the contrary, their meaning is perpetually changing; and usage only, as the ablest critics declare, can determine it. But as I shall have occasion to revert to this point, and to read some of Mr. Carson's remarks upon it, I will for the present pass it.

I must not omit to notice a remark of my friend in regard to new translations. The Pedo-baptists, he says, and not the immersionists, call for new translations. I had not learned that they have either made or desired a new translation. I knew that Mr. Campbell had made one, and that in every case but one he had translated the word baptizo, to immerse. I was also aware, that our Baptist brethren had got a translation of their own, in which they rendered the word to immerse in all cases except two. But I did not know, that the Pedo-baptists desired any change. I had supposed, that they were well satisfied with the common version.

In the further discussion of this subject, allow me to turn your attention to the words bapto and baptizo. It is admitted on all hands, by immersionists, that the controversy turns mainly on the meaning of these words. The main battle, as they themselves admit, is to be fought on this ground. And let it be particularly remarked, that it is acknowledged by the advocates of immersion, that these two words, so far as mode is concerned, have precisely the same meaning, viz: to immerse. So says Mr. Carson.

My friend has appealed to the lexicons, as the highest authority, and has quoted a number of them in support of his views. I will appeal to the same lexicons. He attaches great importance to the fact, that some of them are ancient lexicons. And yet on another occasion he maintained, that in these latter days we enjoy superior advantages, and have consequently more light on these subjects that we have all the light possessed by the older critics, with the addition of all the improvements of later times. And he offered this as one of the reasons in favor of a new translation. If this be true, I do not know why the modern critics should possess less authority with the gentleman, than those of more an

cient date. But I will appeal to the ancient, as well as the modern lexicons. I will commence with

Hedericus, who defines the word bapto-Mergo, immergo, (2) Tingo, intingo, (3) Lavo, &c.,-to immerse, to plunge, to dye-to wash, &c. Scapula defines it-Mergo, immergo-Item tingo-inficere, imbuereItem lavo-to immerse, to plunge-also, to stain, dye, color—also, to wash.

Coulon-Mergo, tingo, abluo-to immerse, to dye, to cleanse. Ursinus-To dip, to dye, to wash, to sprinkle, (abluo, aspergo.) Schrivellius-Mergo, intingo, lavo, haurio, &c., to dip, to dye, to wash, to draw water.

Groves-To dip, plunge, immerse, to wash, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, to steep, imbue, to dye, &c.

Donnegan-To dip, to plunge into water, to submerge, to wash, to dye, to color,-to wash, &c.

The lexicons, you will observe, not only define the word bapto, to dip, plunge, dye, but also lavo, to wash. Now every one at all acquainted with Latin, knows that lavo signifies simply to wash, without regard to mode that it never expresses mode. Scapula defines this word not only to dip, dye, &c., but to wash, (in any mode;) and he is one of the first authorities adduced by Mr. Campbell. Groves goes even further, and defines it to wet, moisten, sprinkle, &c. How ignorant he must have been, not to have learned Mr. Campbell's rule, that wherever you find bap you find also the idea of dipping! How strange that he should have been so unwise as not only to define it to wash, but also to wet; not only to wet, but to moisten; not only to moisten, but to sprinkle! But in due time I will prove that wiser men than Groves have done the same thing.

To wash, every one knows, does not express mode, neither do the words dye, color. Each of the lexicons just quoted gives several definitions of bapto; at least two of which, to wash and to color, exclude the idea of mode; whilst some of them define it to moisten, to sprinkle. I have not seen the tree of which my friend has spoken; but it is certain, unless the lexicographers are all in error, that bapto does not uniformly signify to immerse. Even Carson, the great Baptist critic, admits that it does not always express mode. I will read on pages 62, 63, 64:

"A word," says Mr. Carson, "may come to enlarge its meaning, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smatterer in philology. Had it been attended to, Baptists would have found no necessity to prove that bapto, when it signifies to dye, always properly signifies to dye by dipping; and their opponents would have seen no advantage from proving that it signifies dying in any manner." Again, "Bapto signifies, to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping; though originally it was confined to the latter." Again, "Nor are such applications of the word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension of literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words come to depart so far from their original signification."

Observe, Carson says, bapto originally signified to dip, then to dye by dipping, and then to dye in any manner, even by sprinkling. Now it signifies to dye by sprinkling, why can it not signify to wet by sprinkling? Is there any rule or principle of interpretation, which teaches that a word may denote the sprinkling of a colored fluid, and be incapable of expressing the sprinkling of a colorless fluid? If there is, let it be pro

duced. If there is not, bapto will express the sprinkling of water, as well as of any other fluid. Mr. Carson, moreover, declares that such applications of the word are not to be accounted for by metaphor or figure, as Dr. Gale, another learned immersionist, maintained, but that they are as literal as the primary meaning-that it is by the extension of the literal meaning, and not by figure of any kind, that words depart so far from their original signification. The word bapto, therefore, not only expresses the application of a fluid by sprinkling, but this is a literal signification. Now Carson, who was a zealous immersionist, did not intend to concede any thing more than candor and truth demanded. We have, therefore, evidence conclusive that bapto signifies not only to dip, plunge, &c., but to wash and to sprinkle.

We will now examine the testimony of the lexicons concerning the word baptizo, the word uniformly used in the New Testament to express christian baptism.

Scapula, one of the old lexicographers to whom Mr. C. appealed, thus defines the word baptizo: "Mergo, seu immergo-Item tingo: ut quæ tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus-Item mergo, submergo, obruo aqua-Item abluo, lavo, (Mark 7, Luke 11,) to dip or immerse-al80, to dye: as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing them; also, to plunge, submerge, to cover with water; also, to cleanse, to wash. (Mark 7, Luke 11.) Baptismos, he thus defines: "Mersio, lotio, ablutio, ipse immergendi, item lavandi seu abluendi actus," (Mark 7, &c.) Immersion, washing, cleansing, the act itself of immersing; also of washing, or cleansing," (Mark 7, &c.)

Hedericus thus defines baptizo: "Mergo, immergo, aqua abruo,—(2) Abluo, lavo; (3) Baptizo, significatu sacro"-To dip, immerse, to cover with water; (2) to cleanse; to wash; (3) to baptize in a sacred sense.

Stephanus defines it thus: "Mergo, seu immergo, ut quæ tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus-Mergo, submergo, obruo aqua; abluo, lavo"-To dip, immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing; to merge, submerge, to cover with water-to cleanse, to wash. Schleusner defines baptizo, not only to plunge, immerse, but to cleanse, wash, to purify with water; (abluo, lavo, aqua purgo.)

Parkhurst defines it: "To immerse in or wash with water in token of purification."

Robinson defines it: "To immerse, to sink; for example, spoken of ships, galleys, &c. In the New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by washing-to wash one's self, to bathe, perform ablution," &c.

Schrivellius defines it: " Baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo-to baptize, to immerse, to cleanse, to wash."

Groves To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify-Baptizomai, to wash one's self, bathe," &c.

Bretschneider,-"Propriæ sepius intingo, sepius lavo; deinde (1) lavo, abluo simpliciter-medium, &c.; lavo me, abluo me:" properly often to dip, often to wash; then (1) simply to wash, to cleanse; in the middle voice, "I wash or cleanse myself.'

Suidas defines baptizo, not only to sink, plunge, immerse, but to wet, wash, cleanse, purify, &c., (madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo.) Wahl defines it, first-to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; secondly, to immerse, &c.

Greenfield defines it: to immerse, immerge, submerge, sink; and in the New Testament, to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; to immerse.

I have now adduced the principal lexicons, ancient and modern; and it is a fact, that with remarkable unanimity, they testify that the word baptizo signifies not only to sink, dip, plunge, &c., but to wash, to cleanse, to purify. Scapula, the learned lexicographer, to whom Mr. C. appealed with so much confidence, defines it not only to dip, plunge, &c., but to wash, to cleanse; and, mark the fact, he refers to the New Testament as the place in which we find the word used in the sense of washing, cleansing. Now every one at all acquainted with Latin, knows that the words lavo and abluo,-to wash, to cleanse,-do not express mode. They signify washing and cleansing in any mode.

Let me here distinctly remark, that I am not contending that the word baptizo definitely expresses pouring or sprinkling. I maintain that, as used in the Scriptures, it expresses the thing done-the application of water to a subject-but not the mode of doing it; that the mode in which baptism was administered cannot be determined by the word, but must be learned from the connection and circumstances, or from other sources. Hedericus defines the word-first, to immerse or plunge, and secondly, to wash, cleanse, without reference to mode. Schleusner, besides the definition to plunge, &c., gives three others, which express the thing done, but not the mode of doing it: viz. abluo, lavo, aqua purgo-to cleanse, to wash, to purify with water. Parkhurst makes it mean either to immerse in, or wash with water. Robinson, one of the first lexicographers, first gives the definition to immerse, to sink, &c., but in the New Testament the first meaning he finds is to wash, to cleanse by washing, to perform ablution. Bretschneider gives as the general meaning of baptizo, Proprie sepius intingo, sepius lavo"-properly often to dip, often to wash-thus putting these two definitions upon a perfect equality with each other. This is all for which I contend. But as his is a lexicon of the New Testament; the first meaning he there finds, is “lavo, abluo sempliciter;" simply to wash, to cleanse. Here, certainly, is no immersing. I deem the authority of Bretschneider more important, not only because he is one of the most learned lexicographers, but because he was evidently partial to immersion. Yet, as a scholar, he was constrained to give lavo, abluo, to wash, to cleanse, as a literal meaning of baptizo. Suidas, one of the oldest lexicographers, as we have seen, defines it not only to plunge, sink, &c., but to wet, wash, cleanse, &c. and every one knows that a thing may be wetted, washed, or cleansed, without being immersed. Greenfield defines it, as you see, to sink, to wash, &c.

66

Now let it be remarked, that each of these lexicographers, ancient and modern, establishes all for which I contend. With entire unanimity they declare that the word baptizo does not signify simply and only to immerse, but that it means also to wash, cleanse, &c. It certainly has these different meanings. Now if my friend, Mr. C., can prove that the Savior and the inspired writers employed it in the sense of immersing, he will have gained his point. But if he cannot prove that it was used by them in the specific sense of immersing, and not in the general sense of washing, cleansing, he is defeated. For if it should be true, that they used it in the general sense of washing, &c., how can Mr. C. prove, by the force of the word, the doctrine for which he is contending? I maintain that they did use it in the general, and not in the specific sense; and I expect to prove it by the Scriptures.

My friend says, the ordinance of circumcision required to be expressed