tion. In all the Latin Teftaments that I have feen, the original words are not Latinized, but tranfcribed; and thus it is in our English Teftaments. The original words, when they relate to the ordinance of Baptifm, are not Englished, as in other cafes, but tranfcribed. Baptize and Baptifm are neither Latin nor English, but Greek words, tranfcribed from: the Greek Teftament.

As the infpired writers have not defined the fenfe, in which the original words fhould. be used, those learned Divines, who transla ted the new Teftament, refufed to define them, by fubftituting the English words, fprinkling, or dipping. An attempt to ref trict the meaning to any particular mode of baptizing, they viewed as impious-like the prefumptuous conduct of Uzzah, who officioufly put forth his hand to fteady the ark of

God.

Perry's Dictionary is equally cautious.-. "Baptize, is defined to chriften. Baptifm, a "facrament which admits into the church. Bapstift, he who adminiflers Baptifm. Baptiftory, "the place where perfons are baptized."

Let us now fee what the great Dr. Johnfon's Dictionary fays, which excels all others, in the accurate definition of words. "Bap

tifm; Baptifm is given by water, and that pre66 fcript form of words, which the church of Chrift doth ufe. Baptize; to chriften; to adminifter "the facrament of Baptifm. Baptift; he that adminifters Baptifm."

And even Entick

defines Baptifm, as being "a facrament that How cautioufly "admits into the church." have these great criticks avoided faying any thing about the mode of adminiftering the Chriftian Baptifm. They confidered the peculiarity of the mode, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, dipping, &c. as not being fpecified by the pen of infpiration, and confequently, as not being effential to the ordinance of Baptifm.

This kind of criticifm is, in my opinion, of very confiderable importance; and I won der that you could fo entirely overlook it.

Let us now attend to what your three witneffes fay. You tell us," that Calvin, a very "warm oppofer of the Baptift, as a witness, "fhall come firft; his teftimony is, howbeit, "the very word of baptizing, fignifies to dip." "Zanchius fays, baptizo, is to immerfe, "plunge under, overwhelm in water."

Dr. Owen fays, the original fignification “of baptizò, is to dip, to plunge."

Thefe men, Sir, have afferted what no perfon denies; for every one will readily allow that, baptizo, fignifies to dip. Your witneffes have not faid, nor intimated, that to dip, was the only fignification of the word baptizo. This was not their opinion, nor did they intend or expect, to be thus underflood. Calvin, in particular, was a zealous advocate for the mode of pouring or fprinkling. In his inftitutes, he fays, "the difference is of "no moment, whether he who is baptized,

66

be dipped all over, and if fo, whether "thrice or once, or whether he be only wetted by the water poured on him." "So

little difference in ceremony ought not to “be confidered by us of fuch importance, "as on that account to rend the church, or "trouble it with broils." Dr. Owen, also, exprefsly fays, as Mr. Booth himself acknowledges," that the original and natural fignification of baptizo, imports to dip, to plunge, to dye; yet it alfo fignifies, to wash " or cleanfe."

66

You further inform us," that you could "bring forward a multitude of witneffes, and

all from our own order, the Podobaptifts, "to prove the fame point, but in the mouth "of two or three witneffes, if they be good ones, every word fhall be established."

I am fenfible that you might, instead of felecting three, have named the whole number of eighty-two, mentioned by Mr. Booth. But, Sir, we ought to remember that the fe faithful witneffes, were not volunteers. They have been preffed into your service, even fince they were dead, and deprived of an opportunity to vindicate themselves.-Their teftimony ought to have been confidered and reported with the utmost impartiality and fairness.

The various quotations of Mr. Booth, relative to pofitive inftitutions, and to general rules for underftanding and interpreting fcripture, would be, I prefume, much more

intelligible and inftructive to many of his readers, if they were but acquainted with the particular cafes, for which thofe learned and refpectable authors intended, and to which they applied them. The application which has been made by Mr. Booth and yourself, especially with respect to the mode of Baptifm, does not appear to be fo candid as could be wifhed, nor fo judicious and conclufive as you and that gentleman seem to have imagined.

I am ready to allow that fome perfons, who believe in infant Baptifm, as being of divine appointment, have been in the habit of dipping infants as well as adults. This has been, and ftill is the practice of the Greek churches. Others alfo, who are in the habit of adminiftering Baptifin by pouring or fprinkling, have, for various reafons, wifhed that the mode of dipping might obtain. Some have fuppofed dipping to be the most ancient and fignificant mode; and have, on thefe accounts, wifhed it to prevail; and fome have wished it, for the fake of uniformity, being wearied out with a very unplealant and unprofitable controverfy. But probably, not one of thofe men, whofe names have been mentioned, did believe that the mode of dipping, was effential to the ordinance of Baptifm. It was their opinion, that perfons might be baptized lawfully, by having water poured or fprinkled upon them; and that thefe modes of baptizing were agreeable to

K

the fignification of the original word baptizo. Thus this cloud of witneffes, inftead of teftifying in favour of the Baptift principle, refpecting the neceffity of dipping, have generally and decidedly teftified aganft it.

Mr. Booth, as he fays, " in order to pre"vent mistakes," has defired the reader to obferve, that no inconfiderable part of these learned authors have afferted, that the word Baptifm, fignifies pouring or fprinkling, as well as immerfion. He and you have told us, what each individual faid concerning dipping; but have not been fo impartial as to inform us, what they individually faid, concerning pouring and fprinkling. It is certainly incumbent on witneffes, and equally incumbent on those who report their teftimony, to relate the whole truth, as well as nothing but the truth.

Before we difmifs this argument, let us fpend a moment in examining the teftimony of the Quakers, which appears to be confidered, by fome perfons, as of peculiar importance in the prefent controverfy. Mr. Booth ftyles thein "the impartial, difinterest"ed friends of the Baptift."-and tells us, "that they defpife infant fprinkling." Some learned Quakers, it feems, have fuppofed that dipping was the primitive mode of baptizing; and that the original word baptizo, fignifies to dip, to plunge. And their opinion in this refpe&t is thought to be of the greatest weight and authority, because they are the