To say that people would never have made any question about the mode of baptism if the word had only been translated immerse, is only to say that if the word had been improperly translated, the people would have been misled. There is no reason in the world, that I know of, for thinking that our translators were either ignorant or dishonest in this matter. Had they not turned Baptizo into an English word, they must have expressed it by a circumlocution that would have amounted to a gloss, rather than a translation, or they must have coined a new word for the purpose.

Besides, while so large a part of the learned world fully believe that Baptism in the New Testament often signified an application of water which was performed by sprinkling or by pouring; how could we have a Bible in which all denominations may agree, if we insist upon translating the word Baptize either by "immerse," by pour," or by "sprinkle?" Were there no other reason, this would be sufficient for adopting the original word, instead of translating it by either.

And yet, our Baptist brethren have broken off from the national Bible Society, for the very reason that it will not be thus instrumental in putting forth to the world a sectarian Bible! They have a denominational Bible Society, entitled the " American and Foreign Bible Society," which issues its foreign translations on the principle of substituting the word immerse for baptize : and by their notes at the beginning of the New Testament they have, in effect, done the same for the English translation with how little reason, I have shown.

I say not this out of disrespect or fault-finding. The right of conscience and of private judgment is theirs.

Most freely, with no disturbance or complaint on our part, let them enjoy it. I only aim to point out, what I consider the error of the principle. Whether I have succeeded, you will judge. We impeach not their integrity in the least. Would that our integrity in this matter, and our rights of conscience and of private judgment, might be equally respected. But it is with no less grief than astonishment, that I read in the papers the last month, the following "Resolution" of the " American and Foreign Bible Society" at their anniversary on the 28th of April of the present year.*

"Resolved, that by the fact, that the nations of the earth must now look to the BAPTIST DENOMINATION ALONE FOR FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS OF THE WORD OF GOD, a responsibility is imposed upon them, demanding for its full discharge, an unwonted degree of union, of devotion, and of strenuous and persevering effort throughout the entire body."

That our Baptist brethren mean to be faithful in translating the word of God, we doubt not. But are we to believe that all the missionaries of Protestant Christendom throughout the world, save "the Baptist denomination alone," have given to the poor heathen unfaithful translations of the word of God? Can no "faithful translation" come from any denomination on earth save one ?†

* It was moved by Prof. Eaton, of Hamilton Institute, and seconded by Rev. Mr. Malcom.

In the report of the Am. and For. Bible Society, for 1840 (p. 39), the translations made by all other denominations are stigmatized as "Versions in which the real meanings of ... words, are PURPOSELY KEPT OUT OF SIGHT:"...so that "Baptists cannot circulate faithful versions... unless they print them at their own expense." They ask (p. 40)," Shall we look on unconcernedly

Are "the nations of the earth," according to the tenor of this resolution, dependent on "the Baptist denomination alone" for this?

Having remarked so far upon the principles of interpretation, I come now to make an application of those principles to the mode of arguing adopted by our Baptist brethren.

while unfaithful versions (as we hold them) are circulated." They assert (p. 45), "It is known that the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society, have virtually COMBINED to OBSCURE at least a part of Divine Revelation:"-and that "these societies. . . continue to circulate versions of the Bible, unfaithful, at least so far as the subject of baptism is concerned; and that they are by this means propagating their peculiar sentiments under the auspices, and at the expense of the millions of all denominations who contribute to their funds; and who are thus made the unconscious instruments of diffusing the opinions of a party, instead of the uncorrupted word of Jehovah.".

This last paragraph is not less remarkable for its deliberate charge of dishonesty upon all other denominations than for its singular admission of that, which if it be a fact,—it seems to me,— is fatal to the immersion scheme. The allegation is, that to transfer baptizo into BAPTIZE, instead of rendering it by the word Immerse, is to "propagate the peculiar sentiments" of Pædo-baptists. That is, the word baptizo is so used in the New Testament, as almost without fail to lead those who learn its meaning from the Bible alone to conclude that it does not, in the Bible, mean immersion and if you leave people to learn its meaning from the context for themselves, you "propagate the peculiar sentiments” of Pædo-baptists among them! Nay, the same effect will be produced when such a Bible is given by Baptist hands, and accompanied by Baptist instructions! If Baptists circulate such a version, they "are thus made the unconscious instruments of diffusing the opinions" of the "party"—of Pædo-baptists!

I believe it. It is even so. But the conclusion is (and the objection of our Baptist brethren unwittingly adopts this very

It was first attempted to prove that Baptize means exclusively to immerse, from the etymology of the word. Baptize is truly a derivative from Bapto: and the primitive meaning of Bapto is to " dip," or to " immerse." It was contended that it always means to immerse. This was long urged and most strenuously insisted on as the foundation of the Baptist argument-that Bapto means nothing but to dip or immerse.

But upon examination it was found, that the meaning of Bapto had undergone important changes; that it often meant only to color, from an allusion simply to the known EFFECT of dipping, and not to the ACT of dipping: and so it is often used, in instances where dipping is wholly out of the question. Thus Hippocrates says of a certain liquid, that when it drops upon the garments, they are "Bapto'd;" or stained. They are Bapto'd, by DROPPING the liquid upon them.*

So Homer, speaking of a battle of frogs and mice on the borders of the lake says (εβαπτετο ἅιματι λιμνη) "The lake was Bapto'd with blood." Says President Edward Beecher,† "On this there was once a battle royal to prove that it could be proper to speak of dipping a lake into the blood of a mouse: and all the powers of rhetoric were put in requisition to justify the

conclusion as its basis), that the word baptizo, as it is used in the New Testament, does not mean immerse; and will not be so understood by those who judge of its meaning by its use in the sacred writings. But to insinuate that Pædo-baptists mean to "corrupt the word of Jehovah," or "to diffuse the opinions of a party," instead of the "uncorrupted" word of God, by so transferring the word, is, methinks, too gross a calumny to gain credit.

* Carson, p 60.

† Am. Bib. Repos., 1840, p. 50.

usage."*

Indeed, on the ground then taken by Dr. Gale and by others, it was necessary to fight for this; for if they could not make it out, their foundation was gone. But since Carson showed the absurdity of the ground, it has been generally abandoned. And yet while the ground is given up, the tracts based on this ground are still in circulation, and do their work in making proselytes, on the strength of an argument which well informed Baptists have in general given up as thoroughly exploded. Such a change in the meaning of a word is a very com-' mon occurrence, and it is conceded on all hands that the derivation of a word is no certain index to its meaning.

Thus the word "Tint," comes from a Latin word (Tingo) which originally meant to dip: then it meant to color or "tinge," and now we speak of the "tints" of the clouds or of the flowers, without ever thinking that the flowers or the clouds have been dipped to give them their coloring. So the word " Spirit" comes untranslated from the Latin "Spiritus," of which the original meaning was a breath." But what mortal will now contend that a spirit is nothing but breath? And yet there is the same reason for complaining that the word spirit is an untranslated Latin word, that there is for complaining that Baptize is an untranslated Greek word: and the reason from etymology for making spirit mean breath, is just as strong as for making Baptize mean immerse from its derivation from Bapto. So the words

* Carson says, "What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse! Yet Dr. Gale supposes the lake was dipped by hyperbole. The literal sense, he says, is, the lake was dipped in blood! Never was there such a figure.” —P. 67.