LIBBAEY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COLUMBIAN COLLEGE, D. C. 
 
 ^J 
 
 jfo.../dr3.2?^,...£yS. ^ J- \ 
 
 I Dono dedit 
 
 XQ^a^Q^gQsosgassgpgaosggggi 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Chap. 
 Shelf 
 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. j* ! 
 
ft Jr.cJa*&+> 
 
 ' -/ 
 
 
v ^J 
 
, OBJECTIONS 
 
 TO A 
 
 B APTI ST VERSION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ■i 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT; 
 
 BV 
 
 WILLIAM T*BRANTLY, D. D. 
 
 WITH 
 
 ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR FKfiFEKRlNG THE 
 ENGLISH BIBLE AS IT IS, 
 
 OCTAVIUS WINSLOW, A. M. 
 
 M Systems, schemes and hypotheses, all bred of heat in the warm region of 
 controversy, shall, like meteors in a troubled skie, each have its turn to blaze 
 and die away ; but the Bible is eternal, like the Sun ; the never failing 
 source of light and heat." 
 
 Bishop Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY J. P CALIE5DEH 
 
 MDCCCXXXVIL 
 

 U 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 For religious controversy, we have but little taste, less incli- 
 nation, and still less time. Nor do we regard it as the most 
 healthy region for a Christian, especially for a Christian Minis- 
 ter. For although it may occasionally develop and expand the 
 passive graces of the Spirit, we yet believe that, more frequently, 
 it is productive of the less amiable and lovely feelings of our un- 
 sanctified natures. There are occasions however, when we are 
 urged to it by the solemn and imperious call of duty. When the 
 glory of God, and a tender solicitude for the true interests of the 
 Church, demand a surrender of our love of ease, and a more pub- 
 lic defence of the ' old paths' of truth and righteousness. 
 
 In the discussion which occupies the ensuing pages, the wri- 
 ters have not been insensible of the peculiar embarrassments with 
 which it has been attended. From the subject itself, they have 
 not been conscious of any perplexity. They are more than con- 
 vinced that the views they have honestly advocated, are the pro- 
 per views. The only hesitation they have felt, has arisen from 
 the suggestion of their own minds, whether it were expedient to 
 discuss the subject at the present moment, and thus give to it a 
 publicity and importance which otherwise it probably would not 
 receive, and did not merit, or allow it to remain in its obscurity, 
 leaving the public mind unenlightened and unbiassed. After re- 
 flection and prayer, however, it was decided, that as the subject 
 had been occasionally agitated in several religious Journals, and 
 impressions prejudicial to the interests and honour of the de- 
 nomination had floated abroad, a regard for the welfare of the 
 body to which they were strongly attached, demanded that the 
 subject should stand before the Christian community placed upon 
 its proper merits. 
 
 It is proper to state, that the leading article in this work, ori- 
 ginally appeared in the " Christian Review" for March 1837, 
 for which valuable periodical it was especially written. The au- 
 thor has however interwoven a few additional thoughts, which 
 suggested themselves to his mind since its appearance in the 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 ' Review.' The second Essay on the character of the English 
 translation, with additional reasons for dissenting from an amen- 
 ded version, appear for the first time in their present form. 
 
 It is always painful to our feelings to differ in religious opinion 
 from Christian brethren, especially when bearing with us the same 
 name, and maintaining ably and successfully, the same distinc- 
 tive sentiments. No consideration whatever, but a keen sense 
 of duty, would compel us thus publicly to avow and advocate 
 opposing views. We have endeavoured to speak the truth 
 in love* conscious of no feelings towards those who differ 
 from us on this question, but those of fraternal kindness. We de- 
 precate their measures, but would favourably interpret their mo- 
 tives, and love their persons. Should God condescend to sanc- 
 tion with His blessing this little work, to Him, as unto the Triune 
 Jbhovah, shall be the praise and the glory* 
 
OBJECTIONS 
 
 BAPTIST VERSION 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 We are not able to say, positively, that the ques- 
 tion, Whether the present authorized version of the 
 New Testament be sufficiently explicit as to the mode 
 and subject of baptism, has been agitated to any 
 great extent ; nor can we point directly to the quar- 
 ter whence it has proceeded, not having noticed 
 any discussions respecting it, except cursory ones 
 in some religious periodicals. But it is enough to 
 know, that such a question has been more than once 
 moved, and that a proposal for a modified version 
 of the present text has obtained a favorable hearing 
 in sundry places. Nor is this all ; for it is under- 
 stood, that those who disallow the proposal, and 
 who consider it most consonant with safety and in- 
 tegrity to retain unmutilated the established trans- 
 lation, are regarded as very lukewarm advocates of 
 the denominational faith, and as the authors of a 
 policy at once temporizing and spiritless. So they 
 have occasion not only to defend their position, but 
 to repel the missiles which are likely to be thrown 
 
 a 2 
 
by such as have entrenched themselves in a new 
 location. We do not profess to stand between these 
 two parties ; for if we should be so imprudent, we 
 might, — to use a figure of the Greek historian, — be 
 cut to pieces by both. And though we should es- 
 cape injurious force from either side, still, accord- 
 ing to the laws of perspective, we should appear to 
 each adverse party to stand nearest his opponent ; 
 since an object midway between two stations, when 
 viewed from either, will appear most remote from 
 that at which the observation is made ; and will, 
 consequently, seem to be nearest to the opposite 
 point. We shall rid ourselves of the suspicion of 
 designing to occupy any middle ground, by pro- 
 claiming, in limine, our sincere and unchanged 
 attachment to the good old English version made 
 by the order of king James I. It is our heart's de- 
 sire and prayer to God, that this venerable monu- 
 ment of learning, of truth, of piety and of unequalled 
 purity of style and diction, maybe perpetuated to 
 the end of time, just as we now have it. Let no 
 daring genius meditate either change or amendment 
 in its structure and composition ; neither let any 
 learned impertinence presume to disturb the happy 
 confidence of the tens of thousands who noW regard 
 it as, — next to the original languages, — the purest 
 vehicle through which the mind of the Holy Spirit 
 was ever conveyed to mortals. Under God, and 
 with God, we feel prepared to stand or fall with 
 
this consecrated instrument, known, and quoted, and 
 familiarized, as the common standard version. Its 
 errors and defects, — fewer than those of any trans- 
 lation ever yet made, — we impute to human imper- 
 fection. Its unrivalled excellence and accuracy we 
 ascribe to the care and direction of divine provi- 
 dence. We are not anxious to divest ourselves of 
 the idea, that the translators, whatever their cha- 
 racter anjl motives may have been, w r ere under the 
 promptings and counsels of the Holy Spirit, in 
 achieving the work which they gave to the world. 
 By this, we mean not to intimate, that the gift of 
 inspiration, in any peculiar sense, was their's ; nor 
 yet that they were so directed in choosing a form of 
 words, as that the only expressive and suitable ones 
 were in every case suggested ; but this we do mean 
 and insist upon, namely, that they were eminently 
 fitted and qualified, by the unction of the divine 
 Spirit, for the performance of a work destined to 
 exert a mightier influence over rational nature, than 
 was ever before exerted by any human composition. 
 We trust, that its destiny is only yet in the incipi- 
 ency of development, — that its past successes and 
 beneficial results are but the earnest of that widely 
 diffused blessing which mankind are yet to receive 
 through the medium of its luminous pages. 
 
 Of late, the complaint has been loud and strong, 
 that a certain word, with its cognations and deriva- 
 tives, had not been translated, instead of being 
 
8 
 
 transplanted into the common version. And it is 
 more than insinuated, that much injustice is done to 
 us as a denomination, by the fault of the translation. 
 It is contended, that if, instead of baptize and 
 baptism, immerse and immersion, or some equiva- 
 lent words, were substituted in the standard text of 
 the New Testament, a more faithful and consistent 
 sense would be secured, while w r e, as Baptists, would 
 enjoy an ampler vindication of our views and senti- 
 ments, when appealing to scripture authority. It is 
 accordingly projected, as we learn, that the one 
 transplanted word above named, with its deriva- 
 tives, be rooted out of our version, and a new term 
 of tantamount signification inserted in its place ; 
 and that this amended version shall be for the use 
 of the Baptist denomination. And what then ? The 
 amended version cannot make us stronger Baptists 
 than we now are ; it will therefore be a work of 
 supererogation amongst ourselves ; and when offered 
 to those whom we may wish to convert to our views, 
 it will be promptly rejected as a mutilated instru- 
 ment. Thus we shall have a version needless at 
 home and powerless abroad, Our zealous study of 
 exactness and precision will defeat itself. 
 
 But why should the stem of a Greek root, trans- 
 ferred to the English soil of our vulgar tongue, and 
 there left standing and growing until it becomes 
 naturalized, be offensive to us in these times ? Had 
 our predecessors, who first met this exotic upon 
 
holy ground, almost two hundred years ago, then 
 objected, and demanded its eradication, it would 
 have appeared in them proper and reasonable, be- 
 cause they might have urged that it was not indige- 
 nous. They, however, so far as we know, made 
 no objections, but began to preach, and quote, and 
 expound the king's version. Now, when baptism 
 and baptize have acquired an appropriate use, and 
 have obtained a fixed and definite meaning in our 
 language, and have a sacred and honorable enrol- 
 ment on the records of history, it is proposed to 
 have them superseded by other and less pregnant 
 terms ! We do object to this, with all the earnest- 
 ness of deprecation. 
 
 We hope to show, first, that the untranslated word 
 baptism and its derivatives have a fixed and deter- 
 minate sense in the history of the Christian church, 
 and therefore need no alteration. And, 
 
 Secondly, That the substitution of other w r ords in 
 lieu of these, would be a weak and pernicious ex- 
 pedient. 
 
 Thirdly, That our opponents on the baptismal 
 question would have reason to congratulate them- 
 selves, in the event of such an innovation. 
 
 Fourthly, We should thereby deprive ourselves 
 of a very powerful argument in the baptismal con- 
 troversy. 
 
 Whilst, lastly, we might be in danger of laying 
 too much stress upon an external rite. 
 
10 
 
 First* It may be useful, to advert to one source 
 of misconception in regard to such words as are 
 transferred and not translated, in our version of the 
 Scriptures. It is usual to speak of such words, and 
 especially of baptism and its kindred terms, as if 
 they were, in fact, unintelligible Greek, in Roman 
 letters. The idea is, that there is nothing English 
 in them, except the alphabetic character, and that, 
 in other respects, they are little better than a barba- 
 rous jargon. This notion, we judge, has been pro- 
 ductive of much discontent amongst us, and has 
 generated an importunate demand for new versions 
 and adequate translations. But it is evident, that 
 this demand is based upon misunderstanding. 
 Are we to be told, that a word which has 
 been incorporated into the English language from 
 the earliest times,— which has had a fixed and full 
 import,— which was sounded forth in direct con- 
 nexion with Christian worship for ten centuries, 
 with a sense free from all ambiguity, is now to be 
 thrust aside, for the sake of introducing a so called 
 translation ? As well might we expel from their 
 ancient places the amen and halleluia of prayer 
 and praise, and even the blessed name of Christ, 
 upon the plea, that they need an English rendering. 
 We meet the language of the common Bible just as 
 we meet old friends. Their looks, their gestures, 
 their open bearing, their guileless simplicity, all 
 please and edify us. The pragmatic diligence which 
 
11 
 
 would displace them and foist in strangers upon 
 us would not entitle itself to our thanks. For our 
 part, we are free to confess, that we should not feel 
 quite at home, were we to meet in the study of the 
 sacred word, immersion, plunging, dippings or any 
 other expression, in place of baptism. We should feel 
 that we were in strange company, and should begin 
 to inquire for the rightful tenants of the habitation. 
 The words sanctification and redemption, in theo- 
 logy, are technical terms, and are transferred from 
 the Vulgate to our version ; but does any one object 
 to these words on account of their Latinity ? Their 
 meaning is admitted by general consent ; and all 
 persons using them are mutually intelligible. The 
 transplantations from Latin into our language have 
 added materially to its copiousness and beauty, if 
 not to its expressiveness. Still more material to the 
 advancement of science and art, have been the im- 
 portations from the Greek, Is it just, to censure 
 the words, either of a Greek or Latin original, pro- 
 vided they be faithful representatives of the things 
 which they promise to represent ? We shall prove, 
 in the sequel, that the word to baptize has become 
 truly and philologically an English word, and that 
 it has faithfully discharged the important trust com- 
 mitted to it. 
 
 It has been asked, why a word capable of a pro- 
 per translation should be retained in our version of 
 the New Testament ; and it has been suggested, that 
 
12 
 
 there would be the same reason for declining a ver- 
 sion of any other prominent word in the original text, 
 as of baptism. To which it may be replied: Any 
 language, in treating of matters and things which 
 may have originated with the people using it, will 
 contain words and forms of speech incapable of a full 
 translation to any other language. All who have had 
 any experience in the business of translation, will be 
 able at once to appreciate this remark. It would be 
 difficult to read a page of any author in a foreign or 
 dead language, without meeting words or phrases, 
 which have nothing in exact correspondence with 
 them in our own language. This is especially the 
 case in all descriptions of religious ceremony, in 
 which rites and observances are to be exhibited and 
 explained. We are, consequently, of opinion, that 
 the idea contained in the word baptism^ as used in 
 the New Testament, cannot be adequately expressed 
 by any other single word in our language. It means 
 more than immersion. It contains the idea of im- 
 mersion, and, at the same time, gives a character to 
 that idea, stamps a sacredness upon it, confers a re- 
 ligiousness upon its import. And we are now pre- 
 pared to show, that all the versions in languages using 
 the Roman character or alphabet, were made with 
 the express understanding, that paicTt^m was trans- 
 ferred and not translated, because there did not ap- 
 pear to be, in those languages, words of an import 
 fully equivalent. 
 
13 
 
 The Latin Vulgate, revised and published by Je- 
 rome towards the close of the fourth century, is the 
 oldest version of the New Testament in existence. 
 When, or by whom it was made, is not known. 
 But as Jerome found it in being in his time, it must 
 have been made some time prior to him. In this 
 translation, P<x7itl6uo6, pa7tTt6ua y paTtrifa, etc., are left, 
 without an exception, in their original form, latini- 
 zed. Christians of the west, among whom the Latin 
 language was the vulgar tongue, chiefly used this 
 version ; and it is to their practice we must look for 
 the true sense of the words in question. If we find, 
 that the administration of the ordinance of baptism, 
 in those early times, consisted of the immersion into 
 water of each candidate, and of the proper invocation 
 of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we may then assert, 
 without fear of contradiction, that to baptize, in the 
 then acceptation of the word, was to dip, plunge, 
 or bury in water, with religious solemnity, and for 
 initiation into the church of Christ. We use the 
 accompanying phrase, religious solemnity, and for 
 initiation into the church of Christ? with special de- 
 sign, — because so much is necessarily implied in 
 every true definition of baptism. The author or au- 
 thors of the Vulgate being, therefore, unable to con- 
 vey, in any single word in the Latin tongue, the full 
 sense of the original, contented themselves with the 
 Italian modification of the Greek word. The pro- 
 duction of one authority, in proof of the prevalent 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 signification of the word in the period to which we 
 refer, shall suffice. It is the declared judgment of 
 one who will not be suspected of any partiality to- 
 wards Baptists, whose testimony must be regarded 
 as founded upon a thorough knowledge of all the 
 facts in the case, and who is impelled, by a due sense 
 of truth and candor, to give utterance to the sen- 
 tence which he has left on record. The authority 
 to which we refer is that of the celebrated author of 
 the History of Infant Baptism, William Wall, D. D. 
 He says, when writing of the times to which our 
 attention is now directed : 
 
 " Their general and ordinary way was to baptize by immer- 
 sion, or dipping the person in the water. This is so plain and 
 clear, by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but 
 pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain 
 the negative of it ; so, also, we ought to disown and show a dis- 
 like of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English 
 Anti-pedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. It is one 
 thing to maintain, that that circumstance is not absolutely neces- 
 sary to the essence of baptism, and another (o go about to repre- 
 sent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent, 
 when it was, in all probability, the way in which our blessed Sa- 
 viour, and for certain, was the most usual and ordinary way by 
 which the ancient Christians, did receive their baptism. I shall 
 not stay to produce the particular proofs of this. Many of the 
 quotations which I brought for other purposes, and shall bring, 
 do evince it. It is a great want of prudence as well as honesty 
 to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may 
 be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. 3 ' 
 History of Infant Baptism page 462. 
 
15 
 
 The paragraph last quoted is a most considera- 
 ble document, and one the more valuable, because 
 it is manifestly extorted from the author by the na- 
 ked force of truth and honesty. Then it is undenia- 
 ble, that when the Vulgate was first brought into 
 use, the general understanding was, that to baptize 
 meant to immerse or dip, as a religious solemnity for 
 initiation into the church of Christ* We have thus 
 the history of the Christian church brought in to 
 settle and determine the meaning of the word; and 
 surely there never was a word in any vocabulary, 
 whose signification was more limited and unequivo- 
 cal. The most celebrated writers, both in Greek and 
 Latin, continued to bear one uniform and decided 
 testimony for ten centuries from the apostolic age, 
 that to baptize was to immerse in water, for the ex- 
 hibition of a Christian rite. It is true, that some of 
 these writers contended that affusion, or the pouring 
 on of water was sufficient to answer the purpose of 
 baptism. This ground, however, they assumed, not 
 because there was any double meaning in the words 
 expressive of the ordinance, or any doubt as to the 
 ancient and apostolic practice, but because of an in- 
 solent dogma, which obtained an early extension* 
 namely, that though immersion was the primitive 
 way, yet the quantity of water applied was a matter 
 of indifference. Cyprian appears to have been one 
 of the first advocates and promoters of affusion in 
 baptism. But he pleads for it, not on the pretence 
 
16 
 
 that the word may mean to wash, to pour, or to 
 sprinkle, for he knew better ; but upon the ground 
 of necessity. He says, in his letter to one Magnus, 
 a countryman, who sought to know whether those 
 who were baptized in bed, as Novatian was, must 
 be baptized again, if they recover. " In the sacra- 
 ment of salvation, when necessity compels, the short- 
 est ways of transacting divine matters do, by God's 
 gracious dispensation, confer the whole benefit." 
 Cyprian here sets up the plea of necessity and trusts 
 in Go(Ts gracious dispensation, to obtain a sanction 
 for affusion or pouring. Had he resembled some of 
 our modern doctors, he would have put forth the 
 plea of ambiguity in the word ; and in defiance of 
 all principle in philological disquisition, would have 
 said that the word baptism means affusion as well as 
 immersion — in the sense of the language of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The strong plea of necessity, together with the vene- 
 rable authority of Cyprian, was not enough to render 
 pouring and sprinkling fashionable in Italy for a long 
 term of years. For, to quote from Wall, " In the times 
 of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventur, immersion was in 
 Italy the most common way. Thomas thus speaks (3* 
 q. 66, art. 7), ' Baptism may be given not only by im- 
 mersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with 
 it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, be- 
 cause that is the most common custom. By immersion 
 the burial of Christ is more lively represented, and there- 
 
17 
 
 fore this is the most common and commendable way.* 
 Bonaventur says (1. 4, dist. 3, art. 2, q. 2). l The 
 way of affusion was properly used by the apostles, and 
 was in his time in the churches of France and some 
 others ; but the way of dipping into the water is the 
 more common, and the jitter, and the safer" Wa- 
 lafridus Strabo, in the year 850, Rupertus and others, 
 1120, represent immersion to have been the general cus- 
 to m inGermany at those respective periods. 
 
 WiclifPs translation of the Scriptures was made in the 
 year 1330, and may be regarded as the oldest English 
 version extant. It lay rusting in manuscript, however, 
 until 1731, when the New Testament was published by 
 Lewis, and more recently a new and revised edition has 
 appeared, under the authorship of the Rev. Henry Her- 
 vey Baber, with a life of WiclifF prefixed. This very 
 ancient translation, and the first, too, ever made into 
 English, is a most literal rendering from the Vulgate. 
 The word to baptize, with all its kindred terms, is, ac- 
 cordingly, transferred and not translated. What Wi- 
 cliflf understood, therefore, by that word, must be col- 
 lected from history. Both Neale and Crosby have re- 
 ported Wicliff to have been an anti-pedobaptist. In this 
 they are manifestly wrong, since his works afford proof 
 to the contrary. See Baber' s Life of Wicliff, xxxii. 
 But it appears, that immersion or dipping was under- 
 stood by him to constitute baptism. Like others who 
 had preceded him, and in accordance with the rule of a 
 
 church which had declined from pristine simplicity, he 
 
 b 2 
 
18 
 
 admitted, in cases of necessity (the old pretence of Cy- 
 prian), pouring or sprinkling'. Another paragraph from 
 Wall will cast light on this point. See page 469: 
 " Some do prove from Wicliff, that it was held indif- 
 ferent in England, in his time, whether dipping or pour- 
 ing were used, because he says at one place, c Nor is 
 it material whether they he dipped once or thrice^ or 
 water be poured on their heads. But it must he done 
 according to the custom of the place where one 
 dwells? But we ought to take the whole context as it 
 lies in his book. He had been speaking of the necessity 
 of baptism to salvation, from that text John 3 : 5, and 
 then adds, Et ordinavit ecclesia quod quaelibet persona 
 fidelis in necessitatis articulo poterit [baptizare] nee re- 
 fert, &c. And the church has ordained that in a case 
 of necessity, any person that is ftdel, or that is himself 
 baptized, may give baptism. Nor is it material whether 
 they be dipped, etc. Such words do not suppose any 
 other way than dipping used ordinarily." 
 
 We here meet the very fact in history which sub- 
 stantiates our position. While the English language 
 was as yet in its crude elements, trunca membris, 
 like some " half formed reptile on the banks of 
 Nile," to baptize meant ordinarily to immerse or dip. 
 At the same time, the offices or liturgies for public 
 baptism in the church of England, did uniformly 
 enjoin immersion, without any mention of pouring 
 or sprinkling. The " Manuale ad Usum Sarum" 
 printed 1530, 21st of Henry VHIth directs the priest 
 
19 
 
 to take the child, and, naming it, to dip him in the 
 water. John Frith, in a treatise on baptism, 1533, 
 styles the external action, " the plunging down into 
 the water, and the lifting up again." In all the 
 books of common prayer, during and after the 
 period in question, as far down as the beginning of 
 the eighteenth century, the formula always directs 
 dipping, before pouring, in baptism* It is con- 
 ceded, that the baptism of infants was one of the 
 tenets of the several periods to which yve have re- 
 sorted for proof of our point. As, however, our 
 purpose is simply to establish a uniform meaning 
 for the words baptism and baptize, it matters not 
 whether the parties be infants or adults. Our ob- 
 ject, so far, is attained, provided they were dipped 
 or immersed. For we are not settling a question 
 about the proper subjects of baptism, but one re- 
 specting the mode, as that mode is presented to us 
 by a particular word in the common version, which 
 we would not have altered, 
 
 We shall now pass on to investigate the established 
 sense of the word at the very time when the present 
 authorized translation was made. It is the opinion 
 of some, that the translators of our present ver- 
 sion were laid under restrictions by James I., — 
 at whose instance the work was undertaken, — as 
 to the rendering of certain words. And it cannot 
 be denied, that the instructions of the king to the 
 translators have some restrictive clauses. These r 
 
20 
 
 however, are not of such a nature as to interfere, in 
 the least, with their general freedom of translation, 
 as will be seen in the instructions themselves, copied 
 from Thomas Fuller'' s Church History of Britain. 
 See book X., p. 46, 47. 
 
 " 1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called 
 the Bishops 5 Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the 
 original will permit. 
 
 " 2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with 
 the other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be 
 accordingly as they are vulgarly used. 
 
 ''3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; that is, as the 
 word church, not to be translated congregation, &c. 
 
 "4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept 
 which hath been most ^commonly used by the most eminent 
 fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the 
 analogy of faith. 
 
 " 5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at 
 alitor as little as may be, if necessity so require. 
 
 " 6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed but only for the ex- 
 planation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, with- 
 out some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the 
 text. 
 
 " 7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as 
 shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another. 
 
 " 8. Every particular man of each company to take the same 
 chapter or ^chapters, and having translated or amended them 
 severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, 
 confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall 
 stand, 
 
 9. As any one company hath despatched any one book in this 
 manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seri- 
 ously and judiciously. For his majesty is very careful in this 
 point. 
 
 i( 10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, 
 shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word there- 
 of, note the places, and therewithal send their reasons, to which 
 if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the 
 
21 
 
 general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each 
 company, at the end of their work. 
 
 " 11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, 
 letters to be directed by authority, to send any learned in the 
 land, for his judgment in such a place 
 
 " 12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of hi^ 
 clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move 
 and charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, have taken 
 pains in that kind, to .send his particular observations to the 
 company, either at Westminster, Cambridge or Oxford. 
 
 " 13. The directors in each company to be the deans of West- 
 minster and Chester for that place, and the king's professors iu 
 Hebrew and Greek in each university. 
 
 " 14. These translations to be used when they agree better 
 with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz., Tindai's, Mathews', 
 CoverJale's Whitchurch's. Geneva." 
 
 The learned persons to whom the foregoing in- 
 structions were sent, were all members of the Esta~ 
 Wished Church of England, and forty-seven in 
 number. Their commission from the king bears 
 date Anno Domini 1607, being the fifth year of 
 James I. They were forbidden the translation of 
 proper names and of certain ecclesiastical terms, as 
 church, &c. They were also required to conform as 
 nearly as possible to a previous translation, called the 
 Bishops' Bible. They might, too, consult and adopt 
 that which seemed most agreeable to the original 
 text in the versions of Tindal, Mathews, Coverdale, 
 Whitchurch, and the Geneva translation. If baptism 
 was one of the old ecclesiastical words which were 
 to be retained, it certainly could not have been 
 because any partiality for infant sprinkling was 
 detected in that term. It had been, up to the 
 
22 
 
 time when king James' version was made, the 
 uniform and invariable understanding, that to bap- 
 tize signified to dip or plunge into water. It was 
 the common understanding and practice at that 
 time, and after that time. " Dipping," says Wall, 
 u must have been pretty ordinary during the former 
 half of king James' reign, if not longer." The same 
 historian mentions a pamphlet written by a Mr. Blake 
 in 1645, — that is, nearly forty years after the publi- 
 cation of king James' Bible,- — showing clearly what 
 must have been the common opinion and usage at 
 that time. This Mr. Blake was a clergyman of the 
 Church of England. In reply to his opponent, who 
 had objected to the baptism of infants, the fact, that 
 they were not dipped, but sprinkled, he says, " I 
 have been an eye-witness of many infants dipped, 
 and know it to have been the constant practice of 
 many ministers in their places for many years to- 
 gether. I have seen several dipped ; I never saw 
 nor heard of any sprinkled." It would thus appear, 
 that up to 1845, immersion was the prevailing prac- 
 tice in the English Church, and that the custom of 
 sprinkling was introduced subsequent to that period. 
 There can be little doubt, that the famous assembly 
 of Westminster divines were the first to impart 
 countenance and currency to the practice of sprink- 
 ling in lieu of baptism. This learned assembly, not 
 being able to remember, that fonts or places of much 
 water had been always used by the primitive Chris- 
 
23 
 
 tians, reformed the font into a basin ; and in their 
 zeal against popery, subverted one of the institu- 
 tions of Christ. Wall himself ridicules the sprink- 
 lers. " The minister continuing in the desk," he 
 says, " the child was brought and held before him. 
 And there was placed for that use a little basin of 
 water, about the ^bigness of a syllabub-pot, into 
 which the minister dipping his fingers, and then 
 holding his hand over the face of the child, some 
 drops would fall from his fingers on the child's 
 face." When the Presbyterians and Independents 
 ceased to wield the religious destines of England, 
 and the restoration of the monarchy enabled the 
 Church of England to resume its functions, that 
 church still did not forego its maxim, that dipping 
 was the primary meaning of baptism. And conse- 
 quently, in the revision of the liturgy, it was pro- 
 vided, that in every case where it was duly certi- 
 fied, that the child, could ivell endure //," baptism 
 should be performed by dipping. 
 
 It is hence manifest, that although that ancient 
 and venerable word, which it is now proposed to 
 expunge from the New Testament, be a transplanted 
 Graecism, yet at first it took root and grew firmly 
 and vigorously in our language ; and though abused 
 by others, ought not to be abandoned by those who 
 style themselves Baptists. In their view, as well 
 as in good truth and sound criticism, the word has 
 sustained itself in its primitive force and fulness* 
 
24 
 
 For many centuries, it held in check that spirit of 
 innovation which began at an early period, to cor- 
 rupt the simplicity of Christian worship, and spoke 
 with a voice so commanding, as to overawe the ad- 
 venturous movers of change and sophistication. 
 
 We are not ignorant, that many Christians of the 
 present day contend, that sprinkling is baptism, — 
 that pouring on water is baptism, — that any appli- 
 cation of water is baptism ; and that the word, both 
 in its original and in its transferred state, means any 
 use of water in the ceremony of initiation, from an 
 ocean to a drop. In like manner, the asserters of 
 clerical gradation in the church maintain,, that the 
 word bishop means a minister of the gospel 5 vested 
 with superior powers. The defenders of Presbyte- 
 rianism allege, that the word presbytery means a re- 
 ligious judicatory, having a sort of legal cognizance 
 over the churches w r ith which they are connected. 
 The Universalist cannot discern any thing beyond a 
 limited duration of time in the words eternal and 
 everlasting. And not a few, both in ancient and mo- 
 dern times, are able to discover in the Saviour's re- 
 quisition for man to be horn again, nothing more 
 than water-baptism. From all which the inference 
 is plain, viz. that human ingenuity will never cease 
 to be inventive in justifying that which may appear 
 to it to be most right and proper. In our opinion, 
 they who make sprinkling to be baptism, abuse the 
 word from its rightful import They who find mi- 
 
25 
 
 nisterial orders and distinctions in the New Testa- 
 ment, and who therefore style one man bishop, and 
 set him over his fellow-servants, are, in our esti- 
 mation, chargeable with an abuse. To say, that 
 eternal and everlasting signify no more than a limi- 
 ted duration is, in our judgment, even a greater 
 abuse of language than to call sprinkling baptism. 
 And to affirm that to be born again is nothing more 
 than ivater-baptism-, is an audacious profanation. 
 But are we, therefore, to abandon the abused words ? 
 Must we go about to invent a new vocabulary, be- 
 cause the old has suffered perversion ? Since the 
 old editions are counterfeited and corrupted, are we 
 to frame plates with new impressions, to supersede 
 the old ones, in the vain hope of obviating abuse for 
 the time to come ? At such a rate of procedure, we 
 might find employment enough in bringing out an- 
 nually purified editions of the Bible. 
 
 At this stage of our inquiry, we request our read- 
 ers to advert, for a short time, to the explicit tes- 
 timony of eminent English critics on the significa- 
 tion of the terms baptize and baptism. The cele- 
 brated Richard Bentley, D, D. who flourished to- 
 wards the close of the seventeenth century and was 
 one of the most eminent critics that England ever 
 produced, is cited by that powerful opponent of 
 infant baptism, Abraham Booth, as an authority for 
 fixing the sense of the word baptism. In his dis- 
 course on Free Thinking, pp. 56, 57, he defines 
 baptisms " dippings," and to baptize "to dip." 
 
26 
 
 Bishop Reynolds, probably a descendant of John 
 Reynolds, D. D., one of the translators of the Bi- 
 ble under the authority of king James, expresses 
 the import of the word to baptize: u The Spirit 
 under the gospel," says he " is compared to water ; 
 and that, not a little measure to sprinkle or bedew, 
 but to baptize the faithful in ; and that not in 
 a font or vessel which grows less and less, but 
 in a spring or living river."— Works, pp. 226, 
 407. 
 
 The observation of the learned Selden,— see his 
 ■works, voL 6, foh ed. cot 2008, — is both pungent 
 in application and comprehensive in sense. a In 
 England, of late years," remarks that justly re 
 nowned scholar, " I ever thought the person bapti- 
 zed his own fingers rather than the child." Selden 
 was a member of the Westminster Assembly. 
 
 Dr. Owen concedes " that the original and natu- 
 ral signification of the word baptize is to dip, to 
 plunge, to dye." And Dr. Hammond, speaking of 
 the word to baptize^ says, " It signifies not only the 
 washing of the whole body, as when it is said of 
 Eupolis, that, being taken and thrown into the sea, 
 epaTtTl&to, he was immersed all over, and so the bap- 
 tisms of cups is putting them into the water all 
 over ; but washing any part, as the hands, by way 
 of immersion in water." Mathew Poole's Continua- 
 tors declare, that " to be baptized is to be dipped 
 in water;" and Doddridge also makes baptism and 
 immersion the same. See on Luke 12 : 50, 
 
27 
 
 Parkhurst renders the Greek word fiamifa, im- 
 merse, dip or plunge. And Dr. George Campbell 
 maintains, that immerse is very nearly equivalent to 
 baptize in the language of the Gospels. 
 
 We must refer those who would see a more. co- 
 pious induction of particular authorities, to Booth's 
 Pedobaptism Examined, — a work which, if candid- 
 ly studied, is sufficient to correct the error of all 
 Pedobaptists in the world. All who read the mul- 
 titudinous citations in Booth will ask this question : 
 How could the learned and pious men, whose names 
 are there brought together, justify their deviation 
 from an admitted rule, an acknowledged precedent, 
 a clearly expressed command ? Was their defection 
 from ancient order owing to the fact, that the word 
 in which that order was dictated had not been trans- 
 lated ? This is an impossible supposition, since it 
 is evident that the true and proper translation was 
 all the time before their eyes. They could only see 
 immersion in the primary signification of the word. 
 Whether they viewed that word in the sacred wri- 
 ters, in ecclesiastical historians, or in the classic 
 pages of Grecian antiquity, immersion, — immersion, 
 reiterated with obvious import, — sounded in their 
 ears. On all the monuments commemorative of bap- 
 tism in the ancient church, immersion stared them 
 in the face. They knew, therefore, that baptism 
 was immersion ; neither was it possible for them to 
 dissemble the conviction of their minds, as must 
 be seen in the long list of concessions and ad- 
 
28 
 
 missions which the venerable Booth has brought to 
 light. 
 
 They had, however, a way to escape being con- 
 victed of downright inconsistency. It was, that to 
 pour or sprinkle might be found in the word to 
 baptize ; that this was one of its secondary signifi- 
 cations. In the same way, they could have found a 
 secondary sense in the word to dip, by which only 
 a partial application of water would have been in- 
 tended. cc It is plain," they would have said, 
 u that the word is often used in cases where a total 
 immersion cannot be designed." So we read, that 
 Jonathan put forth the end of the rod which was 
 in his hand, and u dipped it in a honey-comb." 
 " Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his 
 finger in water." It is also common, to speak of 
 dipping the pen in the ink. Sometimes, when the 
 word is used in connexien with a liquid, it means 
 no more than to moisten, to wet ; which sense is 
 established by Milton : 
 
 " And though not mortal, yet a cold, shuddering dew 
 Dips me all o'er, as when the wrath of Jove 
 Speaks thunder." 
 
 According to the same convenient dexterity in 
 stifling the import of words, immerse could have 
 been made significant of something other than burial 
 in water. We should have heard it said, to be im- 
 mersed in cares, to be immersed in pleasures, are 
 common forms of speech, which do not mean to be 
 wholly buried. And from this allusive application 
 
29 
 
 of the word, it would have been inferred, that ail 
 the demands of immersion may be answered by a 
 partial application of water. 
 
 If, therfore, with the consent of all parties, we 
 could now have a change from baptize to immerse^ 
 in process of time, we might find ourselves in want 
 of a new version. The inventive talents of our 
 affusion brethren would discover something in im- 
 merse less than immersion, as they have found out 
 that something is baptism, which is less than bap- 
 tism. We should thus be driven from one position 
 to another, like a retreating and vanquished army, 
 unable to maintain any ground against an encroach- 
 ing adversary. To such, the very first retreat 
 proves fatal, because it evinces distrust of the occu- 
 pied fortress, and a desire to reach some other one, 
 supposed to be more capable of sustaining any as- 
 sault. In the passage from one to the other, dis- 
 comfiture and ruin are encountered. 
 
 Having proved, as we trust, to the satisfaction of 
 all unbiassed readers, that the words baptize and 
 baptism have a fixed and determinate sense in the 
 history of the Christian Church, we may confidently 
 disallow the propriety of any change in those words. 
 Even though we had other words of an equivalent 
 import, and equally pregnant in meaning, yet the 
 alteration which has been proposed would be un- 
 desirable. For, if the offered substitutes signify no 
 more, why, for the sake of change merely are they 
 
 c 2 
 
30 
 
 to be introduced. If they signify less, they should 
 not be admitted. That they signify no more has 
 been proved ; and that they are less direct and suit- 
 able has been likewise substantiated. Nothing then 
 but the recklessness of innovation could be gratified 
 by such a change. It would be worse than super- 
 fluous, to go about to mend a portion of the standard 
 version, under conditions and circumstances which 
 strongly urge that no emendation can better the 
 case. To reverse the simile of the Saviour, it would 
 be like the application of an old cloth to a rent pur- 
 posely made in a new garment. 
 
 It is generally known that Luther's version of the 
 New Testament, now the standard translation for 
 German Protestants, has the words in dispute, trans- 
 latecL It is likewise understood at least among 
 baptists, that the German translation is strong for 
 immersion, and that Luther himself was so. But 
 out of the twenty millions of German protestants 
 in Europe and America none, excepting a few dun- 
 kers, are found to practise immersion in baptism. 
 If a translation is to be so potent as some would re- 
 present, why has not Luther's version kept the Lu- 
 therans right ? why, with their translation staring 
 them in the face, have they continued almost with 
 o,ne consent, from the days of Luther to this time, 
 in the practice of sprinkling or pouring ? The ques- 
 tion admits only one reply. The translation has 
 been of no avail to restrain or correct their practi- 
 cal aberrations. Neither would a translation do us 
 Miiy good. 
 
31 
 
 We are thus conducted to the second view, in 
 which we proposed to exhibit the subject before us, 
 The creation of a new version, with no change of 
 the authorized one, other than the substitution of 
 different words in lieu of baptize and baptism, would 
 be, on our part, an expedient weak and pernicious. 
 
 To demonstrate the utter imbecility of such a 
 contrivance, we have only to suppose [a case. A 
 Baptist, with an altered copy of the New Testa- 
 ment in his hand, meets his Pedobaptist neighbor, 
 who adheres to the old translation. They enter 
 into an amicable discussion of the only topic on 
 which they are known to disagree touching the 
 serious matter of religion. In order to refute at 
 once every argument which his opponent may ad- 
 duce, the Baptist brother brings forth his amended 
 version, and behold, in every case, instead of bap- 
 tize and baptism, he shows immerse and immersion. 
 The affusion or aspersion brother charges his Bap- 
 tist neighbor at once with the corruption of the 
 word of God, and refuses to be reasoned with out of 
 such Scriptures. The Baptist, on the other hand, 
 contends, that he is guilty of no such charge, — that 
 lie has made no alteration in the text of the New 
 Testament, but has only translated a word which 
 heretofore had not been translated ; and that the true 
 sense of that controverted word is now manifested 
 in his new version. Will the advocate for affusion or 
 aspersion here end the debate, by yielding his cor- 
 dial acquiescence in the propriety of the translation ? 
 
32 
 
 We think not ; but a new controversy will arise on 
 the fitness and truth of the translation. The Pedo- 
 baptist will assert that the translation contains a 
 gratuitous assumption, namely, that only immersion 
 is baptism ; and in defence of his assertion, he will 
 quote the theological authorities on that side. The 
 Baptist will contend, that only immersion is bap- 
 tism ; and, in vindication of his ground, will cite 
 the philological authorities on his side. Here, then, 
 are both parties reduced to the very point at which 
 they stood, before any alteration in the standard 
 translation was made. For then they explained bap- 
 tism, each according to the respective authorities on 
 his side. They do the same thing yet, and are no 
 nearer the attainment of undeniable premises, than 
 they were before the mutilation of the texts re- 
 lating to the matter in dispute. The truth is, the 
 kind of reasoning which the Baptist would employ, 
 in such a case, is the circular syllogism. He says, 
 It is immersion, because the original word, which 
 is not translated, but transferred, is baptism ; and 
 it is baptism, because it is immersion. What ob- 
 ject, except the exhaustion of strength and the irri- 
 tation of excitable feelings, can ever be gained by 
 running round in a circle ? The canine quadruped, 
 coursing a cii cle in quest of his own tail, is the fit 
 symbol of such futile expenditures of power. 
 
 But, in sober verity, something, after all, is ac- 
 complished. In his eagerness for a new version, the 
 Baptist incurs the imputation, either of disingenous- 
 
33 
 
 ness, or of conscious impotency. To alter even the 
 wording of a law, otherwise obscure and doubtful, 
 for the sake of gaining a decision in our own favor, 
 would be an unwarrantable procedure, and would 
 expose us to the blame of an unfairness little short 
 of dishonesty. After we have agreed with all 
 Protestants using the English language, that the 
 translation of 1607 — 9, made in the fifth year 
 of James I., shall be a standard of scripture 
 truth for us in common with them, and as a deno- 
 mination, have been in the habit of renewing the ra- 
 tification of that agreement by appealing constantly 
 to that instrument for more than two centuries, to 
 begin now, at this late day, to recede from the con- 
 ventional understanding, would carry with it the 
 implication of at least a qualified defection from the 
 protestant ranks. The conventional understanding 
 to which we refer, has been tacit, rather than for- 
 mal and explicit ; but it is not the less binding, on 
 account of the want of any formal celebrations. We 
 stand as parties pledged to the support and defence 
 of what, as a body, we have received and relied on 
 with one consent for two hundred and thirty years. 
 There must be a most valid reason to justify the re- 
 traction of our bond. 
 
 It would appear injurious to us, as a denomination, 
 to renounce the agreeable and euphonic title of Baptists ; 
 and especialy, to take in place of it that of dippers, or 
 even immersers, or immersionists. Even though a 
 name import something doubtful or exceptionable, it is 
 
34 
 
 seldom eligible to change it. But our distinctive title is 
 now consecrated by long and pious usage, besides being 
 very expressive and agreeable, both to the heart and 
 understanding. And though u a rose may be as sweet 
 by any other name," yet it is scarcely so respectable. 
 
 There can be no doubt, however in the third place, 
 that if we desire to afford our brethern of Pedobaptist 
 persuasions an occasion of self-gratulation, we may go 
 en and make the proposed alterations in the received 
 translation of the Bible. Still, it can with difficulty be 
 reconciled to the charities of Christianity, to supose, that 
 they would be able to rejoice at seeing us perpetrate 
 such a scandal against ourselves. Would not the good 
 men among them mourn over our mischievous temerity ? 
 But the great body of them would think themselves well 
 rid of a troublesome class of opponents. They would 
 rejoice to find, that their labor of controversy with Bap- 
 tist views and principles was at an end ; and that they 
 could proceed without contradiction in their favorite 
 practice of sprinkling or pouring water, under the name 
 of baptism. For when once we renounce their version, 
 and adopt a new one, more agreeable to our views, we 
 cease to meet them upon the common ground of dispu- 
 tation. We place them beyond the range of our argu- 
 ments, by, at least according to them, a begging of the 
 question, — petitio principii, — an assumption of the 
 point in dispute. This is a sort of logical suicide, which 
 at first seems to be harmless and safe, and is often con- 
 sidered a prudent and righteous course ; but in reality 
 amounts to self-felony. A disputant reduced to such a 
 
35 
 
 necessity is regarded as vanquished, and is silenced by 
 general consent. 
 
 Were we to renounce the common version, and to 
 translate for ourselves all the passages in debate betwixt 
 us and the Pedobaptists, the shout of victory would be 
 raised throughout all their ranks. The report would go 
 far and wide, that we had been driven from our former 
 position because we could not maintain it ; that we had 
 imitated the Unitarians and Universalists, who, being 
 unable to make good their creed, according to the au- 
 thorized translation, had made new versions, which 
 should agree with their principles, — thus making their 
 notions of divine truth the standard of translation. 
 Surely we should not find any advantage in being with 
 such company. 
 
 Again. The fact, that the English Bible in common 
 use was made by professed Pedobaptists, is no con- 
 temptible argument on our side. Nothing can be more 
 evident in any book, than that baptize and baptism^ in 
 the New Testament, mean immerse and immersion. 
 But for this obvious and necessary meaning, would not 
 the translators have been prompted, out of regard to the 
 practice becoming somewhat prevalent in their day, to 
 have rendered the words to pour or to sprinkle ? Surely, 
 if they saw these ideas in the original word, and did not 
 bestow some prominence upon them, they may be just- 
 ly charged with unfaithfulness. 
 
 It is a current opinion amongst us, that any reader of 
 the English language,whose mind is not warped by pre-, 
 possession, discovers nothing but immersion for baptism, 
 
36 
 
 in the New Testament. So confident are we in this 
 opinion, as to have professed our willingness, a thousand 
 times over, to submit the controversy respecting the 
 mode of baptism to any number of unprejudiced readers 
 of English. They may be persons wholly unacquainted 
 with the Greek, or any other language than plain Eng- 
 lish ; only let them be unbiassed, and we confide the 
 question to their decision. In their view, the case is as 
 clear a one as was ever made out. Nothing in all the 
 simple and faithful teaching of that book is more evident 
 than baptism. By them a full and univocal sense is 
 always attached to the word, whilst all the quibblings 
 that have been resorted to for the purpose of establishing 
 a different sense, lie undisturbed and dormant. If any 
 suspicion could enter their minds, as to the fairness of 
 the version, would it not be, suposing them to be igno- 
 rant of its origin, that it had been made by Baptists, and 
 that they had caused it to speak favourably to their side ? 
 Would they not allege the doubt, — if any doubt could 
 rise, — whether such a version would ever prove accept- 
 able to those who adopted sprinkling instead of baptism ? 
 But how would they be confirmed in their opinion, that 
 the burial of the whole body in water is the only 
 proper baptism, upon learning, that those who 
 made the translation were not Baptists but Pedobap- 
 tists ? " Those Pedobaptists," they would say, 
 " have made a Baptist book ; and what is it, but a 
 concession to the truth, an acknowledgment of un- 
 deniable facts ?" Whilst, had the version been made 
 by Baptists, it would have been rejected at once, as 
 
37 
 
 a one-sided, partial thing. And surely, the com- 
 batant, who meets his opponent with a weapon 
 which that opponent selected and prepared, and 
 put into his hands, must be regarded as an honest 
 and generous antagonist. He seeks no advantage, 
 but leaves to his very enemy the choice of the in- 
 strument by which the contest is to be decided, 
 All those who are united in the Bible Society, are 
 employed in circulating the common version. All 
 unprejudiced readers admit, that it wears a Baptist 
 tinge. We strenuously maintain, that it has such a 
 tinge, — given not by ourselves, but others. Let us, 
 then, not weakly throw aside the benefit which they 
 present us. Let us not deprive ourselves of all ac- 
 cess to them, by closing up, for ever, the only door 
 through which we can reach them. 
 
 When, in the last place, we remind our readers of 
 the danger of laying too much stress upon an ex- 
 ternal rite, we must not be suspected of any inten- 
 tion to undervalue baptism. It has its proper place 
 in the Christian system, and when found in its place, 
 is to be retained pure and inviolable, sanctified in 
 its nature and sanctifying in its tendencies. But it 
 is not regeneration, — it is not faith, — neither is it 
 holiness. It is neither brotherly-kindness, nor cha- 
 rity. It is not the vital principle of Christianity. 
 It must not, therefore, be insisted on, to the exclu- 
 sion of any of these. Let it be placed in due pro- 
 portion with these, and not allowed to usurp their 
 
38 
 
 stations, nor to supersede their functions. Baptism 
 is indispensable to a full exhibition of Christianity, — 
 and immersion is indispensable to baptism ; but 
 faith and repentance are indispensable precedents, 
 and holy obedience an indispensable consequence. 
 Take from it what precedes and what follows, and 
 it is a mere external rite. 
 
 Much as we love that truth which constitutes our 
 distinctive mark as a denomination, which in a de- 
 gree places us by ourselves, and in a qualified sepa- 
 ration from all other Christians, still would we shun 
 the presumption of conferring upon it undue pro- 
 minence. To make too much of it, is an abuse 
 nearly allied to that which boldly extenuates its just 
 claims. It was the error which began to show itself 
 soon after the apostolic age, in the Christian church, 
 to assign undue importance to baptism. It was at 
 first properly enough associated with the idea of 
 illumination ; but soon began to be regarded as il- 
 lumination itself, and was shortly after received, 
 almost universally, as regeneration. This was as- 
 signing to it what the word of God does not, — and 
 a consequent opening of the door to the most perni- 
 cious abuses of the ordinance. The same abuse ex- 
 ists among ourselves, in the present day ; and those 
 who abet and defend it, have a new version. Im- 
 mersion for the remission of sins, and as the only 
 necessary regeneration, is a kind of watchword 
 amongst them. The true doctrine of baptism is 
 
39 
 
 lost sight of, and a mischievous invention of man is 
 made to occupy its place. It is one thing, to hold 
 to immersion and faithfully to practise it, as a duty 
 commanded by Christ* It is another thing, to ex- 
 aggerate its importance beyond the meaning and 
 intention of the original command. We are tempted 
 to this exaggeration, by the boldness and industry 
 of those who divest the subject of its true dignity, 
 by unwarrantable extenuations and changes of that 
 command. Those who are on one extreme, when 
 truth is in the middle, are a standing provocation 
 to those who stand by the truth, to press to the op- 
 posite extreme ; and it is well known, that, in many 
 cases, extremes will meet. 
 
 It is an undoubted difficulty betwixt us and our 
 Pedobaptist brethren, that they have, for the most 
 part, discontinued the ancient mode of baptism. 
 But our greatest difficulty with them is, that they 
 are Pedobaptists. And this difficulty would be in 
 no wise lessened, by their universal adoption of im- 
 mersion as the only mode of baptism. If they 
 should accede to our proposal, to have the word, in 
 all cases, translated, — but still persist in infant bap- 
 tism, — they would remain as far from us as they 
 now are. The practice of immersion, which might 
 thus be common to them and to us, would be no 
 uniting bond of fellowship, whilst they persevere in 
 the application of the rite to their infant offspring. 
 
41 
 
 REASONS 
 
 PREFERRING THE 
 
 ENGLISH BIBLE AS IT IS. 
 
 Before proceeding to adduce, in detail, additi- 
 onal objections to the proposed alterations in 
 the authorised version, it will not, we trust, be 
 considered incongruous, if we offer a few observa- 
 tions, and quote a few authorities in favour of its 
 general excellence and fidelity, as a human transla- 
 tion. 
 
 From the period at which this version of the 
 Bible was orignally completed, to the present time, 
 it has been the object of almost every species of 
 assault, and its assailants have been found alike in 
 the ranks of its avowed enemies and friends. Some, 
 impugning the motives of its royal patron and ve- 
 nerable translators, have alleged, that in nume- 
 rous places misrepresentations and perversions of 
 the original text abound, which were intended to 
 support and advance party purposes, rather than to 
 make " an exact translation of the Holy Scriptures 
 
 into the English tongue." Others, without speaking 
 
 d2 
 
42 
 
 in the tone of recrimination, have affirmed the 
 translation to be weak and defective, and unworthy 
 the confidence which has so generally reposed in it. 
 
 It is not our purpose, even could we compress 
 our remarks within the prescribed compass of this 
 article, to examine all the objections which have 
 been alleged against the perfect accuracy and fide- 
 lity of the received version. Waiving for the 
 present, what we have to say upon the imperfec- 
 tions with which it may be fairly chargeable, we 
 would now briefly advert to the opinion held by 
 excellent and learned men, that it is the best and most 
 accurate version extant, and as such, claiming the 
 homage of our judgement and affections. 
 
 In the first place, we remark, that the forty seven 
 professors and divines, who were appointed by James 
 I., to re-translate, revise and correct preceding ver- 
 sions, for the purpose of producing as perfect a transla- 
 tion as possible, and of whose combined and arduous 
 labours, the common version is the result, tvere pro- 
 found philologists , men of ripe scholarship, and 
 well skilled in critical acumen. That the literary ac- 
 quirements and profound learning of the translators have 
 been called in question we are not ignorant of, nor sur- 
 prised at. Mr. John Bellamy, in his preface to a new 
 translation of the Scriptures, has indulged in unjust and 
 bitter complainings. He affirms that there was not a 
 critical Hebrew scholar among them, — that the study 
 of the Hebrew language, so indispensably necessary for 
 
48 
 
 the accomplishment of this important work, was, in the 
 reigns of Elizabeth and James, shamefully neglected in 
 both the Universities, while attention was almost exclu- 
 sively devoted to the different branches of mathematical 
 science. Whether Bellamy asserted this through igno- 
 rance, or a wilful perversion of a known truth, we leave 
 others to decide. But it is difficult to imagine, how any 
 individual, professedly acquainted with the literature of 
 the reigns of Elizabeth and James, could be purblind to 
 the fact, that so far from the Hebrew and Oriental lan- 
 guages falling into neglect and disuse during those pe- 
 riods, au contraire, they were among the first and pro- 
 minent studies at Oxford and Cambridge ; and that 
 men, profoundly skilled in both, composed the confe- 
 rence who sat in solemn and mature deliberation at 
 Hampton Court. Fulke, in his Defence of Transla- 
 tions, speaks of many youths at Cambridge in 1583, 
 who had mastered the difficulties of the Hebrew and 
 Chaldee tongues ; and Todd, in his Life of Walton, 
 alludes to an examination at the Merchant Tailor's 
 School in 1572, by the Bishop of Winchester, who 
 "tried the scholars in the Hebrew Psalter;" the 
 master of which institution was Richard Mulcaster, a 
 man skilled in Eastern literature, and under whose tui- 
 tion was educated one of the first linguists of his time, 
 Dr. Lancelot Andrews, whose name stands first in or- 
 der upon the list of the divines commissioned to prepare 
 the present translation of the Bible. With Andrews, in 
 this responsible labour, were associated Dr. Adrian Sa- 
 
44 
 
 ravia, a profound scholar, and tutor to the celebrated 
 oriental critic, Nicholas Fuller ; Dr. R. Clarke, a tho- 
 rough linguist ; Dr. Layfield, to whose Hebrew criti- 
 cisms, Minshew, in his valuable Guide into Tongues^ 
 pays a just and glowing eulogium ; Mr. W. Bedwell, a 
 profound Orientalist, and tutor to the eminent Dr. Po- 
 cock ; Dr. John Rainolds, of whom it is recorded, that 
 such was his tenacious memory, he could turn to any 
 particular passage which had impressed his mind in the 
 library of books he had read, quoting with perfect accu- 
 racy the page, volume and paragraph, and who, in the 
 language of his biographer, was " most prodigiously seen 
 in all kinds of learning, and most excellent in all tongues." 
 Drs. Holland, Kilby, Miles, Smith and Richard Brett, 
 men whose published works bear the traces of profound 
 critical knowledge of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, 
 Arabic, Ethiopic, Greek and Latin tongues ; and not 
 to expand the list, to mention but the names of John 
 Bois, an accomplished Grecian scholar, who in the fifth 
 year of his age, had read the entire Bible, and before he 
 was six, had mastered the Hebrew, and who, for ten 
 years filled the Greek chair in his College ; and lastly, 
 Sir Henry Sarville, the celebrated editor of Chrysostom's 
 works in Greek, and the founder of the professorships 
 of astronomy and geometry at Oxford, These were 
 among the venerable and learned men employed upon 
 the authorized English version of the Scriptures, and of 
 whom it has been unblushingly affirmed that not a He- 
 brew scholar graced their ranks ! 
 
45 
 
 With profound and varied learning, they undoubtedly 
 possessed the qualifications of eminent piety. They 
 were men fearing God. Men who felt the responsibility 
 th:y sustained, and who, by much and fervent prayer, 
 nought the divine illuminations of the Holy Spirit. Dis- 
 trusting their own judgment and learning, and looking up 
 to Him who hath the key of David, opening and no man 
 shutting, they assembled in solemn conclave at Hamp- 
 ton Court, " not too many, lest one should trouble ano- 
 ther ; and yet many, lest haply many things might escape 
 them, and praying to the Lord and Father of our Lord" 
 for the wisdom that descendeth from above, thus they 
 commenced, continued and completed their mighty un- 
 dertaking. 
 
 Passing from the consideration of the Translators, we 
 proceed briefly to glance at the character of the Trans- 
 lation itself. From the historical facts adduced in the 
 preceding section, we believe it will be difficult for the 
 most incredulous mind to evade the conviction, that the 
 venerable translators were eminently qualified, both by 
 their learning and their piety, to produce an accurate 
 and faithful version of the Bible in the English language, 
 and that if they have failed in their work, it was not in 
 consequence of a deficiency of the necessary qualifica- 
 tions. In speaking of the general excellency of the 
 common version, we shall adduce in part, the testimony 
 of men of unquestionable learning and established repu- 
 tation, who have brought to the subject that patient and 
 grave consideration which its great importance demands. 
 
46 
 
 In the year A. D. 1652, a bill was introduced into Par- 
 liament, providing for a new English translation of the 
 Scriptures from the original tongues. After a period of four 
 years, during which the proposal was allowed to slum- 
 ber, "the Grand Committee for Religion" to whom the 
 subject was referred, passed the following order : " That 
 it be referred to a sub-committee to send for, and advise 
 with, Dr. Walton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Castle, Mr. Clarke, 
 Mr. Pulk, Dr. Chadworth, and such others as they 
 shall think fit, and to consider of the translations 
 and impressions of the Bible, and to offer their opi- 
 nions therein to this committee." In pursuance of 
 this order the sub-committee, which was composed 
 of some of the most profound linguists of the age, 
 frequently met in consultation. In these conferences 
 were made " divers excellent and learned observa- 
 tions of some mistakes in the translation of the Bible 
 in English ; vihich yet wag agreed to be the best of 
 any translation in the world" Dr. Johnson, in his 
 account of English translations, relates, that the 
 Committee and their learned associates, u preten- 
 ded to discover some mistakes in the last English 
 translation, which yet they allowed was the best ex- 
 tant" Dr. Walton himself prescribes to this decision 
 in the prolegomena to his Pollyglott, where he 
 places the received version in the highest rank of 
 European translations ; and to this may be added 
 the endorsement of his cotemporary, Dr. Pocock, 
 the Prince of oriental learning, who, in the preface 
 
47 
 
 to his Commentary on Micha, observes, " That 
 translation from our own which we follow is such 
 and so speakable to the original, as that we might 
 well choose among others to follow it, were it not 
 our own, and established by authority among us." 
 
 Descending nearer to our own times, it is cheering 
 to find the names of Dr. Geddes, Dr. Adam Clark, 
 and the Rev. W. Orme, to mention no others, ar- 
 rayed in defence of the excellency and general fideli- 
 ty of the good old version. Dr. Geddes, whose ex- 
 tensive acquaintance with biblical literature imparts 
 to his testimony great weight, thus speaks of the 
 authorized version : 
 
 u The means and the method employed to pro- 
 duce this translation promised something extremely 
 satisfactory ; and great expectations were formed 
 from the united abilities of so many learned men, 
 selected for the purpose, and excited to emulation 
 by the encouragement of a munificent prince, who 
 had declared himself the patron of the work. Ac- 
 cordingly, the highest eulogiums have been made 
 on it, both by our own writers and by foreigners ; 
 and indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest 
 attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to 
 constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this 
 of all versions must, in general, be accounted the 
 most excellent. Every sentence, every word, every 
 syllable, every letter and point seem to have been 
 weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed, 
 
48 
 
 either in the text or margin, with the greatest pre- 
 cision. Pagninus himself is hardly more literal, and 
 it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hun- 
 dred years ago, that it may serve for a lexicon of the 
 Hebrew language, as well as for a translation." — 
 Prospectus of a new Translation, p. 92.] 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke, who, notwithstanding his ec- 
 centricities of opinion on some theological points, 
 was a man of profound learning and critical acumen, 
 and universally allowed to be one of the first bi- 
 blicists of the age, and who had familiarized him- 
 self with all the manuscripts and collections from 
 manuscripts to which he cottld obtain access, thus 
 speaks of the common version : — " Those who have 
 compared most of the European translations with 
 the original, have not scrupled to say, that the En- 
 glish translation of the Bible made under the direc- 
 tion of king James I, is the most accurate and faith- 
 ful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise; the 
 translators have seized the very spirit and soul of 
 the original, and expressed this almost every where 
 with pathos and energy. The original, from which 
 it was taken, is alone superior to the Bible which 
 was translated by the authority of king James.... 
 This is an opinion in which my heart, my judg- 
 ment, and my conscience coincide." — See the pre- 
 face to his Commentary, p. xxi. 
 
 We will detain the reader with but one other tes- 
 timony, that of the late Rev. William Orme, a man 
 
49 
 
 to whose scholarship and extensive erudition, his 
 Bibliotheca Biblica^ and other writings, bear un- 
 doubted testimony. In the former work, we find 
 these observations on the character of our English 
 version ; — " Like every thing human, it is no doubt 
 imperfect ; but as a translation of the Bible, it has 
 few rivals, and as a whole, no superior. It is in 
 general faithful, simple, and perspicuous. It has 
 seized the spirit and copied the manner of the di- 
 vine originals. It seldom descends to meanness or 
 vulgarity ; but often rises to elegance and sublimity. 
 It is level to the understanding of the cottager, and 
 fit to meet the eye of the critic, the poet, and the 
 philosopher. It has been the companion of our prin- 
 ces and our nobility, and prized by many of them 
 as their most invaluable treasure. It is the birth- 
 right of our numerous population, and has proved 
 the means of knowledge, holiness and joy to mil- 
 lions ; and we trust it is destined for ages yet to 
 come, to be the glory of the rich, and the inheri- 
 tance of the poor ; the guide to the way-worn pil- 
 grim, and the messenger of peace to many a dying 
 sinner." 
 
 It will be observed in the remarks thus far made, 
 that though we have stated in distinct terms our con- 
 viction of the general excellence and fidelity of the 
 authorised version, we have yet been cautious not 
 to commit ourselves to the opinion of its perfect ac- 
 curacy. That it is a human translation, is tanta- 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 mount to an admission, that it is a defective trans- 
 lation. It would be miraculous were it not so. The 
 men who produced it asserted no claims to inspi- 
 ration. They were fallable, and confessed it. They 
 assumed fearful responsibilities, and were conscious 
 of it. And we doubt not, that when their labour was 
 finished, they were deeply humbled as they surveyed 
 the traces of human imperfection they had left upon 
 this, the work of their God. 
 
 In specifying some of the defects with which this 
 otherwise excellent and unrivalled version of the 
 Sacred Scriptures, may be fairly chargeable, we can 
 only observe in general terms, first, the want of 
 uniformity in the mode of translating. Dr. Myles 
 Smith, who penned the address to the reader re- 
 cognises this imperfection, when he apologises for 
 a want of " uniformity of phrasing." This how- 
 ever can easily be accounted for, and perhaps was 
 unavoidable, from the fact, that different parts of 
 the work were assigned to so many different trans- 
 lators. We might also complain of some modes 
 of expresion which seem to disfigure the sacred 
 page, and which are incompatible with the English 
 version. Custom, however, and our profound 
 veneration for the Book of God, have disarmed them 
 of what, if found in other writings, or brought into 
 common usage, would be highly offensive to our 
 feelings and taste. We would rather, however, they 
 should remain in the present version undisturbed 
 
51 
 
 and unexpunged, for such is the constant fluctuation 
 and progress of living languages, that words, now 
 pleasant and familier to the L ear, may, in a cen- 
 tury hence, be classed among the obsolete and 
 the vulgar. A new nomenclature will have been 
 framed, from which they will either be ejected 
 entirely, or noticed only as words of bye-gone days. 
 We think too we have have ground for just com- 
 plaining, in the close adherence of the translators 
 to their royal patrons prejudices in favour of epis- 
 copacy, whose prescribed rule on this point, will 
 be seen, by a reference to the " Directions to the 
 Translators," quoted in the preceeding pages, ad- 
 mits of but one interpretation. We might, were it 
 demanded of us, notice other and minor imperfec- 
 fections, touching the often unnecessary incum- 
 berance of useless italics, errors in punctuation, 
 chronology, divisions into chapter and verse, &c. 
 But as they do not affect the fidelity of the trans- 
 lation itself, we dismiss them, and pass to the con- 
 sideration of another and more important subject. 
 
52 
 
 ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS 
 
 TO A 
 
 BAPTIST VERSION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 As far as we have succeeded in informing our- 
 selves of the precise nature of the proposed altera- 
 tions of the English text, a thorough system of ex- 
 purgation is contemplated, which shall sweep away 
 all the terms and forms of expression considered 
 obsolete, and offensive to the refined taste of the 
 age, remodel, and retranslate certain passages, with 
 a more particular reference to the terms bap- 
 tize ? and baptism in the New Testament, to words 
 considered more consonant with the original text. 
 Dissenting as we solemnly and unequivocally do, 
 from such a proposition, in addition to the unanswer- 
 able objections advanced in the leading chapter of 
 this book, we respectfully solicit attention to the 
 following :— 
 
 1. The veneration and respect due to antiquity, 
 might be fairly urged as a reason, why the autho- 
 
53 
 
 rised English version of the Bible, should be per- 
 mitted to remain as it is, unaltered and unimpaired. 
 We are aware that the plea of antiquity, when 
 urged in favour of any existing form of abuse, 
 whether of a civil or religious character, is an 
 invalid one, and that it has frequently been thus 
 urged in defence of episcopacy and other ecclesias- 
 tical institutions, we are not ignorant. Still we ho- 
 nestly believe, that in the present case, it may be 
 fairly and successfully pressed into the service of shield 
 ing this u venerable monument of learning, of truth 
 and of piety," from the invasion of a well meaning, 
 but a rash and unhallowed zeal. For more than 
 two hundred years have we, as Baptists, stood by 
 the side of this common version. It has formed the 
 rallying point of the denomination, the vocabulary, 
 from which we derived our name — the authority which 
 we have at all times produced in support of the 
 distinctive principles which that name involves — and 
 to whose decision, unaided by lexicons or lexicogra- 
 phers, we have again and again, in and out our pulpits 
 at home and abroad, submitted the question at issue be- 
 tween our Pedobaptist brethren and ourselves. We have 
 united too, with other portions of the Christian church in 
 defending it from every form of attack to which it has been 
 exposed ; — we have battled with it and battled for it, re- 
 sponding to the saying of Chilling worth— the watch-word 
 of the Christian camp, "The Bible, the Bible alone 
 
 is the religion of Protestants." And is it true that 
 
 ■ 2 
 
54 
 
 we have fallen upon times like the present, when, after so 
 long a period of warfare and of triumph, entering as we 
 now are, the " Saturday evening of the world," which is 
 to usher in the glorious Sabbath of the thousand years of 
 millenial rest, have we but just discovered, that the in- 
 strument for which and with which, we have been con- 
 tending is weak, imperfect and unsound ; — that the 
 ground we have been standing upon is insecure, and that 
 no time must be lost in demolishing the ancient fabric, and 
 from its fragments constructing another, more in harmo- 
 ny, as it is thought, with the original model ? We cannot 
 bring ourselves to consent to such a step, — a step so dis- 
 astrous in its consequences as we believe this will be, not 
 only to the interests of our revered denomination, but in 
 its more remote bearings upon the general cause of the 
 Redeemer. 
 
 And to say nothing of the door already open, which 
 this measure on our part will tend more widely to 
 throw back, for the admission of as many different ver- 
 sions of the Bible as there are shades of opinion, or va- 
 riety of sects, what yet is more revolting to our feel- 
 ings, it will rank us with the Papist, the Unitarian and 
 Universulist, each of which sects, has so altered, mutila- 
 ted and defaced the Word of God, as to give a favorable 
 complexion to their peculiar and heretical tenets. It may 
 not be generally known, that not many years ago, there 
 was published in Europe, a translation of the New Tes- 
 tament chargeable with the most direct and deliberate 
 subversion of one of the vital doctrines of Christianity. 
 
55 
 
 In the last chapter of Revelations, where John speaks of 
 his falling down to worship before the feet of the angel 
 who had caused visions of glory to pass before his pro- 
 phetic eye, it went the appalling length of substituting 
 the word lamb for the word angel, and thereby repre- 
 senting the Son of God, our adorable Emmanuel, as re- 
 fusing Divine worship, abjuring Godhead, and declaring 
 Himself a mere man, John's fellow-servant, and one of 
 his brethren the prophets ! The translation, to the 
 eternal honor of the government, was interdicted, after 
 a very limited circulation. Now, what is the principle 
 which our brethren are advocating, but the principle, 
 which, if universally adopted by our denomination, would 
 class us with those who dare to pluck the crown of dei- 
 ty from the Redeemer's brow, and so alter and correct 
 the sacred text so as to sustain and sanction their blas- 
 phemous act. At their side we wish not to stand, and 
 from their God-denying heresies and perversions of the 
 truth, we shrink with instinctive horror. 
 
 There is a sweeping spirit of innovation abroad, 
 at war with every institution bearing on its front 
 the time worn marks of antiquity. Things that are 
 old are set aside or demolished, to prepare the in- 
 troduction for things that are new. The wisdom of 
 the past ages is denounced as the wisdom of the 
 world's infancy, while that of the present is regarded 
 as only worthy of the name. But where shall we 
 look for wisdom more profound, for eloquence of a 
 sweeter and sublimer order, — for poetry more trans- 
 
56 
 
 cendent — for models in all the fine arts more exqui- 
 site, for divinity more sound, or for piety so exalted, 
 as the records of ages gone by will produce ? And 
 yet, such is the political, and such the religious Ra- 
 dicalism of the age, no fabric however sacred is se- 
 cure from its levelling influence, if there be found 
 upon it the dust and the impress of antiquity, — 
 the Bible not even excepted ! We are aware that 
 in disclosing these opinions, we shall expose our- 
 selves to the uncharitable insinuations and distrust- 
 ful surmises of a portion of the Christian Church — 
 a portion who, regardless of circumstances and reck- 
 less of consequences, push forward favourite theories 
 and general rules beyond their legitimate and wise 
 application. Nevertheless, we recognize it to be the 
 duty of every Christian, to lift up his voice against 
 this alarming evil, caring nought for the frowns of 
 man, aud sedulous only for the approbation of Gcd. 
 2. We object to the proposed verbal amendment of 
 the New Testament, on the ground, that the words 
 baptize and baptism are sufficiently explicit to the 
 mind of an ordinary reader, rendering therefore an 
 alteration entirely unnecessary, a work of mere su- 
 perrogation. That the Translators of the common 
 English version so understood the word baptize^ 
 there is but little doubt. For, in numberless pas- 
 sages, where a word of the same root is used, the 
 technical or sacramental sense being out of sight, 
 the Translators have given the primary and obvious 
 
57 
 
 meaning. For example, Luke xvi, 24. u Send 
 Lazarus, that he may fiaxpag dip the tip of his finger 
 in water." etc. John xiii, 26. " To whom 1 shall 
 give a sop when I have Qaxpccg dipped it. And when 
 he had epPaipas dipped the sop, etc. Revel, xix, 13. 
 u And he was clothed with a vesture Qe Qaaueiov 
 dipped in blood. That James himself so understood 
 the word baptize to signify immerse, we gather 
 from a Speech which he delivered to his Parliament 
 in the year 1605, about two years anterior to the 
 commencement of the present version, on the disco- 
 very of the Gunpowder plot. Speaking of the de- 
 struction of the old world by the flood, he says, 
 u For as God for the punishment of the first great 
 sinners in the originall world * * * did by a ge- 
 nerall delluge and overflowing of waters, baptize the 
 world to agenerall destruction, etc." And in another 
 part, alluding to the overwhelming calamities that 
 would have ensued but for the discovery of the 
 treason, he says, cc I should have been baptized in 
 blood, and in my destruction, not only the kingdom 
 wherein I then was, but ye also, by your future in- 
 terest would have tasted of my mine." 
 
 And for what, as touching the mode of the insti- 
 tution, have we been so long contending, for what, 
 
 but that baptize signifies nothing more or less, than 
 to immerse, to dip, to plunge, to cover over. We 
 have, times without number, declared the terms to 
 be one and the same in their meaning, capable, upon 
 
58 
 
 just rules of philological criticism of no other in- 
 terpretation. And when the unlettered enquirer has 
 sought our instruction, anxious to know what was 
 truth respecting this ordiance of the Church, what 
 books have we placed in his hands to guide him in 
 his research ? To what authorities have we referred 
 him ? With what philological criticisms have we 
 perplexed him ? Have we quoted Parkhurst and 
 Campbell and Buxtorf to'prove to him that the word 
 baptism signifies immersion ? Nay ; such a parade 
 of learning would be lost, as to any beneficial effects, 
 upon two thirds of our enquirers. What course then 
 have we pursued ? We have taken the English Tes- 
 tament from his hands, and turning to the passages 
 where the words baptize and baptism occur, and mar- 
 king them, have returned the sacred book, and dis- 
 missed the disciple with the prayer, that the Eternal 
 Spirit of God would bless His own truth to the enlight- 
 ening and sanctifying of the mind. And what have 
 been the results of this simple mode of instruction ? 
 Results ! our answer will be found in the thousands of 
 monthly accessions to the Baptist Church throughout 
 these States of converts recently awakened, and led to 
 follow Christ in the way, by reading, with no other 
 lexicon, but prayer, and with no other interpreter 
 but the Spirit,— the common English version of the 
 Scriptures. What this version has accomplished, it 
 is capable of accomplishing yet again. This sword, 
 though it has wrought many sublime and bloodless 
 
59 
 
 victories, has lost nought of the lustre of its blade, 
 nor the keenness of its edge, but is as mighty 
 through God, as ever, in putting to flight the ar- 
 mies of the aliens, and in pulling down the strong 
 holds of error and sin. 
 
 And yet it is proposed to abandon the ground as 
 untenable, to relinquish our ancient and revered ti- 
 tle, and to proclaim to our opponents that the in- 
 strument to which we were wont at all times to ap- 
 peal, is discovered to be weak and imperfect, and 
 that discarding it, w r e have constructed one more to 
 our purpose, to whose authority they must impli- 
 citly bow. "If the term baptism do not determi- 
 nately signify that the ordinance should be adminis- 
 tered by immersing the subject in water, we shou d 
 be glad of information what other expression could 
 have conveyed that idea. * * * It may therefore be 
 safely concluded, that if there be nothing in the de- 
 sign of the ordinance, nor in the apostolic practice, 
 inconsistent with the notion of dipping, we do not 
 deserve reproach for insisting that baptism and im- 
 mersion are terms equivalent.* 
 
 3. We object to the proposed expunging of the 
 terms baptize and baptism, because we regard it as 
 contravening the providence, and as betraying a 
 diminished confidence in the wisdom and power of 
 God. 
 
 It must be remembered that the question stands 
 
 * Brooks 5 Pedobap: Exam: vol. 1, p. 130. 
 
60 
 
 distinct from all others of a kindred character. It 
 occupies a position peculiarly its own. It has no con- 
 nexion whatever with that of foreign translation.The 
 proposal is not to translate,for the first time, the word 
 0a7iTt^w and its derivatives, into another and a new 
 language — a language never before hallowed as a 
 vehicle for the conveyance of the sacred Word of 
 God. If this were the question before us for deci- 
 sion, our course would be obvious, and our duty im- 
 perative. We have, on more than one occasion, 
 avowed our belief, that in establishing Christianity 
 in regions hitherto unblest with its light 7 we were 
 urged by solemn duty, to establish a pure and substan- 
 tial Christianity ; — not a dismembered and mutilated 
 system, paired down to conciliate the prejudi- 
 ces and so maintain a hollow form of union 
 with other sects — but the Christianity of the Bible, — 
 its positive institutions, its doctrines and its pre- 
 cepts beautiful and pure as they came from the hands 
 of their illustrious Founder. That in giving the 
 Word of God to the heathen, the modern missionary 
 is bound by the most imperative obligations, — obli- 
 gations the violation of which would expose him to 
 the last and heaviest of the Divine anathemas — to give 
 as accurate and faithful a meaning of the original, as 
 the idiom of the language in which he translates, will 
 allow. u The creed of the Christian," to borrow the 
 sentiments of a powerful and eminent writer," is the 
 fruit of exposition ; no part of it is elaborated by 
 
61 
 
 processes of abstract reasoning, no part is furnished 
 by the inventive faculties. To ascertain the true 
 meaning of the word and phrases used by those who 
 4 spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 
 ought to be the single aim of the theologian"*. 
 
 Holding these views and assuming these princi- 
 ciples, we have ever regarded the honest and digni- 
 fied course pursued by Drs* Carey and Judson, in their 
 department of translation, as securing to them, in an 
 eminent degree, the favour of God, and the gratitude of 
 the denomination. 
 
 But the question before us, though of a kindred cha- 
 racter, is not to be regarded in the same light, or decided 
 by the same rules. What is the question ? It is pro- 
 posed to amend certain verbal expressions found in the 
 New Testament, which are supposed to express ob- 
 scurely the mind of the Holy Spirit on one of the 
 ordinances of the church, and which are considered, 
 therefore, unworthy a place in the sacred canon. But 
 by whom was the translation made ? How long have these 
 terms remained there ? What has been the effect of 
 their present position ? Are they so very obscure, and 
 vague, as to leave the enquirer in total darkness respect- 
 ing the mind of the Spirit, and if so, are the Baptists re- 
 sponsible for that obscurity ? These are questions 
 claiming a calm and dispassionate consideration. 
 
 It is an historical i fact, the truth of which none will 
 question, who have accustomed themselves to trace the 
 
 * History of Enthusiasm. 
 F 
 
 i 
 
62 
 
 onward progress of our distinctive sentiments, that the 
 great majority of those who now swell, and are weekly 
 augmenting the ranks of the Baptist denomination, were 
 led to the abandonment of their pedobaptist sentiments, 
 and to the adoption of their present views, (under the 
 teaching's of the Spirit,) mainly through a simple and 
 prayerful reading of the English version of the New 
 Testament. Ambiguous as the terms which set forth the 
 ordinance are supposed to be ; obscure and unintelligible 
 *as it is argued, the mind of the Holy Spirit is developed, 
 yet has God, in the goodness and wisdom of His Provi- 
 dence, employed and blest this version, to the uprooting 
 of error, the melting away of long cherished prejudices, 
 and the constraining of thousands to welcome " the 
 truth as it is in Jesus," and to bow their necks to its 
 mild and gentle yoke. What more do we expect from 
 a Baptist version of the New Testament ? Granting 
 that the literal term is, and should be so expressed, im- 
 merse, and that thus altered and amended, it should go 
 forth, borne far and wide upon the wings of every wind ; 
 still, what new and brighter hopes are cherished ? What 
 more splendid triumphs of truth over error ? What 
 more signal achievements of the mighty power of God 
 in the vindication of His own Word? What increased 
 gathering of converts lining the banks of the baptismal wa- 
 ters, are expected, from the diffusion of this new and 
 amended version '? We tremble while we utter it, but 
 fidelity to the cause of God and truth, demand its utter- 
 ance—we fear the very opposit3 of these glowing antici- 
 
&3 
 
 pations will be the result. The work wrested, as it were, 
 from the hands of God, and placed into the hands of 
 man,— an arbitrary course marked out for the operation 
 of the Holy Spirit— undue dependance placed upon verbal 
 and unnecessary distinctions, — the success of the truth 
 made to rest upon human ingenuity, — God's providence 
 contravened, and a diminished confidence in His wisdom 
 and power betrayed, what more can be expected, than 
 defeat, disappointment and mortification. God may 
 leave us to learn that man's highest strength is weak- 
 ness, and his profoundest wisdom but folly. 
 
 4. Such a work must necessarily be an indi- 
 vidual, and therefore an irresponsible one* On this 
 ground we prefer an objection. 
 
 From whom ought such a work, suppdftng it be 
 called for, to issue ? From one or more isolated and 
 irresponsible individuals, or from the collected wis- 
 dom, learning and piety of the denomination, met 
 at its call, in solemn convention ? Surely there can 
 be no hesitation in deciding. And who are the per- 
 sons from whom the proposal lias proceeded ? We 
 ask for information. Are they men in whose purity 
 of motive, weight of character, ripe scholarship 
 and profound critical acumen the denomination 
 have implicit confidence ? Are they such men, as 
 a representative Convention from every Church in the 
 Union, convened for this purpose, would select, and 
 into whose hands such a work would be confided. 
 And when the proposed expurgation has taken place, 
 
64 
 
 and the proffered amendments made, who is to gua- 
 rantee their perfect accuracy ? What literary repu- 
 tation is pledged that the work, when done, has 
 been well done, and done faithfully ? We enter our 
 decided protest against this individual and irrespon- 
 sible assumption of a denominational work, and this 
 committal of an extensive Christian body, to the pe- 
 culiar opinions and measures of a few of its mem- 
 bers. Let these queries be soberly and candidly 
 pondered. 
 
 5. We urge as another objection to the proposed 
 measure, the tendency which it will have to sow the 
 seeds of discord and disunion among brethren now 
 happilj agreed in upholding and disseminating the 
 one versiffhy so long the record of their appeal, and 
 the bond of their union. As a denomination, we are 
 now engaged in a great work, — the work of giving 
 to the millions of India the word of God in their 
 vernacular, faithfully translated from the original 
 text. To this work we were called by the move- 
 ments of Divine Providence, so marked and signifi- 
 cant in their character as not to be misunderstood, 
 and when known, not to be disregarded. Scarcely 
 embarked in this difficult enterprise — our operations 
 yet in the germe of their development — our forces 
 but partially organized— many objections yet to 
 meet, and many opinions yet to reconcile, we re- 
 quire all the harmony of sentiment and of feeling 
 which it is possible for a denomination, so peculiar 
 
65 
 
 as our own, to bring to the decision of a most Impor- 
 tant question. It requires then, no profound saga- 
 city to perceive, that, to call off the attention of the 
 whole denomination at the present moment from the 
 consideration of a subject so momentous, to divide 
 its interests and distract its counsels, by the agita- 
 tion of a question comparatively so insignificant, is 
 inconsiderate and impolitic ; and did we not think 
 the remark might be considered uncharitable, we 
 would say, that it argued a painful lack of sensibili- 
 ty to the true interests of the kingdom of Christ. 
 
 That the sentiments of the denomination will 
 be brought to harmonize in the adoption of the 
 proposed amended version we do not believe. The 
 proposed abandonment of the words baptize and 
 baptism, and the substitution of the kindred terms, 
 immerse and immersion, will doubtless attract to 
 itself the favourable suffrage of a few. Its plausi- 
 bility will beguile and its novelty will charm them. 
 But the more reflecting, perceiving that nothing 
 is to be gained by the alterations, while much will 
 be hazarded ; caught by no specious reasoning, and 
 won over by no puerile argument, will withhold 
 from the translation their sanction and their patro- 
 nage, and still retain at the domestic altar, in the 
 study and in the pulpit, the good old English Ver- 
 sion, endeared to them by a thousand tender and 
 hallowed associations. Such we think, will be the 
 disorganizing tendency of the question agitated 
 
66 
 
 either at the present, or at any future time. Brother 
 will be arrayed against brother, church against 
 church, and association against association, and the 
 Book, that should have been to us as a heaven 
 wrought ligament, binding each to the other, and 
 all to it, will thus become the organ of strife, dis- 
 cord and dissension. From such a catastrophe, 
 may the GOD of the BIBLE preserve us ! 
 
■ 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
V