ed into the Latin tongue by a transfer from the Greek; and if so, it was done either by, or with the sanction of the Apostles themselves. At all events, while there was a common Latin word for immerse and for submerge (these two English words are taken from the Latin)— Jerome, and the Christian world with him, did not employ either submergo or immergo, but baptizo. Now the Baptists affirm that the whole Christian world were Baptists at that time; i. e., that they considered baptism to be synonymous with immersion, and practised accordingly. If this were so, then the Vulgate is rather a Baptist Bible than a Roman Catholic Bible: and immersers first led the way in transferring the word baptize, instead of translating it by a word in common use. This outcry about "transferring," and "concealing," comes to this at last.

But an argument may be built upon these facts. The ancient Western church, whose common language was Latin, had an abundant supply of words to express immersion and submersion, if they had thought immersion the only baptism, or essential to it. But so far from employing one of their common words, they transferred the original Greek word baptize, adopted it into their language, and gave it a complete naturalization. When they spoke of baptism, they called it an ablution, a washing, a distilling of the purifying dew; they spoke of it not as an immersion. As to the manner of performing baptism, even when they generally practised immersion, they did not always do so, and of course never deemed it essential. What is the inevitable conclusion from these facts? That they did not consider the word immerse, or the word submerge, as equivalent to the word baptize :

and that a substitution of these words for that would not be an adequate faithful translation.

Here, then, we have the judgment of the ancient church with regard to the propriety of transferring the word in question: and that judgment founded upon the conviction that neither of their existing words would truly and adequately express the true idea of Christian baptism.

This was the judgment of the Christian church in the time of Jerome: and in his days the use of baptizo, as a common Latin word, was a custom, whereof the memory of man ran not to the contrary-as a practice in which all Christians who spake the Latin language acquiesced and undoubtingly agreed. THE TRANSFER was, without any ground for doubt of which I am informed, MADE IN THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. It is not, as Mr. Woolsey's book and the Report of the Baptist Bible Society would lead those to suppose who are not otherwise informed, a recent invention, to oppose the Baptists, and "to conceal a part of God's revealed will from the nations of the earth, in a dead language, with a view of promoting party designs, and of preventing men from knowing his will, and their duty and obligation to obey him."

IV.

INFANT BAPTISM.

SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY.

MATTHEW XXVIII. 19.

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

THERE are two questions with regard to Baptism, on which evangelical Christians are divided; one respecting the mode, and the other respecting the subjects. These two questions are entirely distinct, and there is no reason why those who differ concerning one might not agree concerning the other.

Between us and our Baptist brethren there is no difference of opinion concerning the subjects of baptism, except concerning Infants. We agree that adults are not to be baptized, save on a credible profession of evangelical faith and repentance. The questions concerning the subjects are therefore limited to this single inquiry: Are the infant children of believing parents to be baptized? The law of the institution makes no express mention of infants. It is therefore contended that this is conclusive against Infant Baptism; as in a positive institution

we are to go by the letter of the law; and all beyond this, as well as everything short of this, is wrong.

I humbly conceive, however, that Christ has a right to make known his will, in this or in any other matter, in just such a way as he pleases;-that the incidental recognition, by the apostles, of infants as properly embraced in the intent of that law, or their actual practice of baptizing infants, would be an authoritative interpretation of the law, as extending its provisions to infants. And we deceive ourselves; we undertake to correct the wisdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; we are guilty of disobedience to his authority; if, in such a case, we allow any notions or arguments about a "positive institution" to lead us to act in opposition to the will of Christ, no less truly made known than if the warrant had expressed infants by name. The question is not, Are infants expressly named? but, Has Christ anywhere, and in any way, instructed us whether they are to be embraced or excluded?

On this principle our Baptist brethren themselves argue and practise in other matters; and that, too, in matters pertaining to "positive institutions." Indeed, any other principle than this would shut out the Lord Jesus Christ from being master and lawgiver over his own house. Who are we, to prescribe to him how he is to make known his will; and that under penalty of having his will rejected, if he does not make it known in just the manner that we think he ought to employ ?

The Sabbath is a positive institution; and God has expressly designated the seventh day; yet all Christians in the world, who keep a Sabbath, save a very diminutive fraction of one sect, keep the first day. Where is the express warrant for this change? There is none.

Our

Baptist brethren, like ourselves, make out a warrant by inference. We find the will of Christ made known in the Scriptures, not expressly, but circumstantially. The practice of the Apostles teaches the will of Christ, even though it be but incidentally mentioned. We admit the validity of this warrant by inference.

If truly made out, it is as clearly the will of Christ as though we had found an express warrant in so many words, "Let the Sabbath be changed from the seventh day to the first."

The "Seventh Day Baptists" are the only consistent ones here. They do with the Sabbath as they do by Infant Baptism; they admit nothing but an express warrant, in so many words, to bear upon either question; 66 and," ," said one of their ministers to me, 66 we feel that with our Baptist brethren our arguments are unanswerable. They must either keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, or else reject the very principles on which they reject Infant Baptism; they must give up their argument, or keep the seventh day, or else determine to act inconsistently and absurdly."

His conclusion was manifestly sound. And I could not help adding, both they and you must give up female communion too: for when Christ instituted his Supper there were no female disciples present, though he had such at the time, and he said not one word about them in the law of the ordinance; nor are they anywhere expressly mentioned as partaking in the celebration of the ordinance and yet the Lord's Supper is purely a "positive institution," and, say our brethren, you must go by the letter; you must not go beyond; you must not make out a warrant by inference; you must have it express.

I know they prove the propriety of female commu