This is a point, however, respecting which you cannot be expected to form a satisfactory opinion, and I have mentioned the matter merely to show the present state of the controversy; as also that you may have an opportunity of comparing and contrasting the conclusion publicly maintained by the latest writer on the subject, with Mr. -'s statement. That the latter is calculated seriously to mislead the unlearned reader, I think I am warranted in affirming; for I have no hesitation in saying, it is grossly erroneous, and wholly incapable of proof.

But I have dwelt too long, I am aware, on the points of criticism, to which I have adverted in this letter, seeing you cannot feel much interest in the discussion; and I shall conclude at present, by reminding you, that no person ought to be deterred from carefully and conscientiously examining this important question, on account of its appearing to hinge on the meaning of a Greek word, of which, he does not feel himself competent to judge. There is other evidence, and that of a nature of which every one can judge, amply sufficient to satisfy the honest inquirer, whose object is, to ascertain and follow truth and it ought to be remembered, that every man, whether he be of this class of inquirers or not, is responsible for interpreting this evidence correctly.

:

On some points of evidence of this kind, I shall submit a few remarks in my next.

LETTER II.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Whether baptism be immersion or

sprinkling, is to be determined chiefly, though not wholly, by ascertaining the meaning of the original term.

A person

Those who are

acquainted with Greek, forms his judgment by consulting the language for himself; an unlearned man by the best evidence he can obtain from the testimony of others. unacquainted with the language, however, have evidence within their own reach, which, of itself, would on other subjects be deemed quite decisive.

That native Greeks must understand their own language better than foreigners, every one will admit. The Greek Fathers must, accordingly, be supposed to have interpreted their mother tongue quite as accurately as any pædobaptist modern critic, or any existing religious community whatever. Now, it is their unanimous testimony, that baptizó signifies dipping, and it is matter of history, that Greek Christians have always understood the word in this sense; and have baptized by immersion from their first embracing Christianity to the present time. Seeing then, that the original word has never been translated into *English, those Christians who, without understanding Greek, baptize by immersion, have this

*The English translators were directed by King James, to retain the old ecclesiastical words, of which baptism was one.

safe ground of action, that they are interpreting the word precisely as the Greeks themselves have always interpreted it.

Every one, too, must perceive, that when our Lord directed the apostles to Go-baptize,' he spoke as a legislator, and delivered a divine law. That the apostles could have had any difficulty in understanding what this law was, it would be an impious reflection on the lawgiver's wisdom, to suppose. We cannot, accordingly, conceive, that of three actions, so obviously dissimilar, as pouring, sprinkling, and immersing, any but one could have been enjoined. Now when the unlearned reader is informed, that there are two Greek words, of frequent occurrence in the sacred volume, uniformly used to express respectively to sprinkle, and to pour, it is surely natural for him to expect, if either of these actions had been enjoined, that he should find one or other of these two words employed. If sprinkling were enjoined, for instance, he will expect to find the term rantizó, as we find it used in Heb. ix. 13, 19. x. 22. xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2.

*

If pouring were the as occurs in Luke x. Or, if the action enjoined

cheó,

action, he will expect to find 34, Acts ii. 17, 33. x. 45. had, as some maintain, been washing in general without reference to mode, he will naturally expect the occurrence of some appropriate term, such as luo, in Acts xvi. 33. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 2 Pet. ii. 22; or niptó, as in John xiii. 6, 10. Matt. xv. 2. xxvii. 24; or plunó, as in Luke v. 2. Now, as the term that is employed is expressive, neither of sprinkling nor of pouring, nor of every mode of washing, but only of dipping or immersing; and as pædobaptists themselves concede, that the term in question properly, and currently, signifies to immerse, what other conclusion can the reader,

* Xew or Xuw. The compounds εκχέω, εκχύνω, and others also occur.

whether he be unlearned or otherwise, deduce than this, that immersion must have been the action enjoined.

Had baptizô been properly translated into English, as other Greek words usually are, the unlearned reader would have had no difficulty in ascertaining the true nature of the divine ordinance and that the English translators, had they been less under the influence of political restraint and ecclesiastical prejudice, would have translated it immerse, is manifest from their rendering the primitive word baptó, in every instance of its occurrence in the new Testament, by the word dip. See Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20; Luke xvi. 24; John xiii. 26; Rev. xix. 13.

That the Greek language is sufficiently copious to express the different actions of dipping, sprinkling, and pouring, in appropriate terms, is unequivocally shown by all these terms occurring occasionally in the same context. Thus, in the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures, we find in Lev. iv. 6, 7. the three words in question, within the compass of two verses; and all distinguished as expressive of three successive actions to be performed with the same thing. 'And the Priest shall dip (bapsei) his finger in the blood, and sprinkle (prosranei) of the blood seven times before the Lord, and before the veil of the sanctuary:-and shall pour out (ekcheei) all the blood of the bullock, at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering.'

But which of the three actions mentioned is really enjoined, may, by the unlearned reader, be further ascertained, by his substituting each, in turn, for the original word baptize, in every instance of its occurrence in the English translation. Thus, for example, if we make the experiment on pour; we must read, Jesus was poured of John in or into Jordan.' Repent and be poured every one of you.' Or, if we try sprinkle; we must read, 'John was sprinkling in Enon, near

to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came

and were sprinkled.' sprinkling into death.'

Now, on the other hand, if we em

ploy in these passages, or in any other passage whatever in which baptizó occurs, the word immerse, the sense is uniformly dignified and perfectly proper. In addition to this, it is obvious from the term baptizing being connected with the particles in and into, and from baptism being always expressed as performed in or into something, that it cannot be either pouring or sprinkling, but only immersion that is enjoined. We cannot read, for instance, that John sprinkled, or poured, in or into the river Jordan.*

Nor does it require a knowledge of Greek to perceive, that when we read so frequently of the Jewish people being baptized by John, in the river Jordan; or that John was baptizing at a particular place, because there was much water there, (or, Imany waters,' the change is not material) that such statements are reconcileable with immersion, but not with sprinkling or pouring. It would be incredible, for instance, were a modern historian to narrate, that a clergyman of this town went, with several of his congregation, to Liverpool, to sprinkle or pour infants in the Mersey; or, that he frequently went there to sprinkle, because there was a large quantity of water,' or 'many waters there! Mr. says, 'it is evident

*The prepositions en (in) and eis (into) in some cases signify with and at; but in this connexion, they must obviously be understood in their usual sense.

+ 'Nothing can be more evident,' says the 'candid Doddrige,' 'than that polla udata signifies a large quantity of water.-Dodd. Fam. Expos. in loc.

'Since sprinkling came into fashion,' says Robinson, criticism unheard of in all former ages, hath endeavoured to derive evidence for scarcity of water from the Greek text of the Evangelist John, and to render polla udata, not much water but many waters; and then, by an ingenious supposition, to infer that many waters signifies, not many waters collected into one, but waters parted into many little rills, which might all serve for sprinkling, but could not any one