mgmm E APT I ST TR IN R REV. THOMAS TR “OX THE MEANING EY .V. CHARLES T UP P E R, MINISTER oy THE EAPTIST CHURCH, AMHERST, K. £ The Profits of this IVork will be devoted to objects of Benevolence, including the circulation of the Scriptures in Burmah. P1CTOU, N. S. PRINTED AT THE EASTERN CHRONICI.E OFFICE. 1848. - » , Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library _ - — Mps:/Tarcfm/e.org/details/vindicationofbapOOtupp VINDICATION OF Til LATOKS IN INDIA: IN THOMAS -T ROTTER’S THE MEANING OF BAPTIZO, LETTER ]. A dmerence of sentiment should Mover be suf- fered to produce alienation of affection. It is ob- vious that no man ought to be angry with another foi entertaining views that differ from his own, nor yet for assigning his reasons for entertaining them. It is, however, so common for controversialists to indulge in a spirit of acrimony, that some are ready o decry all controversy, as if it must necessarily produce animosity. But it certainly may be conduc- ted in a spirit of kindness. Though I have been led to regard it as my duty to write, in several instances, on controveited subjects, • am not aware of bavin <>■ penned a single sentence m bigs of unkiud’iess towards . !er the influence of feci - these ho (frier f rom 4 ]f any man has imagined that! have asked a question “snappishly,” I 'beg to assurejhim that in|this lie has been mistaken; for I have not intended to violate the lawsfeitber of kindness or of courtesy. It is my sin- cere and earnest desire that a spirit of mutual love and friendliness may prevail among all Christians, whether Baptists or edobaptists; and I sincerely pray that I may never either write or utter a word adapted to retard the prevalence of such a spirit. As it is probable, that many of the readers of these letters are unacquainted with the circumstunceswhich gave rise to the present controversy between the Rev. Mr. Trotter and myself, I deem it proper to state them briefly. In the year 1801 the Rev. Dr. Carey, a Bnptis t Missionary in India, published a translation of the New Testament in the Bengali language. He has ever been regarded by all who had any adequate know ledge of him, as an eminently learned, pious, and amiable man. His Translation was made from the Greek. He conscientiously endeavored to give the meaning of the sacred original as exactly and as distinctly as lie possibly could. When he came to the word baplizo, after attentive and careful exami- nation, he selected that Bengali word whirl), accor- ding to the best of his knowledge and judgment, de- noted precisely tbs same action. It was a word that signifies to immerse. This was so soon publicly? known in England, and became a subject of conver- sation among P«u!oba ptists there, that Dr. Carey, having been apprized of the remarks of the Rev.J Rowland Hiil respecting it, wrote home in 1803. dis- 5 tiictly stating the fact, and giving a full explanation relative to the course which he [had deemed it his dity to pursue. (See memoir of Dr. William Carey, p. 312. In the year 1804 the British and Foreign Bible Soiiety was formed. The Rev. Joseph Hughes, A. M..nn esteemed Baptist minister, was its first Secre- taryjjand he is recognized by the Committee of that Socbty as one of its founders and chief promoters. (See Report, 1S34, p. xix.) The Baptists cordially united with their Pedohaptist brethren in this noble Institution, and contributed liberally to its funds. Fnm these funds assistance was afforded, without any distinction, to aid in publishing versions made by both Baptist and Pedohaptist Missionaries in foreign lands. Though the Baptist. Missionaries preceded otiers, and were the principal translators in India, they never attempted to dictate to translators of other denominations, but went ^quietly forward in one un- deviiting course. After all parties had proceeded thus amicably for upwards of twenty years, a com- | plaint was made by some Pedohaptist missionaries, I v ho alleged — not that the versions made by Baptist ; Missionaries were incorrect — but that they were ‘‘the occasion of much inconvenience to them in their rnis- s on ary work.” (Examination, &.C., p. 2.)The result ■Was, that in 1833 a new resolution was passed by a majority of the Committee, which excluded the ver- sons made by Baptist Missionaries from any further Participation in the funds of the British and Foreign hj Bille Society, unless the verb baptizo and its noun i ^flisma should be transferred and not translated' This Drs. Carey, Marshman, Yates, ami their col’ leagues stated, after deliberate consultation, thej could not do; as their consciences would not a 1 1 o vi them to conceal any part of Divine revelation froii the heathen by intentionally and needlessly leaving words untranslated for the sake of accomodation. I see not how any man who regards the sacred rigtts of conscience, can deem it consistent to censure thpi for thus obeying the dictates of their consciences; (tor how he can expect that those who believe these ver- sions to be correct will suffer the labor thus expended, and the means thus! provided for the disserninatioh of the Holy Scriptures among the perishing heathm to be lost, or rendered almost wholly unavailing far the wantof support. Many Baptists, however, in Great Britain and he!’ colonies, though they disapprove of the course adop- ted by a majority of the committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society in this case, continue to obn- tribute to its funds. So far as 1 know, we all visit well to that Institution, though some of us do cer- tainly deem it our duty to give a' I that we contribute/ for the circulation of the Scriptures in Foreign parts to aid in sustaining the versions made by our Bap- tist brethren.- Having commenced a mission among tiie Burmese and Karens, by sending the Rev. R. E. Burpe from these Provinces, it obviously devolved on us to send them also the Sacred Scriptures. As there are tv> translations made into their languages, excepting »>y Baptist Missionaries, th.e Baptists obviously must I give the Scriptures to these nations, or they must rc- imtin destitute of this invaluable blessing. To assist therefore, in giving the sacred Oracles to these be- nighted heathens, and those who are just emerging from heathenish darkness, a small society was form- ed in Amherst near the close of the year 1S45. Ear- ly in 1846 a Meeting was held in the same [dace, wherein the formation and doings of this Society were canvassed and condemned. I requested per- mission to give an explanation ; hut it was not grant- ed. In consequence of this, I subsequently deliver- eretl a “ Defence ” in public, and gave liberty to cor- rect, explain, ask questions, Sec. This, however, was declined ; and another meeting was held, at which I was again refused a hearing. Aware that much misapprehension prevailed extensively, many groundlessly imagining that the Baptists were cor. rupting the Scriptures for sectarian purposes, altering the English version by substituting immerse for 6ep- tizc, &.C., 1 deemed it necessary to publish my “De- fence,” in oi'derto remove such misapprehensions, Though no one attempted to enter into the merits of the case, and to publish a direct reply to my De- fence of the Baptist Translators in India and their supporters, yet three of the principal actors in the Meetings published strictures oil certain parts of it. To these I replied. The Rev. Mr. Trotter, evidently aware that my opponents were unable to maintain the aause in which they were engaged — I give him credit for not denying this — came forward to assist them, and pub- 8 lUlieil a Letter in reference to the subject in the ‘No- va Scotian,’ June 24. 1846. Before my Review of this appeared, he prepared, another Communica- tion upon the same subject, dated \ng. 24, and pub- lished Sept. 16. In this he expressly referred to “the controversy with the Baptists, which had lately been carried on in the Nova Scotian;” and ['very properly ex pressedji is regret that it had “degenerated into ex- pressions of bad feeling.”* After the appearance of my of Ilevieu Mr. Trotter’s first Letter, he publish- ed a series of Letters in reply. These I reviewed. Though his Letters occupied four c-r five columns in the “Nova Scotian” more than my Reviews of them, and I had been called to contend with five other op- ponents, of whom one, the Rev . Mr. Smith, had writ- ten expressly in reply to my last review of Mr. Trot- ter’s Letters, yet it seems he has deemed it necessary to resume his pen for the maintenance of his cause, even before my answer to Mr. 'Smith, — which was denied L a place in the “Nova Scotian,” had been published in any paper. Having thus given a brief outline of the origin and present state of the controversy, in proceeding to re- view Mr. Trotter’s Letters “On the Meaning - ot Bap- tize.” 1 beg to assure him that 1 entertain no feel * It is much to be regretted, moreover, that he had not himself avoided that evil which he justly disap- proved of in others. He would not then have asser- ted in the same letter that Dr. Maclav, ga man long and exteftsively known on both sides of the Atlantic, as a man of unquestionable veracity — “uttered a downright falsehood,’’ in a case in which either a mis- 9 ini's toward him, or any of my Pedobaptist brethren, but those of undissembled kindness. Ide must not, however, hence imagine that I will hesitate to ex- pose distinctly what I conceive to be the fallacy of his arguments. In attempting to meet the argument drawn from the alleged fact, that the Committee of the British &, Foreign Bible Society circulate versions in which the woril Baptize is rendered by words that denote immersion, Mr. Trotter has denied that the words Amad a. id Mumuditho, used in the Syriac version, have this meaning. I have proved that they do mean this, from the concurrent testimony of the most emi- take or a misunderstanding was very liable to occur. Neither would iie have charged the Baptist Mission- ary Society of England, with pursuing a course “in the the highest degree unfair tint! dishonorable” in the appropriation of contributions, when, as it ap- pears from his own statements that “annual accounts (were) laid before the public in the Reports of the Society,” so that all who contributed might know at once to what objects their donations were devoted; and, as I have shewn, the character of the versions made by Baptist Missionaries in India had been long publicly known in Great Britain. It is, however, a curious fact, that Mr. Trotter, immediately after preferring this very serious charge against the Bap- tist Missionary Society, eulogises “the spirit ol Ful- ler, and Carey, and Marshtnan, and Ward,” recom- mending these men as patterns for our imitation, when it is certain that if there had been anything “unfair and dishonorable” in the case to which he refers, these very men, — including the first Secretaiy, the first Translator, and the first Printer, — must have been the first and principal actors in it! 10 nent Pedobaptist Syriac Scholars, from the use of these words in this sense by Ephrain the Syrian as acknowledged by Mr. Trotter himself, and from the facts that Mamuditlio, which, according to Dr. Cas- tell, denotes both baptism and a baptistery, is applied in the latter sense to designate a pool, or bathing place suitable for immersion, and rfmcid is employed in the Syriac version of the Old Testament to de- note the causing of utensils to “go through the wa- ter,” and consequently the immersion of them. How does Mr. Trotter attempt to set aside these decisive proofs? Simply by recurring a thiol lime to the supposed derivation of the words, .which is allowed by competent authorities to be of very little weight in determining the meaning of words. After having defined Mamuditho “purification,” which he subse- quently renders “ablution,” lie asserts that “from the noun JLmudo (a pillar) the feminine noun JMamu- ditho is formed,” and hence infers that it means “confirmation.” He has not adduced any instance of the use of the word, nor even the authority of a single Lexicographer, to support any of these discor- dant senses, which (besides “standing up,”) he has arbitrarily put upon it. For two of them he surely cannot pretend any affinity with the word whence he professes to deduce the third. I am not ignorant of the manner of forming Hebrew and Syriac nouns by prefixing Mem; hut I know that all which can he de- termined in this case with any degree of certainty, is that Jlmudo “a pillar, ’’andMamuditho, are formed from the same word, Anaef. I presume, however, he will not deny thatTse6o,“a finger, ’’is as evidently formed 1 i from Telia, “to immerse, and a finger obviously has no more connexion with immersion than a pillar has. '1 o shew, moreover, how uncertain a guide in this ease, is the mere derivation of she word Jhnad from the Hebrew, I remark, that while Dr. Henderson re- gards the word as referring to receiving baptism “in a standing posture,” and Mr. Trotter supposes it relates to “confirming the convert,” Michaelis, (a Pedobaptist, eminently skilled in Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic,) states in effect, that not a few compare this Syriac verb with the Hebrew Jlmadh , to stand, in reference to standing in a river (JYIergi) to be immersed in it. Cut he observes that he : does not find Jhnad used in Syraic to denote standing’ ; and lie therefore derives it from an Arabic word which expressly means ( immergere ) to immerse. See Jhnad, in his Ed. of Castell’s Syriac Lexicon. Though Mr. Trotter manifestly attempts to involve the subject in obscurity by alleging that in John v. 2, Kolambethra is used “for the whole establishment including the buildings,” yet he cannot deny the fact, that it denotes a pool, or place suitable for immersion, and that in the Syriac version the pool itself is ex- pressly designated by the word Mamudilho, “n bap- tistery.” For instance, “I have' no man, when the water is troubled to put me into ( Jtlamudilho ) the pool.” (John v, 7., see verse 4. and ix. 7.) So Dr. Ca.stell defines “ Beth Mamuditho, a. bap- tistery, a house provided for the purpose, furnished with canals and baths, in which the candidates were baptized ( Submergendo ) by submerging. ’’ 12 If the word mamudilho, denoting baptism and ;i baptistery, had been used to designate a small ves- sel of water, Mr. Trotter would undoubtedly — and with strict propriety — regard such application of it as furnishing evidence that it did not denote immer- sion ; and that this mode was not practised when the Syriac version was made. It is then obvious that its application to designate a place suitable for im- mersion furnishes equally decisive evidence that, when applied to the ordinance itself, it did denote immersion ; and that this was the mode practised at that time, which was, as Mr. Trotter says, “if not in the age of the Apostles, in the very next.” Unable to adduce the slightest vestige of proof that either Amctd or Mamudilho was ever used to signify any thing but immersion, or a place suitable for im- mersion, he endeavors to evade the decisive proof drawn from the use of the word Amid in Numb xxxi 23, by asserting that “to pass through the water is a figurative expression,” denoting “simply to wash.” This itself, however, is a full admission that the word has a very different meaning from either “standing” or “confirming,” and one that undeniably includes immersion. But the fact is, that the phrases “put into water,” “rinsed in water,” and being “caused to go t brought he water, ” (Le v.xi. 32, xv. 12, Numb. xxxi. 23) used with reference to utensils ceremonially unclean manifestly denote the same thing; and the command could not. be obeyed without the immersion of these utensils. So Di. Castell — a Pedobaptist, and one ot the highest philological authorities, cites Numb, xxxi 13 23, and defines Jlmad, which is there used to express “being caused to go through the water,’’ by the word imviergo “to immerse.” f owe an apology to the reader for having detained him so long in obviating an objection of no real weight with regard to the Syriac version; since it is only one of a considerable number of versions circu- lated by the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society in which, as the learned Messrs. Greenfield* and Gotch have clearly shewn, the word In tho view ofcousiderato persons it must ap- peal an unfavorable indication respecting the cause nt which Mr. Trotter is engaged, that be seems to fie impelled in vindicating- it, instead of regarding the ancient precept, ” Tread lightly on the ashes of the dead,” to drive rough shod over many eminent and worthy men, the dead not excepted. By represen- ting my “conduct as hardly consistent with polemi- cal fairness. or even with moral rectitude,” in quoting Mr. Greenfield, he evidently assumes that '[ mn-t have known that Mr. Greenfield lost his “high repu- tation as a scholar” by his criticisms! relative to this subject, and in consequence “put an end to his own life.” Of these reports, however, I have not to this hour received the slightest intimation from any source save from the pen of Mr. Trotter. That he believes them 1 do not doubt; hut 1 am prepared to prove by indubitable testimonies that they are not true. The following may surely suffice : * 1. The committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, (who could not have been ignorant on either ofthese points,) without intimating anything or tho kind, after his discease, hear the most unquali- fied testimony, to“iho unexceptionable moral and reli- gious character of Mr. Greenfield,” and state that 1-1 Bapliso U translated I>y words flint signify to immertCj w 1 li 1 a the versions made by Baptist Missionaries India are rejected solely because that in them the same word is translated in the same way. “ his observations ’’relative to “ the Mahratta ver- sion [Dr. Carey’sjmay be appealed to, as confirming the opinion entertained ofhis high talents and sound learning ” (Report. 1832, p, lxxxviii, 65, 66.) 2 C. B. Biigster, Esq., P. E. Island, son of Mr. Samuel Bagster, the celebrated Publisher of Bibles in London, anti an iutiniate acquaintance of Mr. Greenfield, has informed me, that the complaint made against Mr. Greenfield by his opponents, which gave him trouble, had no reference to ii is cri- tisiins concerning D r Carey’s versions; but was a charge of Neology, which he denied; and that he did not put an end to his own life.” In a letter addressed to me, dated “ Mill Vale, P. E. Island Oct. 12th, 1846,” he says, “ He who changes Mr. Greenfield with a want of literary capacity only proves himself unable to appreciate the extraordi- nary capabilities of his giant mind. — Such a linguist rarely if ever lived. He was fora short time my own private tutor. His private character was irre- proachable, and his course as a Christian extraordi- narily consistent.” V _ . . v 3. “ The Christian Penny Magazine, issued by the Congregational Union of England and Wales,” and “ published by Mr. .John Snow, London, Octo- ber, 1343,” p. 277, 273, contains a ‘ Memoir of ’William Greenfield,’ whence the following state- ments are extracted : — ‘ Mr. Greenfield was born in London, 1799. — After six years literary connection with Mr. Bagster, as an editor of various biblical works, and more particularly various editions of the Scriptures, the attention of the Committee of the Bi- ble Society was directed toward him, they having i 15 In my next, embracing the latter part'of Mr. Trot- ter’s first Letter and the whole of his second, I de* 9 sign to come more directly to the point. resolved to appoint an officer as Superintendent of the translating and editing department of the Society, Mr. Greenfield’s labours within the first year, as re- ported by the Bible Society’s committe, were most astonishing, including editorial examination or revi- sion of more than twenty languages or versions of the Scriptures. Besides which he had large correspon- dence arising out of his office, and he issued from the press his Hebrew New Testament. He also had in preparation a Polyglot Grammar of thirty languages when seized by that fatal malady, the brain fever, which terminated his valuable life. This disease, if not occasioned, was aggravated by the malicious slanders of envious men jealous of bis fame : they were propagated against some of the notes to the Comprehensive Bible, as inclining to neology, with a view to injure the Bible Society. He was able to attend the House of God on the Lord’s day morning, but h.e became worse, and on Friday his pastor saw him, when his mind was composed and happy, and he expressed his hope and confidence in Jesus Christ as his redeemer. On the following day Mr. Wood saw him again, when he said, “ Since I have been here, I have learned more of the depravity of my heart than 1 knew before , but blessed be God, I have also the inward witnessing of the Spirit, that 1 feel myself to be a pardoned sinner, through the blood of Jesus Christ. For worlds 1 would not have been without this illness. I have had most delight- ful intercourse with my heavenly Father. 1 have enjoyed that nearness of access which prevents trie doubting my interest in the precious blood of a ■ C — A is— a— . mid 1 am ready and willing, if u Thus this holy labourer in rhe cause of Gob' de- parted to his eternal rest, Nov 5, 1832, sincerely in- dented as a scholar, a gentleman, and a Christian, by all who knew him, especially the Committee of the Bible Society !” . , Such was the man, and so peaceful and triumphant liis exit, whom Mr. Trotter represents as a mere pedant.’ who, on the exposure of his ignorance, 1 put an end to his own life.’ And wherefore is the charac- ter of this profound scholar and devout Christian thus held up, after his decease, to public contempt and execration l Solely because he possessed such an eminent degree of sterling candour and unflinch- ing integrity, that, though he was,, as he observed, “ neither a baptist nor the son of a baptist,” yet from a sence of eq uity he justified the baptist missionaries in translating baptizo, by words signifying to immerse , stated from bis own personal inspection of versions circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society, that in a considerable number of them it was translat- ed in the same way, and remarked, that he 1 believed none ever had the hardihood to render bapl'.zo ta pour or sprinkle .* LETTER IF, The question at issue between Mr. Trotter and me is this: Have the Baptist missionaries in In- dia, who translated baplizo by words signifying “to immerse,” done right or wrong? In attempting to maintain that they have done wrong, he does not ad- venture to deny, that the primary and usual meaning of the word is to immerse, nor yet to affirm that it ever means to sprinkle: hut he now alleges, [as a last resort, — in opposition to a host of Pedo-baptisl Lexicographers' and critics, — that it is a “generic term.” And by what means does he endeavour to establish this hypothesis? From one instance of the use of the word baptismcs , formed from bapiizo, but which, as he says, (Letter v.) is not used to desig- nate Christian baptism. The clause cm which lie re- lies, Heb. x. 12, is thus defined by Dr. Doddridge- and the Rev. Joseph Benson, Pedo-baptists, “Divers washings, either as the whole body, or a part of it> in water, as different occasions demanded. Even Mr. Trotter himself, who concedes that there were “immersions prescribed in the law of Moses,” (tacit- ly admits that the words diaphorois bnptisviois, “di- vers washings” include immersions; hut he supposes other modes also are included. Surely this “showm 18 ass ho says, “what slender proof a man will accept of in support of a favorite object, rather than have nothing like proof at all.” To shew the inconsistency of building a theory on the uncertain import of a single word, occurring in one solitary instance, I remarked, in effect, that dia- phoros, (rendered “divers”, Heb. ix. 10, and which usually means “superior,” or “different” in some respect) is used in the Septuagint (Ezra viiiJ^T) as the translation of a Hebrew word denoting plurality, rendered “two” in the authorized version; and that the Hebrew Translator venders it rabbolh, “many,” in Heb. ix. 10. On the fruit of these statements Mr. Trotter remarks: “Shanim, the Hebrew term ren- dered diaphoro, in the passage in Ezra, '•'does no t mean “plurality,” and Mr. T. [Tupper] can hardly fail to know this, if he knows anything about the He- brew at all.” It happens, however, that Mr. Tup- per knows — what it seems Mr. Trotter does not know — that this word occurs hundreds of times in the Old Testament w'here it unquest : onably means plurality, and is rendered “two;” and that it is so rendered in Ezra viii. 27, in the Latin Vulgate, the Geneva English Version by Luther, Junius, and Tremellius, Castalio, Diodati, Ostenvaid, and Mar- tin. as well as the forty -seven Translators of our authorized version: and Poole refers to the “rarity” of the metal as the “cause why there were only two vessels of that sort.” Surely it is no disparagement to ha charged with “ignorance” in company with 13 such men; ns also with Mr. Greenfield, Dr*. Campbell ami McKmight, nay, with the Apostles ami Evangelists, of whom Mr. Trotter says, includ- ing them with other “poor Jews,” respecting the meanings of words, “they changed them from ignor- ance.” Neither does he pass a very high compliment on the 'Commitnw of the British and Foreign Bible Soci- ety, when he says of the Hebrew Translation of tho New Testament which they circulate, that it “ often gives a wrong sense to the text, and that in very had Hebrew.” it is, indeed, “ very bail Hebrew,” where the Translator has introduced barbarous terms by at- tempting to transfer the Greek words bap'.izo and baptismal hut it seems that for this very reason it is sanctioned by that Committee, while versions made by Baptist Missionaries in India, in which these words are faithfully and plainly translated in good Bengali and Mahrattn, Sic. are rejected on account of their fidelity and plainness. I showed, however, that there were divers immer - stony under the law, as (liters persons and divers vessels were immersed on divers occasions. (Lev xiv. 8. 9. xv. 5, 6, 7, 12 xvi. 4. xi. 32.) To this Mr. Trotter has not attempted to reply. Nay, he has fully sanctioned it ; for sprinkling is as distinctly one action as immersion, and yet he himself speaks ia effect of divers sprinklings-, since he says, “ The sprinkling of blood is expressly referred to as one way, and that of the water of separation as another,” &.c. It may certainly with equal propriety be said that a man bathed himself in water in “ one way,’ 20 an:l a l»i r. I was dipped in n mixture <,f Mood and wa- ter in “ another, "’Sic. It was therefore with perfect accuracy that Dr. McKnight — who probably under- stood both Greek and English quite as well as Mr. 1 rotter — rendered diaphorois baptismois “ divers immersions.” It is manifest, then, that this single instance ot the use of the word baptismois utterly fails to afford the least degree of countenance to his position that 1 ‘ baplizo i9 a generic term.” Some Pedobaptists have indeed assigned to bap- tize n. secondary sense, founded on the effect of the action denoted by it, or on its figurative applications: but, so far as I know, all competent judges are a» greed that in its primary and literal sense, it is a specific term, denoting one mode, viz: to immerse » So Professor Stuart, a Pedobaptist, and a high phi- lological authority, says, “ Bapto and Bapiizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into anything liquid. All Lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.” (Bib. Rep. No.x. p. 298.) Even Mr, '1' rot- ter himself has distinctly admitted that it is specific ; for he has said, (Nova Scotian, Oct. 19, 1846,) “ as Bapto means to dip, baptizo means to dip vi- olently, to plunge.’’’ Not to dwell needlessly, then, on a point that does not in reality admit of a ques- tion. I remark that the constant usage of the term baptizo in reference to ships, unequivocally proves that it is not generic, as the terms wash, wet, &lo, but that it specifically means to immerse or submerge-, since ships are washed and wet in many different ways, and yet a ship is never said to be ( baptizes - that ) “ baptized,” unless she is actually submerged , '! lie attentive rentier cannot fail to perceive, that Mr. Trotter’s strenuous effort to render it probable that baplizo may lie used in the New Testament to Denote a different action from that which it denotes in classic authors, is a manifest admission of the well established fact, that in classic authors it means to immerse. Every one knows that if I had admitted — and such were the fact — that its meaning is sprink- ling in the Greek clasies, and had then insisted that in the New Testament it means to immerse, Mr, Trotter would have ridiculed the idea, as absurd ; and would have required of me plain and unequivo- cal proof from the New Testament itself to establish such an extraordinary position. It cannot he denied that it is equally incumbent on him tv produce from fhe New Testament like plain and unequivocal proof in support of the position which he maintains. This, however, he knows he cannot do ; for he has himself stated, that so far as he knows, (Nova scotian Nov. 25, 1846.) “ There is no direct evidence in the New Testament respecting the form of Christ- tan Baptism.' 5 Upon what ground, then, can he possibly continue to insist, that buptizo denotes al- together a different action in the Now Testament from that which is denoted by it in the Greek clas- sics? I stated, (Novascotian, Dec. 16, 1846,) that ‘‘in order to have tendered this in the least degree probable, he should have adduced instances in which Greek verbs expressing mode denote one action in the classic?:, and quite a different action in the sacred writings.” This he has now strenuously and labori- ously attempted. Had he succeeded, it could only It.lVe given tshide of pi usiliiiilv to his theory . But Miiely no candid rnnn who is. competent to judge, c!in he ignorant of the fact, that he has utterly failed •; since not one of the cases adduced is by any mentis in point. I will render this evident by an ex- amination of them. Sungkatapsephizo means “ to choose hy a common suffrage.’’ By Mr.Trotter’s own shewing, i) cannot denote a different mode in Acts i. l 26. for hp says, ‘ it does not mean to elect in any way, hiii to reckon, or number with.’’ Cheirotnneo rnp..ns “ to stretch forth the hand anil is hence applied to voting hy a show of hands. When this word is used by Josephus, or an inspired writer, with refer- ence to the appointment of a person to office by F-ei’y. it is not to be imagined that He literally lifts up his h ind, any more than that He does so in swear- ing, ns He is said to do. (Pint, xxxii. 4<\) It may al-o lie naturally used to denote appointing to of- fer by men, though there be no show of hands. But this is not a chang" of mode. Kleroo, “ to choose by lot,” and Klemnmneo, “ to divide bv lot,” were naturally used bv the Jews, to whom the land of Ca- iman was divided by lot for inheritance, to denote inheriting, without casting lots. But who can pos- sibly fail to sec, that no mode, as in each of the cases noticed, is not a different mode. The same remark applies to the verbs pracheirizn, “ to prefer,'' and enkain : zo, “to dedicate.'” So also his remaining ex- amples, apelpizo, and aphvpnoo, whether nsed to denote hoping or despairing, waking or sleeping, as they da not specify mode, have no hearing on the 83 [ need not l>e told that ninny words have differt meaning*, that some have even opposite senses, t! t some words which are not found m classic authi are used hy the sacred writers, nor yet that some e used hy them in peculiar senses. These consido, tions, however, do not affect the subject in deba as I shall shew presently. Mr. Trotter deems it an indication of” ignorant recklessness,” Sac. in me, that, as he says, I “evide ly suppose the poor Jews to have acted on some pi gi pie in altering the meaning of Greek words, p - serving the meaning of one class, and altering t of another.” The cause in which f am engaged d not require me — neither am I disposed — to rut his charges. It will, however, naturally occur to — telligent readers, that if he is more learned than 1 the eminent scholars whom he has charged with nominee, and l as “ illiterate” as he represents u , his cause m ist he a very b.iJ one, or he would i have failed, gs he manifestly has done, to shake a / one of my positions. On this point they were to to is effect: — 1. A verb which denotes one specific mode, does not denote a inode entirely different. 2. Thu inspired writers would not he likely to change tho meaningof such a vei l). 1. Any man possessing a tolerable share of intelli- gence will at once perceive, that a word including several modes does not designate any one mode. Fo r instance, as Mr. Trotter states, “ upokteino ” means “ to kill” hut it does not mean either to shoot” or ‘•to hang,” though it includes both. So a generic Unit signifying to t get includes many modes ; but it 24 does not denote any one mode. A specific term sig- nifying to sprinkle, does not mean to plunge ; neither does a word that signifies to plunge mean to sprin- kle. Now F have shewn that baptizo, is not a gene- ris term, as wet. &c. hnt specific, meaning to plunge-, and so Mr. Trotter lias himself affirmed, “ Baptizo means — to plunge.” It is clear, then, to a demon- stration, that it does not mean to “ sprinkle;” and he dares not affirm that it does. 2. It is not likely that the inspired writers, nor in- deed any Jews, would change the meaning of such a verb, which is easily learned, and is not easily mis- taken, nor readily forgotten. The reason naturally assignable why a writer uses a word literally in a new sense, is, because there is no word in the lan- guage, or none with which he is acquainted, that conveys the Idea which he wishes to express- But all languages necessarily must have words denoting such common actions as immersing and sprinkling ; and the Apostles were acquainted with the Greek word rantizo, to sprinkle. The supposition, then, that they put a new sense upon baptizo, needlessly employing it to express an action entirely different from that which it denoted, is utterly destitute of plausibility ; and is obviously one that never would have entered into any man’s mind, if he were not la- bouring to sustain tin untenable position.* The •Mr. Trotter, in his zeal to maintain that the wri- ters of the New restament “have changed the mean- ing of baptizo,'' says “ that baptizo belongs to a class of verbs of which they were most like to mistake the f?ict that Mr Trotter’s laborious efforts to produo® an instance of such a change in such a verb, have proved an utter failure, strongly confirms my view. Moreover, actual investigation corroborates it. Do not the verbs phago, to eof,and pino , to drink, used to designate the actions to lie performed in re- ceiving the Lord’s S"pper, denote the same actions in the classics? I may alsa notice instances of Greek verbs that relate to water. Louo generally signi- fies to bathe the body ; nipto, to wash the face, bands or feet ; and pluno, to trash clothes ; cheo or ekeheo to pour; and rhino or rcniiizo, to sprinkle. Is the meaning of either of these words changed? By no means. 1 would then advise Mr. Trotter, for the sake of his own reputation, not to charge me with “ ignor- ance’ 5 in reference to this subject till he shall have secured some shadow of plausibility to bis own hy- pothesis, by producing a Greek verb that signifies both to immerse and to sprinkle, or vice versa. If he cannot do either of these, let him adduce another appropriate Greek verb that will more certainly ex- mcaning.” It soems, then,, according to his view, that the Apostles and Evangelists mistook the mean- ing of the word, and so used baplizo, which he knows “means to plunge,” to denote sprinkling ; which is properly denoted by ranlizo. Had be lived in their time, with all the knowledge which he now possesses, and set them right at first, he surely would have done much more good than he is likely to do now by all his letters ; for he would have happily prevented the whole controversy on this subject. 20 press ‘•immersion” than does '‘baptizo.’’ )i lie can do none of these things, let him candidly and honora- bly confess that the Baptist Translators in India have done right in translating it by words that signify to immerse, and consequently that it is right to circulate their versions. If, however, he will resolutely refuse to regard the usage of the word in the Greek cdassics, as he conceives, “ There is no direct or positive evidence in the New Testament respecting the form of Christ- ian Baptism,” he surely cannot decline to let the matter be determined by the use of baplizo in the writings ofJosephus ; since he has plainly, and with evident propriety, classed him, a Jew writing Greek, and contemporary with the Apostles — with the wri- ters of the New Testament, in relerence to the use of Greek words. How, then, does Josephus use the word? He employs it to denote the submeg ti g of a ship when she sinks in the sea, as when he sa\ s that the ship which Jonah was in “ was in danger <>f sinking and the immersion of a person in a pond, as when he relates that Herod’s servants drovMied Aristobulus, ( baptizontes , bap tiz ing, ) immersing him, or as he expresses it elsewhere, that he was drowned he\ng(baptizomenos, baptized, ) immersed in a pond. (See Antiquities, Book l.c. X. 2. Book XV. c. III. 2. and Wars, Book I. c. XXII. 2.) The English read- erwill find the word baptizo translated byJWhiston in these pasages by the words “ sinking,” “ plunging,” and “ dipped.” It is as certain, then, as any thing can be, that Josephus used the word baplizo e.\- 27 prossfy to denote immersion. Mow can my opponent evade the inevitable conclusion that it means the same in the Nuyv Testament? LETTER IH. The advocacy of a view" that is accordant with Scripture truth, does not require any laboured efforts to evade the obvious meaning of any plain text. Now there is not a plainer text in the whole Bible than 2 Kings v. 14. “ Then went lie [Naaman] down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan.” I am not aware that any Lexicographer, Translator, Exposi- tor, or even any child, was ever at a loss to under- stand it : nor yet that any person who was not op- posing Baptist views ever expressed a doubt that Naaman actually immersed himself. In the appre- hension, then, of all unprejudiced readers, it must surely appear very unpropitious to the view which Mr. Trotter is endeavouring to support against the Baptist Translators in India, that he has found it ne- cessary to occupy a long letter in the obscuring of this very plain text, in order to represent it — in op- position to the authority of all Lexicographers. Translators, and Expositors, and the plainest rules of interpretation, nay . and common sense, — as mean. £3 iug that wafer vvns sprinkled on some part of Naa- mun ; al legiug finally, that “it is no great stretch to suppose ill it Baphzo mty signify ‘ to sprinkle’ in “2 Kings v. 1 it is curious to observe by what a sin- gular process he has arrived at this truly extraouiin- ury conclusion. In order to take one preparatory step, and to con- vict me of ignorance" for restricting the Hebrew labal to the senses of “dipping’’ “ and “ dying;’’ as do the learned Hebrew Lexicographers Kireher, Stoikius, Simouis, Gesctiius, Parkhurst, and Pike, he adduces Hen. xxxvii. 31 , where. Joseph’s brethren are said to have “ dipped the coat in the blood’’ of a kid. But certainly there can he no doubt, whether they dip- ped it or not, that they dyed or stained it. Had tha Lx strictly translated labal by the word motuno, which means neither “ to spatter” nor “ to sprin- kle,” hut simply to pollute, it would not have helped Mr. Trotter’s cause; for he will hardly maintain that N'laman polluted himself in Jordan. They, how- ever, unquestionably knew that tajal does not mean to pollute ; Imt as the cojit was polluted with blood, they have, in a free translation, expressed this, with- out designing to give the idea of the Hebrew word ; just as Martin has done by translating the clause “lls ensanglanterent la robe” i. e. they “made the coat bloody.” In the other translations that I have examined, tubal is here rendered dipped or dy~ ed. This passage, then, furnishes no exception to my definitions of the word. ^r, Trotter asserts that “labal is used in some pas- $9 sages of the Hebrew Bible, when it eati only mean to ‘ moisten’ and that very slightly.” To prove this he cites Lev. xiv. 16, and verse 6, 51. I am aware, as I have elsewhere stated, that there is in some cases a shade of difference between the words “ dip” and immerse.” The priest did not immerse his whole finger in the oil in the palm of his left hand ; but the action was certainly dipping ; and so far as he dipped his finger it was undeniably immersed. The terms ( yalsac ) pour, ( tabal ) dip, and ( nazah ) sprinkle, all occur in verses 15, and 16 ; and any man has just as good a right to deny that the priest was required either to pour or to sprinkle, as that he was required to dip. Moreover, when a man dipped himself in a river, he certainly immersed himself. So Gesenius defines tubal in reference to Naaman, “ to dip or im- merse oneself.” Mr. Trotter’s immagitiary objection against the dipping or immersing of the bird, Lev. xiv. 6, 51. obviously rests on his own want of a cor- rect understanding of the texts. The Rev. T. Scott, in his note, justly speaks of “ the two birds, one slain over springing water in an earthen vessel, and the oilier, set at liberty, having been dipped in the mix- ture of blood and water.” The Rev. J. Benson says on verse 6, “ That is, over running water put in an earthen vessel.” The Rev. Mr. Poole, also a Pedo- hnptist, understood these texts in the same natural and obvious sense. One of the principal charges usually preferred — without cause — against the Baptist Translators in In- dia and their supporters, is, an alleged want of re- 36 Verence for the authority of the authorized English Translation, hecati.se they do not transfer the words haptizo and baptisina in cases entirely dissimilar. But Mr. Trotter, one of their chief opponents tram- ples the authority of this Translation under foot most unscrupulously. We have one instance of this, a- tnong many, in his criticism on Joh ix. 31. As he thinks that 1 from spattering to sprinkling the tran- sition seems to he easy and natural,” he is evidently determined to find “ spattering” somewhere, how- ever little connection the text may have with the subject. Me therefore represents our Translators ns having committed an egregious blunder by rendering the first clause of Job ix. 31. “ Vet shall thou plunge me in the ditch;” which, according to him, they ought to have translated, “ Vet shalt thou spatter me with putrid garbage.” What he snys( Letter iv.) of “hyper” is equally true of tabal and shuchath, viz. that it “ must have a precise and definite meaning, a meaning which it admits in other passages:” but lie has not produced a passage (neither can he)in which tabal signifies “ to spatter,” or shachath, “ putrid garbage.” If a controversialist may thus coin new meanings of words, as the exigences of his cause re- quire, he can easily prove whatever he desiies to prove, from any part of the Bible. But what mus be thought, of the cause which compels its advocate to have recourse to such measures? Mr. Trotter’s proposed “ improvement” of the version — “ spatter- ing me with putrid garbage” — is unnatural and je- june, as well as unsupported by any authority ; but the version given by our learned at:d \ ei.( table 31 Translators — “Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch” — is natural and forcible, and is accordant with Lexicographers and Translators generally. The Translators of the Syriac version, Luther, the Geneva English Translators, Castalio, Junius and Treniel- lius, Diodali, Ostervald, and Martin, translate it by words that denote plunging in a pit, ditch or filth. To the same purport the Ixx. render it (Hikanos en rupo me cbapscts.) Thou hast di/ped me thoroughly injillh. T he use, then, of baptizo by Aquila in this text to denote plunging, is decidedly against Mr. Trotter’s theory, and in favour of the Baptist view. Baptizo is used figuratively in the Septuagint in a similar sense, Isa. xxi. 4, Which Mr. Parkhurst defines “ Iniquity ( baptizei ) plungeth me i. e. into terror or distress An inspired Apostle has noticed the inconsistency and impropriety of practising that which one con- I demns in others. (Rom. ii. 21. 22r) Mr. Trotter however, after having utterly condemned the con- duct of those Baptist writers who have argued from the use of the word bapto, alleging. (Novascotian, June 24, 1846,) that “ it may suit their purpose with ignorant people, hut it is a sacrificing of truth to the interests of a party, which is unprincipled,” now does the very same thing himself. Unable to find an instance in which baptizo can he reasonably thought to have any connexion with “ sprinkling,” he now evidently feels himself compelled to attempt to draw an argument — much the most specious of any that he has adduced — from the use of the word bapto, in 32 Dnnl. iv. oO. v. 21 • But even the word Baplo , which is never used to denote Christian Baptism, does not in this case 1>y any means signify sprinkling. That the body of Nebuchadnezzar was wet is evident. But t he question is, what is the primary and proper meaning of the Chaldea word Isaba, which is here translated by baplo ? It is, as given by Stoikius and Gesenius, “ To dip in, to immerse.” Translators have not generally preserved the strong and ex- pressive figure by which Nebuchadnezzar is repre - sented as immersed by the copious dews of Chaldea ; but the lxx. (or rather Theodotion,) preserves it, by using the word baplo, in the passive voice, immersed > as does also the Syriac version, in which the same word, ( Isaba ,) belonging to that cognate language, is retained. This very word is chosen by Dr. Hen- derson as the most appropriate Syriac term to ex- press dipping or immersion. He says’ “ Isaba sig- nifies to sink, dip, or put into water, or any other el- ement, for the purpose of wetting.” (Meaning of Baplizo, &.c. p. 12.) Bapto, to dip, is therefore manifestly used here by the same expressive figure that is employed by Milton, quoted by Mr. Trotter, “ A cold shuddering dew Dips me all o’er.” It is manifestly subversive of the plainest princi- ples of Philology, to infer from such a figurative ex- pression, that the word “ dip” means simply “ to wet.” By this figure one is represented, both by the Prophet and by Milton, as being as thoroughly drenched os if he had been dipped, in a river. Mr. T- 33 ha*, then, condemed himself, I>y doing what he had condemned in others, to no purpose ; since the use of bapto in this case as the translation of a word that signifies “ to dip in, to immerse,” is, so far as it ha s any bearing on the subject, directly against his view. The seat of Naaman’s disease tnay have been lo- cal ; but his whole person was unquestionably aff- ected with leprosy, Under the Mosaic law, to which my opponent refers, the leper was ordered to have a mixture of blood and water — not pure water — sprink- led on him by the priest ; but was required to “ wash ( rachats , bathe ) his flesh in water.” Lev. xiv.9.) It thus appears from an examination of the se- veral steps by which Mr. Trotter has attempted to arrive at his conclusion, that it is a very “ great stretch” — a leap which none but “ a thorough go- ing and determined partizar.” can ever take — “ to suppose that bceptiza tnay singnify to sprinkle in 2 Kings v. 14.” He is mistaken in supposing that 1 “ refer to rach- ats in continuation of any view of the meaning of t.ibal for I am aware that tubal is the more defin- ite term, lie has, however, failed to establish even one exception to the general rule, that rachats — like the word bathe, by which it is often rendered — when no part of the body is either specified or re- ferred to in parallel passages, in its literal accepta- tion means bathe the whole body. (See next Letter.) The use of this word, therefore, in the case of Nan- man, verses 10, 12, 33, without any limitation, to- gether with the circumstances that he “went down” and performed the ablution enjoined “ in Jordan,” renders it sufficiently evident that he dipped or im- mersed himself ; hut the word tabal makes it as cer- tain as any Hebrew word can make it. This worn', to which baplizo corresponds in 2 Kings v. 14. is not only restricted by the Lexicographer, ns Stoikins, Simonis, Gesenius, Parkhu rst, &c, to the senses of “ dipping” or “ immersing” and “ dying,” but it is expressly selected l>y llev. .1. \V. I). Gray in Ins Treatise written against Baptist views, as the word that denotes to immerse, lie sets, (p. 210,) ‘The term that signifies to immerse or dip is Tabal. Examples of i ts u-e may be found in Lev. iv. G.17. xiv. 16'. ix. 9. Numb. xix. 13.” I am not aware that any version is in the least degree favourable to Mr Trotter's novel scheme of rendering tabal “ sprink- led” in this text. But as I have shewn elsewhere, Luther, Diodati, Ostervald, Martin, and Junius and 'I'remellius render it, in exact accordance with our Translation , dipped, plunged or immersed himself. So likewise, Castalio translates (“ seque mersit) and immersed himself ; and Kirch, er in bis Hebrew and Greek G i-iaord nice, hiving defined “ Tabal , la ‘dio, dip in, immerse ,” defines baplizo in this text by 1 mergo ,” to immerse, it is n it material whether the ward occurs often or seldom in the Septqagint, so long its the fact is thus manifest, that it occurs plainly in the sense of im- mersing, or plunging, and in that sense only. 35 In conslusion, l bog to call the reader’s particular attention to one important consideration. It is this: — The novel and reckless principles of interpreta- tion which Mr. Trotter is compelled to adopt, in or- der to evade the fact that immersion was enjoined by the word baplizo, would render it impossible to prove that immersion was enjoined by any word that could have been selected in any language. For instance, had the English word dip been chosen, he would doubtless say, as he does, that it means, “to mois- ten and he could with equal propriety — that is, none at all — allege the same respecting the word im mersc itself, since that which is immersed is as cer- tainly moistened ns that which is dipped. He main- tains that the Hebrew word tubal in Job ix. 31, means “ tospatter,” and 2 Kings v. 14, “ to sprin- kle.” But, as I have asked him, in my second Let- ter, to give me another appropriate Greek verb that will more certainly express “ immersion” than bap- lizo does, so I here ask the same respecting the word tabal, to which buptizn corresponds in 2 Kings v. 14. Evasion is interminable : but the man who attempts . to maintain his cause by it, will unavoidably sub- ject himself to the just charge of inconsistency, I would, therefore, respectfully admonish my friend Mr. Trotter to abandon it ; and, instead -of involving himself in gross and glaring inconsistency by at- lempting to fritter away the meaning of every- word that denotes immersion in any language, to acknow- ledge candidly the indubitable facts, that, as baptizn certainly means to immerse in the classics and in the 36 writings of Josephus, who was a Jew contemporary with the Apostle, so it was unquestionably used in the same sense in the Septuagint, which was used, and its style followed, by the writers of the New Testament; and consequently, that they evidently employed baptizo to denote the- same action : and hence, that Dr. Carey and his colleagues in India have done right in translating it by words that signi- fy to immerse. LETTER IV. It has been shown that, as in the Greek classics, so also in Josephus and in the Septuagint, Baptizo con- stantly denotes immersion. What Mr. Trotter says of hyper or huper, is certainly quite as applicable to baptizo, viz: that it “must have a precise and defi- nite meaning, a meaning which it admits in other passages.” It is therefore manifestly inconsistent to assign another meaning to this word in the Apocry- pha, unless absolute necessity demands it. But no such necessity exists. The water of purification was undoubtedly to be sprinkled on one who had touched a dead body. 'I bis action, however, is invariably expressed by a 37 word entirely different from baptizo, nnmely, Taino (with its compounds,) or rantizo, which means to sprinkle. Consequently, had this heen intended in Reel us. xxxiv. 25, it would unquestionably have heen expressed hy one of these words. But, as the person thus ceremoniously unclean was required “ to bathe himself in water,” (Numb. xix. 19.) when it is said “ He that ( laptizomenos ) washeth himself after the touching of a dead body,” the washing thus de- noted by the word baptizo was obviously this bath- ing. The learned Dr. Gale justly regards the bath- ing as the principal part of the cleansing ; as it was the closing part, to which the sprinklings were pre- paratory, and immediately after his “ bathing him- self in water,” it is said that he “ shall be clean at evpn.” This action is expressed by the Hebrew r achats, which, as I have shewn, denotes the bathing of the whole body, when it is not in any way restrict- ed. Mr. Trotter proposes Lev.xvi. 4. as an exception: but Dr. W. Brown (Ant. Vol. i. p. 391.) expressly mentions the “ immersion of the whole body” as practised by the priests on some occasions ; as does also Dr. Hammond, on John xiii. 10. And Dr. Mac- Knight mentions Lev. xvi. 4. as an instance of this. In his note on Heb. x. 23. “ Having your bodies washed,” &.c. he remarks that Louo “ is commonly applied to the washing of the whole body,” and adds “ This is an allusion to the high priest’s washing his body with water before he entered into the in- ward tabernacle, Lev. xvi. 4.” The lxx. who un- questionably knew the practice in these cases, trans- late this text “ He shall bathe ( pan to soma ) all his 38 luxly and Numb. xix. 19. “ He shall bathe his hoily.” Indeed the word louo, which is used in these texts, and generally where rachals is not re- stricted, whether the body is mentioned or not, means, as Dr Campbell says (on John ix. 7.) “ to wash or bathe the whole body.” I do not deny that this might have been done without an exact immer- sion ; but many Pedobaptists, besides those already cited, admit that it was by immersion that these ablutions were performed. Calmet says, (in Bap- tism,) “ All legal pollutions were cleansed !> y bap- tism, or plunging into water. — Generally people, dipped themselves entirely under water, and this is the most simple notion of the word baptize.’’ Dr. G Burns admits, (Subjects, Stc. p. 70.)^“ Persons were indeed, on some occasions, directed to plunge or bathe themselves. ” Even Mr. Trotter himself owns that there were •‘immersions prescribed in the law of Moses.” The Rev. Mr. Frey, a Jew by birth and education — having access to the best possible means of knowledge — a learned and able Baptist minister, says, with reference to the Jewish ablutions, “ The purification of unclean persons, &.c. required by the law of Moses, was always by immer- sion.” (Essays, &c. p. 105.) In the Syriac Version the word r achats, bathe is rendered (Numb. xix. 19.) by secho, which is also used to denote swimming. (Isa, xxv. 11. Acts xxvii. 43.) It is also worthy of remark, as illustrative of the fact, no f only that immersion was required in such on c, but likewise that this was the principal part of the ceremony of cleansing, that “ any ves- sel, &c. rendered unclean 1 >y contact with any dead body, was not to he sprinkled at all, ItutSwas to “ he put into water ” (Lev xi. SC.) It is clear, then from the nature of the case, that in Ecclus. xxxiv 25. bapUzo is used, as in all other instances, to denote immersion. Moreover Mr. 'I' rotter’s novel scheme of making it refer to sprinkling in this case, is completely over- turned by the closing part of the text, “ What avails hia washing?” Immersion is washing, hut sprinkling is not. The word loutron. here rendered masking, i« altogether inapjdicahle to sprinkling, hut denotes a b.iih or bathing. It it so used distinctly by Hesiod and !, Josephus ; and in the Septuagint it is applied to the washing- of sheep . (Cant. iv. 2. vi. 5.) if, then, it were possible for Mr. Trotter to es— i tahiish the connection which exists in his imagina- tion between the passage in the Apocrypha and 1 Cor xv. 29. it would avail him nothing ; since the Apostle’s language — “ Else w ha* shall they do which are baptized fertile dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” it would still obviously refer to immersion. But it will reijuire several more long di.-sertations, witf, proofs not yet adduced, to render this connection in the least degree probable ; for: — 1, lie has not as- signed any reason why different prepositions tire used ; nor yet why the noun in one case is in the sin- gular (nek ran) “ one dead,” without the article, anti 40 in the other case in 1I13 plural, with the article, {to: 1 nekrnn) “ fAedead.” If it lie admitted that apo and huper in these texts mean “ on account of,” still, to use Mr. Trotter’s words, “ he must lie a thorough- going and determined partisan” who can shut his eyes to the plain distinction between the phrases “ on account of one dead,” and “ on account of the dead” in general. A Jew was not required to purify himself t: on account of the dead” in general, lint ‘ o;i account of a dead body ”by which he had be- come defiled. Th s is n it a lap ir.ip,”but anobvious distinction. 2 . Mr. Trotter’s fanciful idea that ‘‘this disqualification [of the defiled person] was esteemed a kind of death, and the purification was a restora- tion to life ; and by this means was the doctrine of the resurrection taught to the Jews,” requires to be sustained by proof. 3 . It remains also to be proved that the Apostle had any reference to the ceremonial law ; with which many of the disci- ples at Corinth, being converts from heathenism, were not acquainted. It is much more reasonable to suppose that he referred to Christian baptism, which they had all received. If, then, this is, as Mr. Trotter thinks, “ one of those passages which have not hitherto been rightly understood,” it may well be doubted whether it does not remain so, after all his diligent research to fi.id in it — for want of better proof — an argument in fa- vour of sprinkling for baptism , 41 1 conceive that both these phrases( they receive it its an emblem of the resurrection and minimal life, in coming up out of the water; thu>t’.;ey are baptized for ike dead, in perfect faith of the resurrect'on.” Granville Penn, Esqu~e, in his note on 1 Cor. xv, ‘29, 30. ( Annotat o rs, <§c,)after quoting Rom, vi. Col. i 12. “ Buried with him in Baptism, 5 ’ &r. rks, “ If the memories- of the many reverend mentators wiio have perplexed themselves and readers] with the passage of the Corinthians before us, had called these passages to their aid, need not have been indebted to a learned laic the admonition, that St. Paul speaks jn this :e with the same figurative allusion.” He then s the following definition of the text from Sir rton Knatihbull, (“ Cur i mmer gun lur Sto.”) ny are they immersed for, or ns , being dead un— s to assure titem, by their emersion from the ter, (which was a type of resurrection from the avef) that, if they rose again from death m sins, newness of life, they would also rise again to glory ith Christ, after death. As if he had said, In vain ies the church use the symbol of baptism, if there is o resurrection; for, Baptism is a type of the death ml resurrection of Christ, and of all the faithful; nd so it was always understood by the primitive Christians.” It thus appears that this text, which Mr. Trotter has adduced in support of his view, and to which he has devoted the principal part of his fourth and fifth Letters, is so far from affording any countenance to sprinkling, that it is, by the admis- sion of a number of his Pedobaptist Brethren, de- cisively in favour of immersion. With reference to the other texts w hich he has hitherto cited in which baptizo occurs, Mr. Parkhurst, a Pedobaptist Lexi- cographer, says, (in Baptizo, )thnt it was used by the 44 jxx. “ for washing oneself by immersion , answer to the Hebrew labal (2'Kin° - s, v. 14.”) and he ad d “ Thus also it id applied in the apocryphal bool{ •Judith, vii, 1 2. and Eccjys, -\.\siv, 25,” LETTER V. £In Answer to Mr, Trotter’s Sixth tsi' Seventh Letters.] it is well known that every instance of self-contra- <1 iction — especially in an able and experienced con- troversialist — and every fallacious argument urged in support of any view, furnishes presumptive evi- dence that the view thus advocated does not rest on a solid basis. Mr. Trotter, after having formerly stated that “ bapiiso means to dip violently, to plunge,” giving an instance from Josephus of its use to denote putting a person under water for the pur- pose of drowning him, and having subsequently stated that Aquihi employed it to denote “ daubing with filth,” now maintains, {Letter vi.) that it means “ to purify.” According to his own representation, he might with equal plausibility maintain that it means either lo drown s>r to daub. So Mr. Thorn repre- sents it as denoting, among many other discordant senses, “ to sweeten — to poison — to cleanse — to pol- lute,” &<\ ( Modern Immersion, p. ]03 — leSb) 45 Doubtless these consequences may result from im- mersing substances in liquids impregnated with dif- ferent ingredients: but this does not in the slightest degree affect the meaning of the word, which in all such cases is evidently immersion. As it was sometimes used with reference to Jewish purifica- ions performed by bathing, so it was also used, not only by Aquila, (Job ix. Sl.)to denote plunging one in filth, but also by the lxx. (Isa. xxi. 4.) to express the effect of sin in plunging one into pollution and misery ; for surely no one could say, Iniquity puri- fies me. Such absurdity constantly attends every futile attempt to force upon the word a meaning which it does not bear, or to evade its only true and proper meaning, namely, to immerse or plunge, which in every instance of its use affords a consistent sense. Not one exception lias been produced. The fallacy of the argument by which Mr. Trotter attempts to represent kalhariza, to purify, and bapiizo and ran- tizo, as being of the same import, is manifest from his own statements ; for he states that raino and ran- iizo mean “ to sprinkle and he elsewhere refers to the obvious fact, that the sprinkling of persons pre- scribed in the law, whether with blood and water, or ashes and water, while it purified in one respect, polluted in another. So far, then, are these terms from being “ convertible,” that, though they may be I used with reference to the same thing, in the rela- tion of cause ami effect, each constantly retains its town proper meaning, Kalliarizo, to purify , never means either to immerse or to sprinkle: neither does ! 46 rantizo, lo sprinkle , ever mean to purify, (any more than it means to pollute,) or to immerse. No real philologist will attempt to gainsay this. It is equally true and evident, that baplizo, lo immerse, neveer means either to purify or to sprinkle. The mode of reasoning, then, adopted in this case by my opponent, though it may at the first view be- wilder the ill informed, cannot fail to shew intelli- gent readers that it is employed because he has no solid arguments on which he can rest his cause. Equally fallacious and flimsy is the argument which he attempts to deduce from his own ground- less conjecture that the Jews expected the Messiah to baptize, from Isa. lii. 15. “ So shall he sprinkle many nations.” As there is here no reference to water, and the construction is widely' different in the Hebrew from that found in texts which relate to sprinkling any liquid upon persons, several Pedo- baptist Hebrew scholars, as Schultens and Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. in Nazah,) translate [this clause, “ So shall he cause many nations to leap,” i. e. for ad- miration, Stc. In accordance with this view, it is rendered in the Sept ungint— which was commonly used by the Jews-—” So shall many nations (lAatma- sontai ) wonder at him.” I ask, moreover, does Mr. Trotter really think that Christ ” purifies” many nations by the literal sprinklingnf water in their-faces by the hands of men ? 1 would choose to rely upon the “ sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. ” With his representation of this subject let the render 47 contrast the following candid anti judicious admis- sion of Dr- Barnes on the text, “ It furnishes no ar- gument for the practice of sprinkling in baptism. It refers to the fact of his purifying or cleansing the nations, and not to the ordinance ot Christian bap- tism.” The same is equally true of Ezekiel xxxvi. 525. “ which” as M r. Trotter himself says, (Letter v i i i . , ) “ is explained'm the context to mean, a new heat l and a new spirit shall be communicated. With respect to Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 33. Mr. Trotter and I are agreed on three points; which may therefore be considered as settled ; viz. 1. That “ these two passages evidently refer to the same custom,” and that buplizo “ must have the same meaning in both.” 2. That the action expressed by baptisontai (ver. 4.) rendered “ wash,” was altoge- ther different from that denoted by nipsonlai(yer. 3) which expresses “washing the hands.” 3. That “ tiie baptism mentioned in the passage was designed for the removal of a ceremonial impurity,” and was performed when the Pharisees “ had been in a crowd,” and “ had run the risk of being polluted.” But there are two points on w hich we are at is- sue ; namely, his positions — 1. That the action ex- pressed hy Laplizontai, rendered “ wash,” (ver- 4.) was not performed by the persons themselves, but by others on them. 2. That this action was “ sprink- ling.” As he is sanguine on each of these points, confidently adducing this use of the word buplizo in support of sprinkling, it is proper that each position be attentively examined. 43 f. Surely I must have perused the whole Bible in five different languages, and studied Hermeneutics in t It e Works of Campbell, Newcome, Ernesti, Horne, Glassies, Sec. to little purpose, if 1 have now to learn from Mr. Trotter, that one is frequently said to do what he employs his agents to do by his authority. But this well ktiown principle, which I had neither occasion nor inclination to conceal, has no connection with the subject It may be fairly presumed that Mr. Trotter has given the most appropriate “ exam- ple” that he could find, to prove that persons may be properly said to do what is done to them by others. And what is it? The case in which our Lord is said to have “ baptized” by the ministry of “ his disciples.” But to have suited his purpose, when Jesus is said to have “ baptized,” it manifest- ly should have meant, that He himself was baptized iiy another. Persons might be said to “ purify them- selves ” when they observed the rites of purification; but they are not said to have sprinkled themselves when the water of purification was “sprinkled up- on” them by others. (Numb. xix. 12, 13, 18, 19.) Moreover, in the last cited verse the person was re- quired, as the concluding part of the purification, to “ bathe himself in water.” Mr. Trotter seems frequently to lose sight of the subject in debate, and to regard it as the question at issue, whichjof us is the better linguist? This is not the point for which I am contending. I beg to as- sure him, however, that he is widely astray in his conjecture — he says, “ Mr. T. has not spoken out on V 40 the subject ” that I M labour under the mistake which no Greek scholar would commit, that what is called the middle voice invariably expresses reflected action, or what one does to himself.” 1 have no “ such peculiar notions about the Greek but have been long aware that there are exceptions to thi 9 general rule. I do not, however, regard baptisont (Mark vii. 4.) as such an exception ; and it belongs to him to prove that it is. But surely if he had not been advocating a cause that labours for support, he who certainly “ has the assurance to appear before the public as a biblical critic,” would not have at- tempted to manintain that “ the passive voice,” without exception, expresses “ what is done by one to another.” If he will turn to the “ first chapter of the Gospel by John,” to which he has referred me,* he will find at verse 22. the passive voice, ( apek - ritlie ) used to denote the action done by the pel son himself— “ He answered:” and at verse 33, ihe # Mr. Trotter’s advice to me to “ read the New Testament [in Greek] from beginning to end,” re- minds me of an old lady who asked me, “ Did you ever read the Book of Lamentations?” 1 have cer- tainly read the Greek “ New Testament from be- ginning to end” at least fourteen times ; and I am accustomed to read some portion of it daily. I have no inteption to retaliate by attempting to lessen Mr. Trotter’s reputation as a scholar ; but 1 am sure that no competent and unprejudiced judge, who at- tentively examines his Letters “ On the meaning of Baptizo,” can possibly regard him as a judicious “ biblical critic.” 50 passive ( slrapheis ,) useil to denote reflected action — “ Jesus turned unquestionably He “ turned” him- self. fn the New Testament the active voice is frequently used, like the middle, to denote what one does to himself; (Matth v. 29. 2 Cor. xiii. 5.) and the truly learned Glassies has laid down his canon of interpretion, “ Passive verbs are sometimes taken actively, sometimes in a neuter sense. ( k ‘ Passiva verba quandoque active, quandoque neutraliter acci- piuntur.” Giassii Philologia Sacra, Lib. Hi. Can. xxiv.) He sustains this by numerous clear examples. (See Acts viii. 14. xiii. 47. Rom. iv. 21. Heb.ix. 27. xii. 2(5. A plain text undoubtedly ought to guide us in de- termining the sense of a parallel text, or word, that is doubtful. But Luke only incidentally adverts to a custom which Mark explains. It is not common fer two verbs to be used together in the middle voice, and one to be taken actively, and the other passively; and, as niptonlai unquestionably denotes that tl'.o Pharisees washed their own hands, so we must n a- turally understand baptizontai, the correspond vg word, in an active, or reflected sense, as de :g that they themselves did the action. It is, moreover, to be noted, that persons cannot be "properly said to bathe themselves, unless they themselves do it ; but they may be said passively, to be bathed, though it i3 done by themselves. So Idederic, a noted Greek critic, cites Mark vii. 4. and Luke ix. SS. in his Lexicon, and defines baplizo in both these texts “ Im - mergo me, i. e. lavor ,” I immerse myself, that is. 1 am bathed. Mr Trotter cannot charge me with “ ignorance for maintaining that the Pharisees themselves did the action denoted by baptizonlai, and that ebaptis - the is to be understood in the same sense, without preferring the same charge equally against a multi- tude of Pedobaptist Scholars, including the Transla- tors of the authorized Version, Tyndale, Luther, the Geneva Translators, Scio, Doddridge, Wesley, and Campbell, who have rendered the word in both texts in this manner. And if persons themselves did the action, as all these maintain, and J have fully- proved, it could not have been “ sprinkling j” for Mr. Trotter and 1 agree that persons were always sprinkled by others, while they bathed themselves. 2. In attempting to maintain that the action de- noted by baptizo in Mark vii. 4. and Luke si. 38. was “ sprinkling,” my opponent, as usual, deals ar5 / and secular uses,” as lie represents; for the “ water pots” for “purification” were manifestly applied to a “secular use.” John ii. 6 — 9. His assertion to the effect “ that one touched by a person who had touched a dead body, was to be sprin- kled,” requires proof. And if this had been the case, the person so polluted would unquestionably have been required also to “ bathe himself in water.’> (Numb. six. 19.) But it is certain that the ordinary cases in which persons became ceremonially defiled by the touch of those ceremonially unclean, had refer- ence to peculiar diseases, or infirmities ; (Lev. sv. 2> 5, 1!, Sic.) and to the touch of such persons those who were in a erovvd would always be liable. In this case no sprinkling was required, but it was always enjoined upon the person so defiled to “bathe himself in water ;” that is, as I have shewn at large in Letter iv. to immerse himself. (Lev.v. 7, 10, 11, 22,27.) That the washing expressed by baptizo in Mark vii. 4. and Luke xi. S3, (compare verse 29, and chap ter viii. 44, 45.) was in accordance with this view, an immersion, or bathing of the whole body, I have given concessions from Grotius, Vatablus, Hederic, and Hammond. To these many similar concessions may be easily added. Scio translates buplizonlai (Mark vii, 4.) “ See bag-nan,” i.e. They bathe them- selves : and Diodati renders it, ‘ Abbiano lavato tulto H corpo” i.e . They have the whole body bathed . — Robinson in defining baptizo, (Gr. Lex.) cites these texts, and gives the ‘sense to bathe.’ He assigns, as a reason why immersion was, as he admits, generally practised liy the Apostles in baptism, the prevalence of bathin'/, ‘according to Oriental habits.’ Benson says, on Mat h vii. 4. “ Gr. baplisontai, bathe them- sclues, as the word probably ought to be rendered (See Lev. xv. 11.)” Williams, in bis Cottage Bible, remarks on the clause — ‘Except they y wash — Gr. bap- tize. Dai'y bathing was, am! is, frequently practised in the East ; and ills probable that all the richer Pharisees had baths on their own premises ; when, therefore, they came from the markets, where they were compelled to mix with Gentiles, and thereby contract ceremonial defilement, they probably bathed before dinner.’ It ' thus appears on examination, that these in- stances of the use of baptizo, like all the other instances cited by Mr. Trotter in favour of sprink- ling, prove to be — both from the nature of the case, and from the concessions of numerous Pedoliap- tist scholars — diametrically opposed to that practice, and decidedly in favour of immersion. I have ex- amined these texts in eighteen versions, nearly all made by Pedobaptists; and have not found one of these versions giving the least degree of countenance to sprinkling. So, that eminently learned Pedo_ baptist, William Greenfield, having examined a great number of versions, including versions in more than twenty different languages, after remarking, tha t ‘ Baptizo appears evidently to exclude the idea of pouring or sprinkling,’ adds, ‘I believe none ever had the hardihood to render baptizo to pour or sprin- 57 How tht-n can any one ‘ have the hardihood’ to practise either of these for baptism, when no one dares so to translate the word ? Or to censure the Baptist Translators in India for rendering it by words signifying to immerse, when the very instan- ces of its use cited in opposition by Mr. Trotter, clearly shew this to be its only proper meaning ? LETTER VI. Hkj [In Answer to Mr. Trotter’s 8th Letter.] It is evidently the duty and interest of every be- liever to yield strict obedience to each ot the Savi- ou ' -sons, rands. To this end he should study the saer 1 ioriptures with diligence and prayerful atten- tion ; and, without preposession, put the mostnatura^ construction upon every sentence and every word. It is painful to me to intimate that even an opponent fails of this in any point : but it is a Divine injunc- tion to “ speak the truth,” though it is always to be done, as I am disposed to do it, “ in love.” In addition to the instances already noticed in. which Mr. Trotter’s system of sprinkling has com- pelled him to put a forced construction on plain texts — an evident proof that his system is unscriptural — the reader’s attention is invited to his remarks on John iii. 23. “John rdso was baptizing in Enon, near 58 to Salim, because there was much water there. 1 ’ He says, (Letter viii.) “ As a free supply of water might have been required for other purposes, his [John’s] making choice of a place for the reason as- signed, will not prove that he practised immersion. When multitudes are assembled in one place, and kept for a time in the open air, exposed to the in- tense heat of the sun, in a country like Palestine, they very soon become afflicted with thirst, unless they have a ready supply of water ; and it may have been chiefly on that account, that John selected such a place as Enon.” If Mr. Trotter should meet with a statement in a modem periodical, that a grist-mill was set in a certain place “because there was much water there,” would he suppose that the water was required, not to work the mill, but for the persons who[might come thither, to drink? When Joshua was directed to “ make sharp knives, and circumcise the children of Israel,” (Joshua V. 2.) does Mr. Trotter imagine that the “sharp knives” were needed for “ other purposes,” and not for circumcis- ing? It is agreed on all hands, that t cater is indis- pensably 'required for baptizing ; but sprinkling does not require “ much water.” When therefore John s said to hare baptized in a certain place — as those who practised immersion frequently do — “ because there was much water there,” it is evident that the place was chosen on account of its affording accom- modations for immersion. So manifest is this, that not’ajfew^minent Pedohaptists have been constrained to admit indistinctly, in direct opposition to thei 1 ' 59 ; own practice. G rotius says, (in PooieV Svnopsis,) “ That the rite was performed by immersion, no: perfusion, both the proper meaning of the word and the places chosen for [administering] iho rite indi- cate, John iii. 23. Acts viii. 38. and many allusions of the Apostles, which cannot he referred to sprink- ling, Rom. vi. 8, 4. Col. ii. 12.” Dr. Doddridge re- marks, “ Nothing surely can be more evident than tha i(pclla hudata)mamj waters, signifies a large quan- tity of water, it being sometimes used lor the Eu- phrates, (Jer. li. IS.) Sept.” Dr. Lightfoot, though a strenuous advocate of sprinkling, admits, “ that the baptism of John was by plunging the hotly, (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes,) seems to appear from the things v.h ieh are related of him; namely, that he baptized in Jordan, and that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there.” (See Dr. A Clarke on Mark xvi. 16.)* * As these Letters will doubtless be read by m any persons who have not access to any of my other writings which relate to this subject, I have deemed it proper, in some instances, to employ the same ar- guments, illustrations, and quotations. I may also here repeat a circumstance connected with the text now considered: — A pious Fedobaptist resident in. Westmoreland, N. B. unwilling that his wife should be immersed, cautiously avoided reading in the fam- ily such passages of Scripture as might direct her thoughts to that subject. One morning, as he has in- formed me, when he sat down to read before prayer, he thought within himself, “ I believe there is not mentionof baptism in the third Chapter of John.” GiJ Mr. Trotter argues that our Lord was not immers- ed, because ilin preposition .apt) does not express out of so certainly as ek does: and be tvonl <• with” by our Translators, does not indicate tha 1 the Translators themselves entertained any doubt that immersion was the mode practised. The us e of the preposition icith in such a case does not mili- tate in the least degree against immersion; but if the preposition en is once correctly rendered in, as itis twice — “in Jordan-— injthe river of Jordan,” (Mat.iii. G- : Mark i . 5. ) this decisively proves that the mode was neither pouring nor sprinkling-, since it is preposterous in the extreme to speak of being poured or sprinkled in a river. I have examined Mark i. 5. in twenty versions, including Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and German, as’ w-ell as English* 65 and in every one of them en Is rendered in, expressing distinctly that the people were baptized “ In the river Jordan.” Indeed, Mr. Trotter has himself selected the preposition en as the most decisive that can be found in the Greek language to denote that immersion was practised. He says of Judith, (No- va Scotian, Nov. 2, 1846.) “ Had the passage meant that she immersed herself, it would have been en te pege ,” that is, in the fountain. Here, "then, he has, in Matth. iii. 6, 11. Mark 1,5. the very form which he has chosen to render it unexceptionably evident, that the people were immersed by John “m Jordan — in water — in the river.” So manifest, in- deed, is it to himself that they were immersed, since reasonable men are not accustomed to go into the water, or to be in a river, for the accomplishment of that which can be done equally as well without, that he has deemed it needful to'attempt an evasion of tho consequence, by alleging, “ Though it were proved that John immersed his disciples — it would not fol- low that the Apostles immersed the converts to Christianity;” maintaining that his ‘baptism was in- ferior to Christian baptism,” and that the Apostles baptized John’s disciples again.” It is not requi- site for me to contest this point ; but Beza and Glas- sius have demonstrated, upon philological princi- ples, from the connection of the parts of the dis- course by the particles men and de, (Acts xix. 4. 5.) that the disciples of John were not baptized again. Calvin maintains the same. So the late Rev. James Monro says, “ There is no essential difference be- 66 Uveen the baptism administered by our Lord’s fore- runner, and that of the Apostles.” He also says, of the opinion that the disciples mentioned Acts xix. 3 — 5. were re-baptized, “ I myself thought so, until considering the words with more attention, and find- ing them to have been originally spoke by John to them who came to be baptized by him, and not by Paul on this occasion, of course, changed my mind.” ( Treatise on Baptism, p. 21, 22.) Mr. Trotter, however, is evidently unable to assign any reason for the suggestion that the action may have been different, which is constantly expressed by the same word. Indeed, according to his own re- presentation, it would seem, if possible, that it is more certain that immersion was practised subsequently, than that it was during John’s ministry: for he says, “If our Saviour had been actually in the water, the proper expression w ould have been anebe ek tou hu- dalos ,” which is precisely the expression used by Luke respecting the Ethiopian, when Philip and he came up out of the water. For a very good reason, lie has not attempted to tell us what Greek verb should have been used to render it certain that im- mersion was practised; but in selecting expressions that should have been connected with the verb, if the people had been immersed, he has chosen the identical expressions that were actually used by the inspired writers, It thus appears evident from his own statements, not only that the sacred penmen employed the most unexceptionable word that the Greek language af- . funis to express immersion appropriately, but also that in describing - the circumstances attendant on the administration of the ordinance, they used the strongest expressions corroborative of the fact, that the first Christians were immersed. The argument is, therefore, cumulative, excluding the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the subject. It is then obvious, tint only that it is justifiable to translate the word baptizo by words that signify to immerse , but also that it is absolutely incumbent on all Transla- tors of the Sacred Scriptures to translate it thus, in accordance with its true and evident import; so that all believers may distinctly understand their duty, in regard to this ordinance, obey the Saviour’s com- mand, and follow His example. LETTER VII. [in answer to mr. tkotter’s 9th letter.] Mr. Trotter commences his ninth Letter by remar- king, “We have no direct or precise information in the New Testament, respecting the manner in which the Apostles administered the rite of baptism, and can only ascertain it by induction and inference.” Seeing, then, that the use of the word in the classics, in .Josephus, &.e., is altogether against his view, it will lie perceived that he is obliged, in opposition to the plain meaning of the word, to rely principally 68 upon circumstanciel proof*. But it has been shewn, that where the circumstances attendant on the ad- ministration of baptism are related, they are all de- cidedly in favour of immersion, and against sprink- ling; such as that it was performed where there “ was much water,” “in the river, ”&,c., that persons “ went down into the water,” “ came up out of the water, ”{ &.c. He is obliged, therefore, to seek his circumstancial proofs from instances in which the circumstances are not related. As he admits in this same Letter that there were immersions under the Law of Moses, remarking, “The priests appear to have being immersed themselves in some of their purifications,” it is not needful for me again to shew the irrelevance of his renewed reference to the sprinklings enjoined in that law; which obviously have no connexion with the subject. What, then, are his circumstancial proofs? 1st. That there is no mention of any inconveni- ence or difficulty” attending - the administration of baptism. But from the facts which have been shewn, it is not to be supposed that any “ inconvenience or difficulty” did attend it. Neither is it common for the inspired writers to mention anything of the kind. When a considerable supply of water was required for a religious purpose, on Mount Carmel, in a time of extreme drought, there is no mention made of any difficulty in obtaining it. (Kings 1. x. viii. 83 — 35.) but the fetching or carrying of water, when, it was conveyed for any purpose, is frequently mentioned in Scripture, as also the ki of vessel in which it 69 was taken, as a boltle, pitcher, crusc, barrel, cup, waler-pnl, basin, «$•<:., (Gen. xviii. 4, xxi. 11, xxii. 43, 1 Sam.xxvi.il, 1 K ings xvii 10, xviii. 33, Mark xiv. 13, John iv.28, xiii. 5.) If, then, sprinkling wastho original mode, as Mr. Trotter maintains, how can he account for it, upon his own principles, that there is no mention of any thing of the kind in connection with the administration of baptism; while, (as he will not pretend to deny,) people are said to have gone to the water for this purpose, and subsequently to have come up from the water. 2. He alleges the difficulty of the immersion «f three thousand at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Cut Mr. Williams, a Pedobaptist Expositor, remarks on the passage, (in hia Cottage Bible, )with reference to the lime, “ When we read of so many being con- verted and baptized on the same day, we must not interpret that day too rigidly; any more than the day in which God made the heavens and the earth, Gen. ii. 4, which we know was six days.” There is no proof that the Apostles were the only administra- tors. With regard to the want of water, the Rev. Mr. Hague expresses his surprise, (Examination, <$-c,, page 24,)that such an objection should be made, since Dr. Robinson’s Work on Palestine, (vol. l.sec. 8, 9.) furnishes a complete answer. He observes, “ The extent of the cisterns, reservoirs, fountains and pools, for all u the purposes of life, seemed truly ama- zing to the Doctor.” So the Rev. Mr. Frey, a con- verted Jew, and good authority, whose words 1 have had occasion to quote before, says, with re- 70 Terence to this instance of baptism, “It was at Jeru- salem, where, besiiles the public conveniencies fo*’ immersion, such as the pools of Bethesda and Si- loam, there were many Mikwaoth, or collections of water in the form of bathing houses,” Sic. (Essays, Sic., p. 105.) Some have imagined that “ the pools of Siloam and Bethesda were one and the same;” but 1 have seen no sufficient reason assigned for this conjecture, which is contrary to Mr. Frey’s state- ment, and to the generally received opinion. Though what “ they call the pool of Bethesda” was “ void of water” when Maundrel visited Jerusalem, in 1797, yet, it was not so in the time of the Apostles; and he says, “ it is one hundred and tw'enty paces long, and forty broad.” He tells ua of another pool called “ Gihon,” [“probably Siloam”, Calmet,] which, he says, was “ well stored with water,” and “ lies about two furlongs west of Bethlehem gate.” He adds, “ It is a stately pool, one hundred and six- paces long, sixty seven broad, ’’(Journey, Sic., p. 91.) These were both near and accessible, (John v. 2, 4, 7, ix. 7, 11.) Each is called in the Greek Ko- lunibethra, a swiming place, and in the ancient •Syriac version, Mamuditho a baptistery — in all pro- bability from their having been frequently used for that purpose. It cannot be reasonably doubted, that among the persons converted a considerable number had bath- ing-houses of their own. Had the baptism of three thousand taken place in Jericho, the same objection would doubtless have 7 ! been made, were it not that Josephus has incidentally mentioned, that a number of persons went to bathe and swim in the “ fish-ponds, of which there were large ones about the house.” That such pools were common in Palestine is manifest from the mention of them in Heshbon, and from Isaiah’s reference to those “ who make sluices and ponds for fish.” (Cant. vii. 4. Isa. xix. 10.) These considerations are surely more than sufficient to obviate this objec- tion, which is founded solely upon conjecture. 3. Mr. Trotter thinks it “ clear from Acts xvi. 25 — 34. that the jailor of Phillippi was baptized in the prison.” It is certain, however that he had previ- ously “ bought them out;” and it is added imme- diately after the account of the baptism “ and when he had brought them into his house, he set meat be- fore them;” (verses SO, 34.) It is evident, therefore, • hat the baptism took place neither in the prison nor in house. “ This case” says Dr. Judson, (Sermon &.c. p. 7.) “ can present no difficulty to the minds of any of you, my brethren, who may have been with- in the the yard of the prison in this city [Calcutta, jor are acquainted with the fact, that prison yards, in in the East, as well as the yards and gardens of pri- vate houses, are usually furnished with tanks of water.” So Mr. Frey says,(p. 105.) “ All who have travelled in the East know, that few large buildings are without tanks of water, or bathing houses; and this is particularly necessary to preserve health in prisons, barracks, &.c-” 4. My opponent says, “Paul appears to have been baptized in a private house,” Stc. and “ in a stand- ing postuie.” But does the giving of a command in a private house, prove that it must have been o- beyed in the house? He admits the correctness of my former remarks, that it is common in Scripture to direct persons to “ arise, in order to go abroad,” and that in Gen. xv. 1. and Joshua i. 2. anaslas is used in the same way as in Acts xx.ii.16. The atten- tive reader will perceive that anastas, properly ren- dered “ stood up,” is not used in precisely the same way in Mark x. iv. CO, Acts i. 15, and v. 34, where it is used in the indicative mood, and simply denotes standing up in order to make a speech. He has ad- duced no instance in which the imperative mood is used, as in Acts xx.ii.16. where the arising is not ma- nifestly in order to go abroad. Moreover, if Paul was baptized “in a standing posture,” it is rather extraordinary that he should have said of himself as well as others, “ We are bu- ried with him by baptism.” Are people buried “Tn a standingposture?” To these considerations it may be added, that, not only does the wotd baplizo prove that Paul was immersed, but also the language con- nected with it perfectly accords with this idea. In Acts xx. i i. 1 6. “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” the word rendered “ wash away,” ( apolousai , from apo and louo, to bathe the whole body,) cannot refer to sprinkling water on the face, but manifestly al- ludes to the immersion of the person in water; as Dr. Doddrige says, “ As the body was by water cleansed from its pollution.” So Stockius, after de- fining baplisma, (or laplismas, of similar import ,) the immersion or dipping of a thing in water , that it may he washed or bathed,” adds, ‘1 Hence it is transferred to sacramental baptism, in which ancient- ly the person to he baptized (in aquam immergeba- /«>',) was immersed into water, that lie might be [fi- guratively] washed from the pollutions of sin.” 5. Mr. Trotter refers to 1 Pet. iii. 21. and Hebrews x. 22. to prove “ that baptism was administered by sprinkling in the days of the Apostles,” But surely the sprinkling of a few drops of water does not bear a very striking resemblance to the flood, to being immured in the ark, nor yet to the resurrection of Christ. Archbishop Leighton, in commenting on tiii' a text, refersjco Rom. vi. 4. and remarks, “ The dipping in the water represents our dying with Christ; and our return thence, our rising with him.’ He observes of Noah “he seems to have rather entered into a grave, as a dead man, than into a safeguard of life, ingoing into the ark; yet, being buried there, he rose again, as it were, in bis coining forth to begin a new world — The waters of baptism are intended as a deluge to drown sin and to save the believer.” So Dr. Macknight, on the text, lefers to “ the burying of the baptized person in the water,” and the raising of him “ out of the water to live a new life.” If Heb. x. 22 refers to baptism, it is obvious that it is not “ Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,” but having “ our bodies washed ( lelou . ■» tacnoi, bathed.) with pure water.” So Dr, Dod- 74 •fridge says, “ Our hearts are sprinkled by the pirri fyiug and cleansing blood of Jesus, ns well as our bodies in baptism washed with pure water, intended to represent our being cleansed from sin.” The bodies” of those who merely have water sprinkled in the face, certainly are not washed or bathed; bat theirs undeniably are who are immersed. 9. As it is not needful for ine to ad vert to Mr.Trot- ter’s remarks on Heb. i»: 14, which has no relation to the subject, I notice in conclusion, his reference to the case of the Ethiopian, which Ire seems to re- gard as one of his best proofs in favour of sprinkling. He says, “ There can be no doubt that the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized at a well, and a well which, unless it has been greatly altered, would not admit i of his being immersed in it.” He adds, “ This Mr. T. [TupperJ evidently admits,” <§c- On this last point Mr. Trotter is egregiously mistaken : Mr. Tup- ver never admitted any such thing. And' since Mr. Trotter has fallen into so great and glaring a mis- take as to state this without the least shadow of foundation for it, may it not be very reasonably ap- prehended that he is quite as far astray in his state- ment, “ that the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized at a well.” How in the name of common sense, did he ascertain this? Did he learn it from “ the infallible word of God,” which he professes to take “ for a guide?” The only authority that can be pretended, is the groundless conjecture of some traveller, whom he does not name. If any man had explored every foot of the extensive region lying between Jerusalem i 75 and Gaza — about sixty miles in a direct line, in which region full maps of Palestine exhibit several towns, and one or two rivers — at this distance of time it could by no means he determined that there was no place in it suitable for immersion eighteen hundred years ago. As Mr. Trotter is aware, and has himself in effect stated, when treating of our Lord’s baptism, that the strongest terms which the Greek language affords are used to express that Philip and the eunuch “ went down (eis) into the water,” and “ came up (eAr) out of the water,” as the words are rendered by Pedobaptist translators generally, as Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva translators, as well as by our authorised translators, the Rhenish, &c., he cannot question these facts. It seems, then, that they both “ went down into” the “ well” for sprinkling. One of his own remarks is evidently applicable here, viz: “ It is always a sign of a bad cause, when im- probable things have to be asserted in support of it.” The same remark is equally true with regard to cavilling, of which we have a notable instance in his closing observations respecting the case of the Ethio- pian: — “Both went down into it [the water] and both came up out of it; and if this means that one was immersed, it means that both were immersed, which no one pretends to believe.” Neither does any one “ pretend to believe” that either to “ go down into the water,” or to “ come up out of the water,” “ means” to immerse; but every one knows that it would be absurd in the extreme to do so if 7o sprinkling were practised, while these things always must he done in connection with immersion. The dilemma in which this case has evidently placed Mr. Trotter, and the extravagant statements and suppositions which it hits compelled him to make, remind me of the manner in which the Rev. Donald McDonald, of Prince Edward Island, has treated it. In his Treatise on Baptism he admits, (p. 162, 163, 173, 256,) that the word baptizo was used, not only by “ heathen authors,” but also “ by the sacred writers,” to denote immersion; and that those baptized by John, including the Saviour, were immersed; but he maintains that on the day of Pen- tecost Christ gave the woid the new meaning “ to pour.” He is, however, constrained to acknowledge (p. 187,) that the Ethiopian was subsequently im- mersed. How, then, does he attempt to evade the evident conclusion, that immersion continued to be practised? By alleging, (p. vii, &. 136,)that this was not Christian baptism, but “ proselyte plunging,” which the prosolvte required before he could be received into Jewish privileges and freedom.” With these pitiable attempts at evasion, to which the advocacy of an untenable system has driven its determined abettors, let the reader compare the following candid admissions of reasonable Pedobap- rists: — Poole’s Continnators say, on Acts viii. 38. <£ In hot countries this was usual, to baptize the tody by dipping it in water; and to this the Apostle al- ludes when he tells the Corinthians, (1 Cor. vi. 11,) ‘‘ that they are washed.” Burkin (in loc .) suggests 77 the same unsatisfactory reason for the change of the mode; for after observing of the Ethiopian, “He went down into the water, and was baptized by Philip,” he adds, “ In those hot countries it was usual to do so.’ 1 Dr. Doddridge remarks on this passage, “Considering how frequently bathing was used in those hot countries, it is not to be wondered that baptism was generally administered by immer- sion, though I see no proof that it was essential to the institution. It would be very unnatural to sup- pose that they went to the water, merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels in his luggage, on such a journey, through so desert a country, a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted by them; see Dr. Shaw’s Travels, Pre- face, p. 4.” it thus appears that the circumstances in this case as in all the cases in which they are recorded, are, even in the judgment of many who have practised sprinkling, strongly corroborative of the fact that the mode originally practised is immersion. So far then, are “ all these particulars together” from “ forming a proof of no slight or doubtful kind, that the Apostles administered baptism by sprinkling,” that even these, on which my opponent is obliged to rest his cause, are evidently quite suffi- cient to prove “ the contrary;” which is not “ taken for granted,” but rests on as clear and certain proof as that eating and drinking are the actions to be 78 performed in receiving the Lord’s Supper; since the words phago and pino do not more unequivocnlly denote these actions, than baptizo does to immerse. LETTER VIII. [In Answer to Mr. Trotter’s 10th Letter.] Mr. Trotter commences his tenth Letter by re- marking c> The Baptists instead of proving that Baptizo retains its classical meaning in the New Testament, always take this for granted,” &c. But ns I take the negative, and he the affirmative, the onus probandi ( burden of proving') obviously rests on him. Instead of calling on me to prove — as I really have done — that baptizo does not denote a different action in the New Testament from that which it denotes in the classics, he is bound to prove that it does. This, however, he has not done, neith- er has he been able, by the most strenuous efforts, to render this theory in the least degree plausible by adducing even a solitary case in any measure par- rallel. (Compare our second Letters.) Supposing that Mr. Trotter’s former series of Letters on this subject was concluded, 1 prepared a Review of them; and, when an additional Letter appeared, I added a Postscript, in which I briefly no- iced his reference to circumstances connected with 79 the administrarion of baptism. It was not from any reluctance to enter minutely into the investigation of numerous texts of Scripture which l consider decid- edly in our favour, but for the sake of brevity, that I remarked, “To conclude briefly, 1 would ask, as I have done elsewhere, should the reader meet with a statement in modern missionary accounts, that a number of people were baptized in a certain place because there was much water there — that they went to the water for baptism — that they were baptized in a river — that they went down into the water — or that they came up out of the water, would he not infer, without hesitation, from any one of these cir- cumstances, that they were undoubtedly immersed ? How, then, can he possibly fail to infer from the express relation of all these circumstances in the Scripture accounts of baptism, that the ordinance was originally administered by immersion? Mr. Trotter manifestly attempts to evade this by saying of the reader, “ He would doubtless come to this conclusion, provided the accounts referred to the proceedings of Baptists; but if they did not refer to the proceedings of Baptists, he would naturally suppose something else.” But l put it to the com- mon sense of the reader, whether he would not, if he had no other intimation respecting the denomina- tion to which the account referred, naturally infer from any one of the circumstances which 1 have ttO mentioned, that the persons baptized on that occa- sion were immersed? Indeed if the reader knew, in such a case as l have represented, that the people ordinarily practised sprinkling, he would not as Mr. Trotter says, “ suppose something else” — he is evi- dently unable to devise what — but would undoubted- ly conclude that some person or persons were im- mersed at that time. I have myself seen a Pedobap- tist Minister and congregation go to the water, Stc., but never — they know better which is the convenient end of the egg — unless they were acting on Baptist principles, and so practising immersion*. Though water was not by any means as scarce in Palestine as some ot our opponents represent, Dent. vii. 7.) it does not thence follow — that there was not in any instance occasion to select a place * 1 have indeed, been informed of a singular case in New Brunswick, in which some persons went to the water and had it poured on them, while some others — driven still further by the plain statements of Scripture — went down into the water, knelt, and had water poured on their heads. It is said that the officiating Minister, on coming out of the water, re- marked, that he verily believed that was precisely the way in which the Saviour was baptized. Being, however, very accommodating, he subsequently either sprinkled or immersed as the people chose. Such a diversity of practice naturally reminds one of what is related of the Israelites at a time in which the Divine law was generally disregarded, when, “There was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges xvii. 6. 81 where there was much water for the immersion of multitudes. The distress of armies for the want of water, of which Mr. Trotter speaks, as being “ at no great distance from Enon,” wasj remote from the land of Judea, between Edom and Moab. whither the armies had gone by “ seven days’ journey,’* “through the wilderness of Edom.” (2 Kings iii. 8, 9, 20, 22.) Mr. Trotter says,*“ When a wordjjadmits of differ- ent senses, we should determine its meaning by fair criticism, in any passage in which it occurs.” True; but what is the result of “fair criticism” with re- ference to eis and enl How are they ordinarily ren- dered in other texts when connected with water , a sea, a river, fyc? Into an in undeniably. (See Ex- odus i. 22. vii. 18. xv. 4, 8, 10. 2 Kings vi. 5. Mark v. 13. John v. 7.) He has himself stated, in the case of Judith that “ en” is the word which should have been used, “ if she had immersed herself.” When however, it is connected with Christian baptism, h e will have it mean “ with;” and when that sense is utterly inadmissible, it must mean “ beside.” For this sense he has adduced only one obscure text, by no means parallel, in which it is doubtful whether i t means “ beside” or in. (See Macknight and Clarke on Heb. ix. 4.) Rev. J. Monro gives 804 instances n the Gospels and the Acts in which en is rendered in; but not one instance in which it is rendered “be- side.” On examining twenty versions, all made by Pedobaptists (unless we should except the ancient 82 Syriac,) I find eis translated in, Mark i. 9. when Jesus is said to have been baptized (eis) “ in Jor- dan,' 3 with only two exceptions; en rendered m Matlh. iii. 6, — “ baptized (en) in Jordan,” with bu: one exception; and en rendered in, Mark i. 5, with- out one single exception — “ baptized by him (en) in the river Jordan.” Is it, then, “ fair criticism” for Mr. Trotter to maintain that en must be rendered either “ with” or “ beside,” as the exigencies of his cause may require, while the latter sense is in direct opposition to his own statement elsewhere, to the primary and usual meaning of the word, to its evi- dent import in parallel texts, and to the unanimous decision of this host of PedobaptUt Translators? No one can gainsay the stubborn fact, that the baptism of persons “ in the river Jordan” is expressed in the sacred original with as much precision and certain- ty as it can be by any words in the Greek language, or indeed in any other language. Must it not, then, be manifest to all considerate persons, that the cause which compels its advocate to attempt the evasion of a fact so plain and certain, ought to be abandoned? It is to be observed, also, that Mr. Trotter does not pretend to account for the fact, which he cannot deny, that the people went to the water for baptism. Certainly, then, it cannot be thought by any, that he met my argument* * The reader will excuse some partial repetition 83 Mr. Trotter’s argument drawn from the customs of the heathen, (Letters 4th and 10th,) is curious enough. From the practice of sprinkling among the heathen, he seems to infer the scriptural authority of sprinkling for baptism; but from the practice of immersion among the heathen, he “ arrives at the conclusion that immersion is not a scriptural, but a heathen observance.” And yet he says in the same Letter, that Tertullian, from whose statement he seems to draw this inference, “states, that the devil imitates the forms of the divine sacraments, in the mysteries. That he immerses some of his trusty servants,” &c. This plainly represents the heathen as having borrowed immersion from the Christians; which is exactly the reverse of Mr. Trotter’s con- clusion. As our Pedobaptisi brethren are accustomed to lay much stress upon the testimony of the Fathers in in these Letters; as they are principally occasioned by the recurrence of the same arguments, objection, &.C., in Mr. Trotter’s different Letters, to which [ reply separately, lam also obliged to repeat the name “Mr. Trotter” frequently; because if 1 used the initial “ Mr. T.” as he does, it might in some cases be uncertain which of us was meant. For in- stance, his remarks concerning the Seventy, with reference to Greek and Hebrew, “ They knew a great deal more about both than Mr. T. does,” is probably intended to refer to Mr. Tupper; but it may be referred to Mr. Trotter, to whom it is doubu less quite us truly applicable. 81 support of the baptism of infants, they cannot con- sistently object to a reference to the same testimony with regard to the mode of baptism. With reference to the statement of Justin Martyr, Professor Stuart, one of the first scholars ill Ameri- ca, is evidenly much better qualified in many res- pects, to form a proper estimate of it than Mr. Trot- ter, who is manifestly determined to carry his point at all hazards. Referring to Justin’s account of the baptism of candidates, (A. D. 140,) in which he says, “ They are led out by us to the ■place where there is watet — ■ leading him who is to be washed to the bath, 4*c. This eminent Fedobaptist justly re- marks, “ I am persuadad, that this passage, as a whole, most naturally refers to immersion; for why, on any other grounds, should the convert, who is to be initiated, go out to the place where there is water ? There would be no need of this if mere sprinkling, or partial affusion only, was customary in the time of Justin.” — -(Biblical Repository, No. x. page 856.) Pie also cites a passage, (page 355,) of a still earlier date, namely, from the “ Pastor of Hennas,” as do likewise Dr. Wall, (Hist. vol. i. page 38,) and Dr. J. VV. D. Gray, (Brief View, &.c., page 241,) in which mention is made of “ the water (in quam ) into which men descend, but,” as Dr. \VaIl translates, come out of it.” Dr. Gray candidly remarks, “ These passages appear to allude to immersion; and if so, would perhaps shew the existence of it at the close of the first century.” J 85 Mr. Trotter himself admits, that “ there cun be no doubt immersion was practised in the time of TertuL lian,” who died iti the year 2520: but he alleges, that many unscripturnl practices had been introduced.* The practice of trine immersion, that is, doing thrice what was at first done but once, was very naturally introduced, as appears from Tertullian’s remarks, from baptizing in the name of each of the Persons of the Trinity. My opponent alleges, that Tertulliun “ believed the three dippings to be according to a divine appointment.” But his copy, if it reads “ non aliquod ,” must be entirely different from mine, as also from those used by Professor Stuart and Dr. Gray. The former remarks, (page 357,) “ Tertul- lian himself, however, seems to have regarded this trine immersion as something superadded to the pre- cepts of the Gospel; for thus he speaks in his hook De Corona Militis, Section 3, “ Thence we are thrice immersed, {ter mergitamur) answering, e. i. fulfilling somewhat more ( amplius aliquid respondentes ) than the Lord has decreed in the Gospel.” Dr. Gray, (page 243,) cites the passage in the same way, and remarks that it “• refers to the trine immersion of the * This statement tends to destroy the argument which Pedobaptists attempt to draw from the testi- mony of the Fathers in favour of the baptism of in- fants: for Tertulliun is the first that mentions it, and that with disapprobation. Neither he nor tiny of the early Fathers asserts that either Christ commanded it, or the Apostles practised it. 86 bn prized , which,” says he, “ Tertullinn himself thinks was going a little beyond the Divine precept.* * The copy of Tertullian’s Works of which a vo- lume is in my possession, was published at Halle, by Sember, and it contains the various readings of dif- ferent editions. There is, however, no various reading- noted on this passage, but it stands thus, (voi. iv. p. 293.) “ Dehinc ter mergitamur , amphus aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in evangelo de- ter minavit that is, “ Then we are immersed three times, fulfilling something more than the Lord has decreed in the Gospel.' 1 ’ 1 do not charge IVir Trotter with having intentionally added the word “ non,” not; but he who accuses others of “ gross falsehood,” “ pious fraud,” “ saying many things at random,” &.C., surely ought to be careful not to build an argu- ment on a glaring misquotation of a passage from a book that is not probably in the possession of one of a thousand of his readers. Even if the word non is found in his copy, “ a man having Mr. T’s pre- tensions.” as he says, ought to know, that it must be a typographical error, as is manifest from the con- text. Tertu Ilian is there justify ing the observance of traditions, or the doing of things not enjoined in the Gospel. Among these he specifies in baptism “renouncing the devil, &c., repeating immersion (ter) three times, then tasting ti mixture of milk and honey,” &.e. In the beginning of the next section he says, “ If you ask for a law of the Scriptures for these and similar observance, (nulh m invenies ) you will find none.” He could, not therefore, have said, either in ti nth or consistency, that the observance of any of these was, as Mr. Trotter has it, “fulfilling nothing more than the Lord has decreed in the Gos- pel.” 87 It appears, then, that Tertullian admitted this to be an unauthorised addition; but he expressly testi- fied that both John and Peter practised immersion. He says, ( Be Baptismo,) “Nor is there any differ- ence of consequence between those whom John im- mersed (tmxit)in the Jordan, or Peter in the Tiber.” Professor Stuart, (357.) after citing the testimonies of Chrysostom and Gregory Nyssan, unequivocally shewing that immersion was the practice in the’ir time, adds, “ But enough. ‘ It is,’ says Augusti, ‘ a thing made out,’ ” viz, the ancient practice of immersion. So indeed all the writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject, conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times, which seems to be more clearly and certainly made out. I can- not see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.” Such is the frank concession of an eminently learned and able Pedobaptist, who had investigated the subject with attention, and with ample means of information* '1 he reader will observe that Mr. Trotter, having, as he tells us, free access to the records of antiquity, is unable to produce the slightest vestige of early historical proof in favour of sprinkling, or even the most remote appearance of allusion to any thing of the kind. Pie can assign no plausible reason for the change of sprinkling into immersion, such as neces- sity, convenience, <$*c. But we can shew from anci- ent authentic documents, w/iy and when immersion first began to be changed into pouring, which subse- ss quently gave place to sprinkling Dr. Gray, speak- ing of the third century, says, (page 244,) “ In th e beginning of this century Navatian — was baptized by affusion, as he lay upon his bed in sickness. In the middle of this century, we have an account of a Roman soldier, who brought a pitcher of water fur St, Lawrence [in prison} to baptize him with.” Here, then, we have in the third century — famous for innovations — the first instances of pouring or sprinkling for baptism, that can he found in all the records of antiquity. The circumstances are dis- tinctly stated, such as “ lying upon a bed,” and “ bringing a pitcher of water;” to which there is nothing in any measure similar mentioned in any account of baptism given in the Bible. The reason also why pouring was substituted for im- mersion in these cases is manifest, namely, because these persons could not be immersed; and baptism was then deemed indispensable in order to salvation. It is plain, however, even from extracts made by Dr. Gray himself, (page 244, 245,) that it was a matter of very serious doubt at that time among the Fathers, whether this change was allowable in any t case, or they were to be regarded as lawful Christi- ans” who had not been immersed. On this question Cyprian gave his opinion with “diffidence,” saying, “ 1 think the Divine benefits are in no degree dimin- ished;” adding, “ In sacred rites performed as ne- cessity dictates, through Divine mercy Divine favour is bestowed on those who sincerely believe.” S9 Cm: any one imagine that if either pouring or sprinkling had been enjoined by the Saviour and practised by the Apostles, it would have been chang- ed into immersion — for which no occasion would arise from emergency, convenience, 8cc., at so early a period, and so universally, that none of the Christi- ans in the middle of the third century could have the slightest knowledge that any thing of the kind was e ver practised ? That such should have been the case is morally impossible. It is an indisputable fact, that all the Greek Church — embracing those Christians to whom the Greek language is vernacular — invariably practise im- mersion to this day. It is also a matter of well au- thenticated history, that the rest of Christendom likewise continued to immerse, except in cases of supposed emergency, till about the beginning of the fourteenth century. This is frankly acknow- ledged by many Pedobaptists who were well acquaint- ed with the subject. Bailey, in his English Dictionary, thus defines the word “ Baptistery,” [Baptisterion, Gr.~\ is either the place or vessel in which persons are baptised. In ancient times this being performed by immersion, the persons so initiated went into a river, Sic., and were plunged; but in the time ot Constantine the Great, Chapels or places on purpose to baptise in were built in great cities, which was performed in the Eastern and warm countries by dipping the per- sons all over; but in process of time in the Western 90 and colder countries sprinkling was substituted in the place of dipping, which [former practice of dipping] was the original of our fonts in Churches.” Sir David Brewster, the learned Editor of the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, (Article Baptism,) says> “ Baptism in the apostolic age was performed by immersion.” O f “ sprinkling” he says, It is proba- ble that it was invented in Africa in the second cen- tury, in favor of Clinics. But it was so far from being approved of by the Church in general, that the Africans themselves did not account it valid. It was not till 1311 that the Legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be in- different. In this country ’’(Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practised, in ordinary cases, till alter the Reformation. The Greek church uni- versally adhere to immersion.” Stackhouse, in his history of the Bible (Vol. iii. p. 20), says “Several authors have shewn, that we no where in Scripture read of any one’s being baptized but by immersion; and from the acts of Councils and ancient rituals, have proved, that this manner of im- mersion continued (as much as possible) for thirteen hundred years after Christ.” It thus appears, not only that the word expressly denotes immersion, and that the circumstances recor- ded, and the allusions made in Scripture, ^exactly accord with this, but also that the most unquestion- able records of history fully prove this to have been the original mode, which is still retained by that part 91 of the Christian world best acquainted with the meaning of the original word, and that it was retained by the whole till a period of comparati vely recent date, when, (as appears from the Rubric of the Church of England) what had been at first permitted, only in cases of necessity, was generally adopted as a matter of convenience. How, then, can any man, in the face of these numerous, clear, and irrefragable proofs, presume to censure the Baptist Missionaries in India for translating baptizo by such words as des-* jgnate immersion ? LETTER IX. [In answer to Mr. Trotter’s 11th Letter.] It is not my intention to give any offence by re- marking— what I presume no well informed man will deny — that the mass of Pedobaptists do not deem it necessary to investigate the subject of baptism, be- cause they rest assured that the great numbers of learned men who have entertained their views could hardly be mistaken. But Mr. Trotter, to evade the arguments drawn from concessions, has sedulously laboured to prove, that c ‘ learned Pedobaptists’’ have often mistaken the meaning of Scripture, and of par- ticular words used by the sacred writers. If Pedobaptists conceive that he has succeeded in 92 Ibis, it is to be hoped that the prop on which many have been accustomed to lean, will be removed, and that they will perceive the necessity of seeing with their own eyes, and judging- for themselves. It might be easily shewn that Mr. Trotter’s stric- tures on Bp. Lowth and Dr. Campbell are quite too censorious ; but it is neither necessary nor consistent for me to follow him so exceedingly far from the sub- ject. Doubtless “ learned Pedobaptists” have sometimes made incorrect remarks. The cases, however,adduced by Mr.Trotter,are by no means in point. Bp. Lowth would be much more liable to make a mistake in re- ference to an historical fact, than he would to admit without reason, that some text of Scripture is deci- dedly against Episcopacy. So likewise Dr. Cam- pbell might fall into an error in supporting a specu- lative hypothesis much more readily than he would commit a like error by incorrectly defining some word in opposition to Presbyterianism. If either of them had done so, it is not to be imagined that learned Episcopalians or Presbyterians would have adopted such concessions without careful examina- tion. Dr. Campbell was not endeavouring to main- tain a favourite theory, hut was acting the part of an honest and judicious critic, when he stated, in pal- pable contradiction to his own practise — that “ the word baplizein both in sacied authors and in classi- cal signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse adding, “ It is always construed suitably to this meaning.” — 93 Neither has Mr. Trotter been able to shew that too much was conceded, by adducing a single exception to the principle hero laid down by this eminent Pcdo- baptist. I do not rely on any instance, (as Mr. Trotter al leges, Letter vii. that I always do.) “upon the unsup- ported assertion of some learned Pedobaptist,” But the concessions of able writers are universally and justly regarded as possessing some degree of weight. It is well known that the prejudice of education, or of any preconceived opinion, frequently leads men to mistake the meaning of texts of Scripture, or words, . by construing them in accordance with their own views. Of this Mr. Trotter’s Letters fnrnish nu- merous plain examples. But men of learning and discernment are not at all likely to understand texts or words in opposition to their own avowed senti- ments and practise, if they are not really so. When therefore, Mr. Trotter and I have differed respecting the meaning of any text, or word, I have deemed it relevant and important to shew, that learned Pedo- baptists were constrained by convincing considerations to understand that text or word in accordance with my view of it, and in opposition to his. The atten- tive reader will observe that 1 have done this with every text adduced by my opponent materially affect- ing the controversy, and every controverted words that has any real connection with the subject in de- bate. This surely ought to convince even Mr. Trot- ter himself, that he is wrong, and 1 am right. 94 It may be asked, How could those who practised sprinkling make such admissions in favour of immer- sion ? In general they appear to have regarded the mode as t unimportant,and to have considered it allow- able to change it, especially in cold climates ; as is evidently intimated in the citations which 1 have given from Burlutt, Doddridge, &-c. So Calvin says, “ Whether the person to be baptized be wholly im- mersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether wa- ter be only poured or sprinkled upon him, ( minimum refer'') is of no consequence. Churches ought to be left at liberty, to act according to the difference of countries. The very word baptize, however, signi- fies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.” (Institutes, B. jv. C. xx. Sect, 19.) Dr. Chalmers likewise says in his Comment on Rom. vi. 3, 4. “ The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion: and though we regard it as a matter of indifference, whe- ther the ordinance so named be performed in this^way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not, that the preva- lent style of administration in the Apostles’ days, was the actual submerging of the whole body under wa- ter.” But those who deem the mode immaterial, as Mr. Trotter manifestly appears to do, certainly cannot object against the versions made by Baptist Mis- sionaries in India with any shew of consistency ;since no plea of inconvenience can bo urged against iin- tnersjon in those warm regions, where bathing is con- tin )■ actiscd for refreshment. War t. , then, inc insistent in the e.\trcme for those who re- gard the inode of baptism ns a matter of indiffer- ence, to sever the bond of union by withholding the funds contributed by Baptists themselves — who were constantly depositing their money in the treasury — from the Versions made by their Missionaries, solely because a word relating to a matter of indifference in their estimation was translated, by honest men, who declared that they could not conscientiously conceal its meaning by leaving it untranslated ? Nothing but strong sectarian feeling could possibly have prompted them to the adoption of such an inconsist- ent course.* It is to he observed, moreover, that some who have practised sprinkling, aware that immersion was the original mode, would have adopted it, had they not * Mr. Trotter himself, ns well as the whole Truro Presbytery, censures “ the British and Foreign Bible Society” for “ lending its aid,” as they allege, “ to the Bible Monopolists in England, to crush Dr. Thomson,” of Coldstream, Scotland, on account of his having procured an extension of the piivilege of printing the Scriptures, and thereby reduced the prices of Bibles: and he recommends to Bible Soci- eties in this Province to get their supplies from Dr. Thomson, and not from that Society. He remarks, “ No human institution is faultless : and neither the constitution nor past history uf that Society are [is] such as to r»Iac e it entirely above suspicion.” See “ Eastern Chronicle,” Feb. 24th and Mar. 255. 96 been home down by opposition. Thus Luther says, ■ l would have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped in the water, as the word does ex- press, and the mystery doth signify.” And Drs. Stoor and Flatt, Lutherans, says, “ It is certainly to be lamented, that Luther was not able to accomplish his wish with regard to the introduc- tion of immersion in baptism, as he had done in the restoration of wine in the Eucharist.” (Hague’s Examination, &.C., p. 24,110.) In like manner the iiev. John Wesley, who remarks in his note on Rom. vi. 4. that the words “ Buried with him by i aptism.” “ Allude to the ancient manner of bap- tizing by immersion,” states in his Journal, Feb. 21, 1730, Mary Welch, aged 11 days, was baptized ac- cording to the custom of the ancient Church, anil the rule of the Church of England, by immersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour .” — Under date of May 5, 1736, he says, “ I was asked to baptize a child of Mr. Parker’s, second bailiff of Savannah. But Mrs. P. told me “ Neither Mr. P. nor I will consent to its being dipped.” If you cer- tify that your child is weak, 1 answered, it will suf- fice, the Rubric says, to pour water upon it. She re- plied, ‘ Nay, the child is not weak : but I am resolv- ed it shall not be dipped.’ “ This argument,” says he, “ I could not confute. So I went home and the child was baptized by another person.” Mr. Wes- ley’s opposers subsequently succeeded in getting him indicted by a majority of the Grand Jury of Savan- Jt nah, August, 1737, upon twelve frivolous charges, the fifth of which was, 14 Refusing to baptize Mr. Par- ker’s child otherwise than by dipping, except the parents would certify it was weak, and not able to bear it.” (Rev. J. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i. p, 191, 198, 228.) “ This argument” it would seem, he <‘ could not confute,” neither could he withstand it ; for I am not aware that he ever attempted to enforce immersion afterwards. From whatever cause it may have proceeded, there have undeniably been great numbers of learned men — men of independent minds, who have not made such concessions because others have done so — who have practised sprinkling, and yet deliberately ad- mitted that immersion was the original mode. Some have made the concession simply from their know- ledge of the meaning of the original words used, — ■ some with reference to the circumstances connected with the administration of the ordinance, and some likewise with a special regard to the plain allusions to immersion in t^e sacred Writings. Of the last named class, the admissionsof numbers have been elicited by their comments on the expres- sion of our Lord, “ 1 have a baptism to be baptized with,” &.c. which evidently denotes the same thing ns that expressed in the Psalms, “ I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me,” and ob- viously refers to the fact that he was about to be plnugod into the deepest sorrows — an idea directly opposed to that of sprinkling. (Ps. Ixx. 2. Matth. xx. 98 22, 23 ; Luke xii. 50.) The celebrated Bezn, who translated the New Testament into Latin, with notes, says, on Luke xii. 50. “ It is a metaphor common in the sacred writings, taken from immersion into wa- ter — to signify very grievous sufferings.” Diodati, who made a translation of the whole Bible into the Italian, with Annotations, remarks on the same text, “ He calieth His suffering and death, which was like to an abyss or deep into which he was plunged, ac- cording to the ancient manner of baptizing.” Rev. Richard Watson, a Wesleyan, though he wrote a- gainst, immersion, was constrained to admit, in his comment on Matth. xx. 22. “ The being immersed and overwhelmed with waters is a frequent meta- phor in all languages, to express the i n-h ofsucessive troubles.” Even Mr. Trotter himself in effect con- cedes that this language of our Lord alludes to im- mersion, for he says, (Letter vii.) “ It is customary to speak of immersion in sufferings.” So very manifest is the allusion to immersion in Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; and Col. ii. 12- “ Buried with Him in baptism,” &,c. and so extremely difficult is it to put any other construction upon the Apostle’s language which can be made, by the utmost efforts < f ingenu- ity, to appear in the least degree plausible, that many Pedobaptist scholars have been compelled to admit distinctly that it unquestionably refers to immersion as the mode originally practised. A sample of these may suffice. Rev. George L. Haydoc a learned Roman Catholic, who published Notes on the Bible, after having admitted, on Matth. iii. 6. that immer- sion was the primitive mode, maintaining that “ the Church” had a right to change it, and alleging that “ the pretended Reformed Churches have likewise altered this primitive custom,” gives this note on Rom. vi. 3, 4. :i The Apostle here alludes to the manner of administration of the sacrament of bap- tism, which was then done by immersion, or plung- ing the person baptized under the water, in which he finds a resemblance of Christ's death and burial un- der ground, and of His resurrection to immortal life.” Rev. A. Clarke, on Col. ii. 12. “Buried with him in baptism,” says, alluding to the immer- sions practised in the case of adults, wherein the person appeared to be buried under the water, as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth. Ilis rising again the third day, and their emerging from the water, was an emblem of the resurrection of the body.” Dr. Albert Barnes, an eminent Presbyterian Expositor, makes the following cautious but full ad- mission on Rom. vi. 4. “ It is altogether probable that the Apostle in this place had allusion to the cus- tom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot, in- deed, be proved, so as to be liable to no objection: hut 1 presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers.” Mr. Trotter has evinced prudence in not referring at all to these texts, since, as Sir David Brewster can- didly admits, (Encyclopedia, in Baptism,) “ When J 0 Paul affirms that we are im ; , i ith Christ in bap- tism, and raised again, he not only alludes t* immer- sion, but upon any other supposition there would be no propriety in the metaphor which he employs.” I remark, in conclusion, that, not only does the whole Greek Church retain immersion, and the Quakers, or Friends, allow this to be the original mode, but this is also admitted generally by learned men of the Church of Rome, of the Lutheran Church, and of the Church of England, (in accordance with their Rubric,) and likewise by great numbers of the first scholars among the different bodies of Dissen- ters that practise sprinkling, I leave it to the read- er to judge whether 1 have not “ brought the matter at once to the test of the Scriptures, shewing by fair and legitimate ci iticism, that the passages which 1 refer to, mean what I assert, and nothing else.” A- ware, however, of the immense power of the preju- dice of education, 1 have shewn, by a few plain quo- tations, — to which I could easily have added many more — that the rendering of the word baptizo by words signifying to immerse, is fully sanctioned by many eminently learned Pedobaptists, of various de- nominations, who have not implicitly followed others in this, but have from personal examination been constrained by their consciences to own, “ that the passages which we refer to, mean what we assert, and nothing else,” namely, that they prove immer- sion to tie the mode practised by the first Preachers of the Gospel of Christ. 101 LETTER X. [In Answer to Mr. Trotter’s 12th Letter.] Mr. Trotter attempts, in conclusion, to justify the Pedobaptist practice of transferring, anil not translating baptizo and baptisma. He has not, how- ever, touched the points in debate between 11 s. I never advocate the making of any change in our au- thorized Version of the Scriptures with reference to the words baptize and baptism, nor any of the words which relate to to the administration of this ordi- nance. It is Mr. Trotter, and not I, who demands .a change of this kind. Aware that the circumstances of the Saviour’s being “ baptized of John in Jor- dan, and straightway coming up out of the water,” and that the converts were baptized “ in the river,” are decisively against sprinkling and in favour of immersion, he cannot abide by the Translation made by his Pedobaptist brethren, but insists that apo, en and eis (Mark i. 10.) should not have been transla- ted as they are, out of and in, but “ from” and “ be- side.'-' But I am content with the Pedobaptist Translation, and willing to abide by it ; since the words which have been plainly and correctly transla- ted, the circumstances mentioned, and the manifest allusions of the sacred writers to immersion, which have overcome the prejudices of many, would, in my opinion, render it evident to all, were it not for 102 the almost invincible prejudice of education, that this was the original mode.* With the heathen, however, and converts just emerging from the darkness of heathenism, the case is evidently different. They are not prepared to in- vestigate the subject in this way: and the words bap - lizo and baptism convey no more idea to them than two Barman words would to an ordinary English reader. If we profess to give them translations of the Scriptures at all, it is obvious that we ought to make them, in all cases, and especially in teference to Divine commands, as plain as possible. Mr. Trotter alleges, in support of l he practice of transferring baptizo, that the inspired writers trans- ferred words, as“ Amen, Hallelujah,” Stc. But it is to be borne in mind, that a great proportion of the * Mrs. G., of Sussex Vale, N. B., informed me that when she was about nine years old, amt had never heard or read any thing in favour of Baptist sentiments, save what she had read in the Bible, heard Dr. M., an Episcopalian, and her mother, who was a Presbyterian, talking together in favour of sprinkling and against immersion. At length she said, “ Mother, it seems to me the people were im- mersed in Scripture times,” “ What,” says her mother, do you know about it,” She replied, “ they were baptized in the river at any rate.” — “ Mark my words” said Dr. M. if this girl be ever converted she will be a Baptist. It is scarcely need- ful to add that the Doctor's prediction was a true one. 103 people for whom the principal parts of the New Testament were at first written, were not“ fastidious Greeks,” hut Jews, who, being acquainted with Sy- riac or Hebrew, probably understood these words better than they understood elegant Greek terms, — Moreover, Mr. Trotter has produced no examples ofthe transferring of n verb, enjoining the perform- ance of a duty. To have given a case in point, he ought to have adduced an instance in which the in- spired writers concealed the meaning of a command of God by the use of barbarous terms, which their leaders could not understand. But they were so far from adopting such a course, that they invariably expressed the import of the Divine statute, and made known the will of God, in the plainest terms. (Deal, xxvii. 8 ; Hab. ii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 9,11,19.) When many of the Jews, having been born in Chal- dea, knew the Chaldee Inuguage only, Eyra and hia coadjutors “ read in the book of the law of God dis- tinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to un- derstand the leadings.” (Nell. viii. 8.) Moreover, Mr. Trotter’s argument is utterly overturned by his own statement ; for he maintains that our Lord used the Syriac word “ Amad,”* which the inspired wri- * In addition to the decisive proofs adduced, Let- ter i., that in the Syriac version the words Jlmad and Mamuditho are used to denote immersion, it may be noticed here, that where we read “ were enlight- ened,” Heb. vi. 4, the Syriac is L'mcimuditho neche- thu, which Tremellius, a Pedobuptist Translator ters translated by the Greek word “ baptize”: whence it follows, that we have the authority of Di- vine inspiration for translating, and not transferring, the term employed to designate the first act of Chrst- ian obedience. The charge of inconsistency which he prefers against the Baptists for using such words as “ angel,” “ apostle,” &.C., is equally groundless. He knows that the Baptists did not make the com- mon English Version. Besides, we have no objec- tion to the use of such Greek words as have been a- dopted into any language, provided they convey dis- tinct and correct ideas to those who understand that language only. Any terms are unobjectionable, if, as he says, we cannot “ find terms equally suitable.” The rule adopted by the Baptist Translators in In- dia is “ to endeavour by earnest prayer, and diligent study, to ascertain the exact meaning of the original text ; and to express that meaning as exactly as the nature of the language into which they translate the Bible, will permit; and to transfer no words that are capable of being literally translated.” Whether it appears more like “ practising a pious fraud” to translate every word faithfully and plainly, or to conceal the meaning of certain words by nontransla* tion, because they cannot be translated in accordance with the practce of some concerned, let the reader renders “ Jld baptismum descenderunl,' >, have gone down to baptism ; and in a Note he assigns this rea- son for the Syriac form of expression, “ Nam im- mergebantur aquis ,” i. e. For they [the persons bap- tized] were immersed in the waters. 305 judge. Mr. Trotter has adduced no instances in* which this rule has not been impartially and strictly observed by Baptist Translators. If, then, their versions are faithfully and correctly made, according to this principle, which must commend itself to every candid mind, it is evidently the height of injustice to call them “ sectarian.” That Drs. Carey, Marsh- man, Yates, and their colleagues — men of unques- tionable moral integrity, and excellent scholarship — executed their work faithfully, will not be question- ed by every man who forms a correct estimate of their characters. The committee of the British St Foreign Bible Society, speaking of “the excel- lent Dr. Carey,” “ expresses their long cherished admiration of his talents, and hi3 piety:” and re- marks with reference to translating the Scriptures into the languages of India, “ For this arduous un- dertaking lie was qualified in an extraordinary de - gree,” Report, 1835, p. 61. 62.) The learned Dr. Buchanan, (in his Christian Researches,) calls Drs. Carey and Marshman, “ two men whose names will probably go down to the latest posterity, as faith- ful Translators of the Holy Scriptures.” The Rev. John Angell James, a worthy Pedobaptist, says, “ The |Baptists — could boast of sueh venerated names as those of Dr. Carey, Marshman, and Ward,” and that the denomination has done as much as nearly all others, to furnish, by their trans- lations of the Scriptures, the elements of life, and 106 the lamp of Salvation, to the teeming nations of Hindostan.” (Essays on Christian Union, p. 190.) Even Mr. Trotter himself, as I have shewn in my first Letter, is constrained to commend “ the spirit of these Translators. That they have translated the word baplizo cor- rectly has, 1 humbly trust, been sufficiently evinced in these Letters. Mr. Trotter’s titter failure to pro- duce even a solotary instance to the contrary, must itself be quite sufficient to convince any unprejudiced man, that the word literally signifies neither more nor less than to immerse , as they have rendered it, in exact accordance with the invariable views and practice of all those Christians whose native lan- guage is Greek. It is sustained by the concurrent judgment and testimony, as Professor Stuart con- cedes, of “ all Lexicographers md critici of any note.” I have myself examined at least fifteen Greek Lexicons, published by Pedobaptists ; and in every one of them Baplizo is defined to immerse ; but in not one of them is it defined either to pour or to sprinkle. Mr. Trotter himself owns, (Letter I.) that he “ does not pretend that baplizo means to sprinkle,” and he admitted in his former Letters that it ct means to plunge.” How, then, can he call that rendering “ sectarian” which, by his own admission as well as that of numerous other Pedobaptists, is certainly correct. I am not aware that this has ever been denied by the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible So- 107 ciety ; who, as I haveshewn elsewhere, circulated other versions in which baptizo is translated in the same manneiyas the German ( taufen ) Dutch ( dio- pen ) &c. which signify to dip. Mr. Trotter has acted prudently in not attempting in these Letters to controvert this fact ; nor yet to account for the strange anomaly in the conduct of that Committee in rejecting versions that are undeniably correct, and still freely disseminating Roman Catholic versions, which enjoins penance and countenauces idolatry. — It is not upon “ sectarian” grounds, but upon prin- ciple, that we object altogether to the transferring of any words that are capable of being literally trans- lated.. It is well known to be a measure to which men are accustomed to have recourse in order to shield a sentiment or practice which is opposed to the plain meaning of the word of God. The Translators of the authorized English Version expressly state, in their preface, that it was thus employed by the Ro- man Catholics “ of purpose to darken the sense.” — I So those who deny the eternal punishment of the ungodly, aware that the word aionios cannot be translated without condemning their system, insist that it shall be transferred; alleging, as Mr. Trotter does concerning baptizo , “ that there is no word in English which exactly conveys the idea of the origi- nal aionios”-. and so they read. “These shall go away into aioriian punishment,” £c. Will orthodox Pedobaptists consent that this word shall be trails- 108 furred in this manner in versions given to the nations of the East, and so the fact be eoncealed from them, that the impenitent will suffer everlasting punish- ment? They cannot consistently object to it, so long as thoy coetinue to act on . the same principle by transferring Baptizo. Let this word, then, which is as susceptible of a literal translation as aionios , be plainly translated. If translators conscientiously be- lieve that it means to pour or to sprinkle, let them translate it by words that denote pouring or sprink- ling. But here is the dilemma in which our Pedo- baptist brethren are placed: — They cannot bear to relinquish sprinkling, and yet they cannot find scho- lars who will adventure to translate the wor.l in ac- cordance with their practice. The only alternative, therefore, is, to keep the meaning of the word lock- ed up in obscurity. We are willing to co-operate with them, as we did prior to the passing of the Resoluion in 1833, up- on the principle of allowing mutual liberty of con- science to translators. So long as they refuse to do this, we surely ought to be allowed to labour by ourselves in furnishing the destitute with the bread of life, without being assailed with censures and re- buffs, either from the pulpit the platform, or the press. Christianity should not be disgraced, and it', progress retarded, by needless acrimonious conten- tions among those who profess to love it, and to be striving to aitl in promoting its universal diffusion. 109 All Bible Societies, both the British and Foreign, end those that on different accounts are separate from it, as the Edinburgh, the Trinitarian, and the American and Foreign, should regard each other, not as rivals or antagonists, but as allies and coadju- tors in the great and glorious work of disseminating the sacred Oracles ot the living God to earth's re- motest bounds. I shall now close these Letters with a few general remarks on that series of Letters which has called them forth. 1, Attentive readers of controversy need not bo told, that the disputant who has a good supply of ir- refragable arguments, usually remains calm, and treats his opponent in a respectful manner; while he whose arguments are exhausted and refuted, feels disposed to rail, and readily avails himself of the slightest pretext to “ relieve him,” as Mr. Trotter says of himself, “ from any farther obligation to ob- serve the rules of decorum.” Unable to find in any of my communications one single harsh or uncour- teous expression he professes to take umbrage at a harmless question, asked civilly and in good na- ture, and hence claims the privilege of charging me unceremoniously with “ ignorance,” “ unfairness,” 4t abetting falsehood,”* &c. 1 entreat my friends, * Mr. Trotter charges me with cc abetting false- hood” because I have not “ abetted his charge a- no however, — autl I set them the example — not to en- tertain any unkind feeling toward Mr. Trotter — and gainst Dr. Wnrlay of having publicly told a gross falsehood,” Paul says, “ against an elder receive not an accusation, but before tvvo^or three witnes- ses.” (I Tim. v. 19.) Mr. Trotter, however, “ re- ceives” reiterates this very serious “ accusation a- gninst an elder” — whose long continued high moral standing, both in Europe and America, renders it utterly incredible that he should have intentionally uttered an untruth — on the vague statement of one of his opponents, who represents him as having de- nied Henderson to be a classical scholar, or compe- tent to judge in the case.” Whatever mistake or misunderstanding there may have been, J have no intention to intimate that any person designed to tell a falsehood; but the only man with whom 1 have conversed on the subject who was present — an un- 1 exceptionable witness, whose name lean give, if needful — understood Dr. Warlay as stating, that Dr. Henderson had not the advantage of a regular collegiate education, but admitting that his attain- ments as a linguist were highly respectable; though he denied he was a safe guide in profound philolo- gical inquiries, &.c, and remarked, that his argu- ments on the subject of baptism had been examined , and refuted. 1 do not know from any other source, whether Dr. ! Henderson received a regular collegiate education, q or not; but his Letter, “ On the meaning of Baptizo. & c., with the learned Mr. Goth’s “ Examination,” Sic. renders it evident to me, that in this subject he is far from being a safe guide. So Dr. Carson ceri .1 tainly thought; since he is said to have entitled his j, R-eviews, “ lucompetency of Dr. Henderson as an Ill certainly not toward other Pedobaptista— ‘on account ofhia censorious expressions; but to attribute them to the untenahleness of his position It may be pre- sumed that he would not have represented any of my arguments as evincing a want of “ moral recti- tude,” if he could have refuted them. To unpre- judiced readers it cannot be otherwise than appar- ant, that I have not said “ many things,” nor yet one thing, “ at random,” to gain the “ victory;” but that my statements in defence of truth and equity, have been made deliberately and on solid grounds; since Mr. Trotter has not been able to show one of them to be incorrect. Neither can it escape the notice of such readers, that, though he promised, with reference to “ learned Pedobaptists” “ to shew that I had, either from ignorance or design, completely misrepresented some of these,” yet he has not adduced a single instance of the kind. If he could have done this, he might very easily have re- served space, by “condensing” his superfluous La- tin quotations from Virgil, Tertullian,* &c. umpire on the Philology of the word Baptism, prov- ed from the unsoundness and extravagance of the principles of interpretation implied in his Letter to Dr. Henderson, with reference to that question.” * I cvuld easily have quoted as much Latin from these Authors; but l have taken pains to avoid per- plexing the English reader by unnecessary quota- tions in other languages: and where the introductio-a 112 2. There are four other marks by which it inny usually be ascertained that a writer is advocating an unscriptural system: — 1. He is obliged to put an forced and unnatural construction on some plain text. 2. He adduces obscure passages, and such as have no relation to the subject, in support of his view. 3. He is under the necessity of proposing corrections of the authorized Translation, in order to render certain texts more favourable to his own system. 4. He does not keep closely to the point in debate, but makes frequent and wide digressions, ex- patiating on matters that have little or no connec- tion with it. The reader who has attentively ex- amined Mr. Trotter’s Letters, does not require to be informed that the marks of these advocacy of an unscriptural view are conspicuous in them. They are manifest in his remarks on numerous texts, (as 2 Kings v. 14; Job ix. 31; Isa. lii. 15; Mark i. 5,9,10; John iii. 23; Acts viii. 35, 38; 1 Cor. jxv. 29; |Heb. lx. 4, 10, &c.,) in his strictures on Dr. Campbell — whom he accuses of “ jugglery” — and in his lengih- of such words has been unavoidable, 1 have been careful to render the whole as plain as possible by subjoining translations. As to Mr. Trotter’s chargeof “ ignorance” of languages, I am ready and willing . to be examined with him before any competent judg- es, and to let them say which of ns can translatei a chapter 6ut of the greater number of languages. 113 ened dissertations on the customs of the heathen, &c. 3. Mr. Trotter appears to be generally regarded ns one of the most learned Pedobaptist ministers in Nova Scotia; he has certainly long had experience in controversy, in which he is considered a champi- on: and he informs us in the “Advertisement” to his Letters in pamphlet form, that he “ paid par- ticular attention to the subject discussed in them, in his younger years, and they exhibit the result or his inquiry respecting it.” Unlike my other opponents, he has manifestly come to the point at issue, and published a series of twelve letters “ on the meaning of Baptizo.” to prove that the Baptist Translators in India have done wrong in translating this word by words signi- fying to immerse. But what has he done? He says, (Letter I.) “ I do not pretend that baptizo means to sprinkle.” He admits that in the classics it signi- fies to immerse ; but endeavours to “ maintain that the Jews changed its meaning,” and promises, (Let- ter II.) to “ make it certain.” He has not, how- ever, rendered this in the least degree probable; since he has not adduced a solitary case in any measure parrallel. He has, indeed, “ made it cer- tain” that the Jews did not change the meaning of baptizo-, since he has shown, (in his former Letters) that Josephus, who was a Jew, used it express- ly to denote plunging a person under water. As be 1J4 has not been able to produce even one instance in which the word is used literally to signify either more or less than to immerse, while the circumstan- ces recoiled, and the allusions made in Scripture, plainly corroborate this sense, it must surely be ap- parent to every person who is not, as Mr. Trotter says, “ a thorough-going nnd determined partisan,’ that his laborious attempts to shew it to be wrong to translate the word as our Missionaries do, has prov- ed a signal failure. It affords me sincere pleasure to notice, in the conclusion of Mr. 'I' rotter’s Letters, one generous and friendly remark, namely, “ There are men of principle among the Baptists.” This I most cordi- ally reciprocate. Among the Pedohaptists I have ma ny worthy friends, whom I highly esteem. Should tiny of these think that I have in any instance, used severity, l beg to assure them that nothing of the kind has been intended by me; though I have de- signed to use great'plainness in all cases. Some may imagine, also, that I, and other Baptists, attach too much importance to baptism; but such is not the case; 1 do, indeed, regard it as important that every command of God should be strictly obeyed: but I am well aware that baptism, however scripturally administered, will not be of the least avail where the heart is not renewed by Divine grace. The point, however, in debate between Mr. Trot- ter and myself, is a practical question of vast mo- 115 ment. If the versions made by Baptist Missionaries in India, which he and my other opponents con- demn, and for the supporting of which they have put me on the defensive, be not countenanced and sustained, great numbers of the perishing heathen, into whose languages no o ther versions are made, must long remain utterly destitute of the holy Scrip- tures, which are able to make them wise unto sal- vation. I should therefore consider myself guilty ofa gross dereliction of imperative duty, ifl had not exposed and refuted the groundless objections sedulously ruised agninst these versions, which might otherwise tend to withhold the lamp of life, now lighted, from those who are “ sitting in the region and shadow of death,” and to snatch the cup of sal- vation, now reached forth, from t lie lips parching with thirst for “ the water of life.” Yours, Respectfully, CHARLES TUPPER. Amherst, 1S48. ERRATA." iC S3, “ 22, for CC cc 41, “ 22, “ 4 C Synopses. Cl 42, “ 26, “ CC (( 43, “ 10, “ CC cc 50, “ 6, “ cc 1C 52, “ 30, “ cc cc 58, “ 26, « cc IS 68, “ 13, “ cc It CC CC 31, « cc it 71, “ 18, “ cc cc 86, “ 5, ” cc «c 88, “ 3, “ cc 14 93, “ 27, “ cc cc 96, “ 5, cc cc 100, “ I, “ cc cc 101 , “ 5, « cc cc 102, “ 8, » cc ft 103, “ 14, “ cc cc 107, “ 1, “ cc ft (C CC 3, » cc St cc cc 10, “ cc — countenance. cc 108, “ 25, “ “ any,” “ my. “ Pool Synop.»e‘.” Poole’s naturnal,” “ eternal. Knatihbull,” Knalchbull. his,” “ this. Mason.” Watson. practised,” practise , ki,” kiwi. in the house. says,” say. circulated circulate. diopen,” doopcen. enjoins— counten aces,” enjoin * Such typographical errors as do not affect the sense, but only the spelling, the punctuation, Stc. together with the occasional omission, addition, or inversion of a letter, can, in general, be easily cor- rected by the reader without Errata. Jf.