translates Matth v. 1-"Jesus, seeing so great a confluence, repaired to a mountain," &c. The word "confluence" is sometimes used to signify a multitude of people; but certainly this is not its most common meaning. How much more simple as well as literal is our common version "Jesus, seeing the multitudes," (tous ochlous,) &c. But this by the way.

Dr. Campbell, like other men, was somewhat under the influence of his feelings; and it is, to my mind, evident that his partiality for immersion induced him sometimes to speak unguardedly. For example, he states it as a fact, that the Syriac version, in translating Matth. iii. 11, uses the word in, not with—"I baptize you in water." Now any one who will carefully examine the passage as it is found in the Syriac Testament, will see that he was in an error. The preposition used is baith, which, like the Hebrew baith, is very frequently employed in the sense of with. This preposition is used in Rev. xix. 13, where the sense requires it to be translated with "He was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with (baith) blood." The passage in Matth. iii. 11, is thus translated from the Syriac into Latin by Schaaf and Leusden, whose edition I have "Ego baptizo vos aqua [not in aqua] ad conversionem-ipse baptizabit vos Spiritu sancto et igne "-I baptize you WITH water to conversion-He shall baptize you WITH the Holy Ghost and WITH fire.

I will oppose to the authority of Luther, who admitted that the original or etymological meaning of baptizo is to immerse, the testimony of Ernesti. one of the ablest writers on interpretation, who pronounces etymology an uncertain and an unsafe guide in ascertaining the meaning of words. To the authority of Tertullian, who is mentioned as having translated the word by tingo, I will oppose that of Cyprian and the sixty-six bishops, who used it in the sense of pouring and sprinkling.

Dr. Anthon, I presume, is a classical scholar; but I have abundantly proved, that an acquaintance with classic Greek will not qualify a man to expound the language of the New Testament, which is written in "Hebrew Greek," The classic usage, as Ernesti, and Dr. Campbell, and Prof. Stuart affirm, will, if followed, in many cases entirely mislead the interpreter of the New Testament. I would attach very little importance, therefore, to the opinion of a classical scholar concerning an important word in the New Testament, unless I knew he had studied the idiom of the Greek spoken by the Jews and inspired writers. Dr. Anthon, says my friend, decided that Dr. Spring was in error concerning this word. But I venture to say, that Dr. Spring is quite as well known as a scholar, as the gentleman who sat in judgment upon him. Dr. Spring is one of the first men in our country; and it will not do to attempt to put down the views he may have expressed, merely by the ipse dixit of Dr. Anthon. Dr. Clark will, perhaps, be admitted to have been equal as a classical scholar, at least so far as languages are concerned, to Dr. Anthon; and he says, it is certain that baptizo means both to dip and to sprinkle. Perhaps Dr. Dwight will be admitted to have been superior in Biblical criticism to Dr. Anthon; and he, after a thorough examination of the subject, came fully to the conclusion, that in the Scriptures baptizo does not at all mean to immerse. Dr. Scott, the learned commentator, was of a similar opinion. I will put the authority of such men as these against that of Anthon, and of Bloomfield, (who is admitted to be a learned man,) if indeed his opinion has been correctly represented by my friend, Mr. Campbell. To what extent the Edinburgh Reviewers made themselves

acquainted with this subject, before expressing the opinion quoted by the gentleman, I know not. They thought, it seems, that Mr. Carson had put himself to needless trouble in maintaining his position. Mr. Carson, of course, thought differently; and probably he was the better judge in the

case.

The lexi

But really, this species of argument is worth very little. My friend has told us, that one good argument is sufficient to establish a point. He seems, however, thus far to have failed to produce even one. cons have failed him; the classics cannot prove the action he seeks to find in baptizo; the translations will not sustain him; and his learned authorities have been met by names equally learned, if not more so. Where, then, is the evidence, proving that immersion is the only apostolic or christian baptism?

The opinion of Calvin, on any subject, I will admit is of more weight by far, than mine or that of my friend. But when he himself says, that in regard to any particular subject he is wholly indifferent; I cannot attach much importance to his opinion about it, unless I learn from him, that he has examined its merits. For we all know, that men are not accustomed extensively to investigate subjects that do not interest them.

But the gentleman boasts of the number of immersionists in the United States, and of the rapid increase of his own church. I noticed in his Harbinger, some time since, an article in which he spoke of the rapid increase of Presbyterians and Old Baptists during the year preceding; and I remember, he consoled himself by saying, that error very commonly spreads faster than truth. When his own denomination goes ahead, it affords cheering evidence, that his principles are true; but when others increase, he says, Ah, error will outrun truth any how. [A laugh.] But let us make a fair calculation. Count the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Episcopalians, &c.—and we can out-number immersionists three times over. The gentleman gains nothing by counting numbers.

I have now noticed his remark, so far as necessary. He is yet "in the portico." I hope he will ere long venture into the good Book. In the meantime, lest in the Bible argument I should get too far ahead of him, I will turn your attention more particularly to the history of this subject.

I have said, and I will repeat it, that immersion cannot be found in the history of the church earlier than the third century. The first writer who mentions it, is Tertullian, who flourished in the beginning of the third century; and he informs us, that the practice then was trine immersion, accompanied with sign of the cross, the use of honey, oil, and the indecent custom of entirely disrobing the persons, male and female! Will my friend take Tertullian as his witness? If so, I hope he will agree to take his whole testimony, not a small part of it. In courts of justice, when a man calls in a witness, I believe he is obliged to take his entire testimony-he cannot select just so much as may suit him. Will the gentleman, then, agree to practice the trine immersion of Tertullian, with the accompanying ceremonies? No-he must cut off two immer sions. the sign of the cross, and divers other things then practiced. So he will reject some three-fourths or four-fifths of the testimony of his own witness. He cuts it down, till it suits him. Very well: let me have the same privilege. Let me cut off a little more; and it will suit me. And in doing so, I only act upon the principle which he adopts-I follow his example.

The truth is this witness proves too much for either of us. When we first find immersion, we find it attended with much superstition. The question arises-how much of the practice in the third century is superstition; and how much is truth? My friend says, two immersions, the disrobing, the use of honey, the sign of the cross. But may there not be a little more superstition, than he admits? Evidently the ordinance was greatly corrupted; and it is impossible to separate the pure from the vile, except by going to the Bible itself. It is worthy of remark, that Justin Martyr, the earliest writer on baptism, speaks of it as a washing (loutron,) but not as an immersion. Tertullian, as I have said, is the first who speaks of immersion.

But it is an important fact, that we find pouring and sprinkling praoticed and universally admitted to be valid and scriptural, quite as early as we find immersion. Cyprian, who lived early in the third century, and the sixty-six bishops united with him in council, were unanimously of that opinion. And it is worthy of special remark, that not a voice was raised against their decision in favor of the validity and scripturality (if I may coin a word) of baptism by sprinkling. So far as we can learn, there was not a word of controversy on the subject, as certainly there must have been, if it had been considered an innovation. Both Greeks and Latins were united in regarding baptism by sprinkling or pouring as valid and scriptural.

But I can find sprinkling rather earlier than this. Walker, an English writer, who studied this subject with great care, in his book on baptism, mentions the case of a man, some sixty or seventy years after the apos tles, who, whilst on a journey, was taken dangerously ill, professed chris tianity, and desired baptism. As water could not be obtained, the place being desert, he was sprinkled thrice with sand. He recovered; and his case being reported to the bishop, he decided that he was baptized "if only water were poured (perfunderetur) on him." Here is an instance of baptism by pouring, earlier than any account of immersion, so far as I know, can be found. See Pond. 45. p.

-

It has been asserted, that baptism by pouring and sprinkling was, at the period of which we are speaking, deemed so doubtful as to its validity, that persons so baptized were not permitted to bear the ministerial office. This, however, is not true. There was a rule, as we learn from the council of Neoceserea, that persons who made profession of religion on a sick bed, should not enter the ministry, unless they afterwards gave decided evidence of piety. The difficulty arose, not from any doubt entertained of the validity of their baptism, but from the doubtful character of their piety. This will be proved, if disputed. The christians of that day certainly gave the most unequivocal evidence of their entire confidence in the scriptural character of such baptisms; for although the prevailing belief was, that persons dying unbaptized would go to perdition, they had no scruples about baptizing the sick by pouring; nor did they ever rebaptize such as had received the ordinance in this manner. They, there fore, risked the salvation of the soul upon the validity of such baptisms. Indeed it is certain, that many of the ancients entertained the belief, that John baptized by pouring. The proof of this fact I have already produced; and it is scarcely necessary to repeat it. Aurelius Prudentius (A. D. 390) represents him as pouring water on the persons in the river "perfundit fluvio." Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the same time. represents him as baptizing "infusis lymphis"-by pouring water. Ber

nard, speaking of the baptism of our Savior by John, says " Infundit aquam capiti Creatoris creatura"-the creature poured water on the head of the Creator. Lactantius speaks of baptism performed "purifici roris perfusione"-by the distilling of the purifying dew. In the 5th century it was very common in many places to baptize by pouring.

I might safely agree to decide this controversy by the testimony of the early Greek and Latin fathers; for, to a man, they believed that baptism, by pouring or sprinkling, was true christian baptism. They furnish us with concessions of immersionists that are worth something. They, it will not be denied, understood the Greek language. They certainly knew whether baptizo signified only to immerse. And it will not be pretended, that they were prejudiced in favor of our mode. Our immersionist friends love to claim them as genuine advocates of theirs. Yet with all their knowledge of the Greek, and with all their strong partialities for immersion, they did not know, they did not believe, that im mersion is the only apostolic or christian baptism. Here we have concessions that will outweigh all the Pedo-baptist concessions that can be produced. These concessions are fatal to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Campbell; whilst the concessions of Pedo-baptists touch not the validity and scriptural character of our baptism.

Whether, therefore, we regard the testimony of the lexicons, or the usage of the classics, or the authority of the translations, or the usage of the Jewish writings and of the Bible, or the opinions and practice of the ancient churches, or all of these together; we stand on a firm foundation. With one voice they testify, that baptizo does not mean simply to immerse. With almost irresistible evidence they establish the validity of our mode of baptism.

Let not the fact be forgotten, that when the Greeks would definitely express immersion, they used kataduo; and when the Latins spoke of that mode of baptism, they used tingo, mergo, immergo, mergito. But when they spoke simply of the ordinance, they all used baptizo. How are we to account for this fact? How can it be explained, on the princi ples for which the gentleman is contending?

I will put the testimony of Origen, the learned Greek father, against the opinion of Anthon and Johnson. Origen says, Elisha had the altar baptized; and the Bible tells us how that baptism was administered. The water was poured upon it. The altar was not put down into the water. None of your classical scholars can say that Origen did not understand his vernacular tongue. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Basil, understood the Greek, and they all used the word to express the application of a fluid, even in small quantities, to a subject. The testimony of such men, concerning a Greek word in the New Tes'tament, is worth more than all the lexicons and classics, even if they were against us.

I think it unnecessary to pursue the subject further to-day. I have it precisely in the position in which I wish it. On to-morrow, if spared, I will make an argument directly in favor of baptism by pouring or sprinkling.-[Time expired.

Saturday, Nov. 18-10 o'clock, A. M. [MR. CAMPBELL'S TWELFTH ADDRESS.] It is important, my fellow-citizens, that we always have before us the precise point at issue, in every department of this debate. Various minor points will come up in the discussion of any great question. But, how

ever numerous these points may be, they should always be considered with reference to the great point. Their relevancy, pertinency, and power, should be regarded with special reference to it.

That great point now before us, is to ascertain, if we can, from the Scriptures of truth, and from ancient learning, what is the precise precept of Jesus Christ in the commission. As we said before, he doubtless intended some one definite action to be performed. He had but one design, one aim, and he gave one plain precept clearly indicative of it. What that precept was, we cannot mistake; for he said, "BAPTIZE." By this, he certainly meant some one well-defined action; not any action which every one pleases. Is not this perfectly plain? I care not what that one action may be. It is acceptable to me because it is his will. Had he said wash, or purify, without respect to any mode, I would be pleased with any mode whatever, provided it were indeed washing or purifying the whole person. But even then, it must be the whole person. His will is always my pleasure. Were I to consult flesh and blood, I had much rather be with than against Mr. Rice. His mode is certainly the easier of the two, and we all love easy and comfortable services. It is also the most convenient; and there is no cross about it. And no one likes to carry a cross if he can help it. It is also said to be more polite and genteel, and that is a good argument. Flesh and blood, then-and they are eloquent pleaders are with him and against me. But when reason, and conscience, and the love of the Savior mount the throne, we feel and know that he has commanded some one action to be performed, and we must understand it, if possible, and just do that action, and no other; for nothing else will please him. This is the fact and the law, both in heaven and earth. The reason is, his will is always wise and benevolent. I have presented this subject in various forms, that it may be apprehended. When God speaks and legislates in human language, he uses our words in their most precise, proper, and correct meaning at the time in which he speaks; and, therefore, in interpreting them, we have only to bring them to the same tribunal and to the same code of laws to which we appeal in any other case of the same time, country, language, &c. We ask no special tribunal, no special laws in the case. The tribunal to which we appeal, and the laws by which we would be tried, are universally admitted in all the commonwealth of learning and of law.

We have first appealed to the great law, defining the meaning of words, as general and specific.

We have in the next place, opened the dictionaries of that language in which the christian laws were written by inspired apostles. The whole host of lexicographers depose that dip, immerse, or plunge, is the proper, primitive and current meaning of baptizo. In this point there is no discrepancy-all other uses and acceptations of this word are figurative and rhetorical.

The gentleman [Mr. Rice,] has frequently told you what he has prov. ed, and what he has refuted. I envy no man the talent, the peculiar faculty of strongly and repeatedly affirming his conviction, or imagination, that he has proved, conclusively and irrefragably proved, himself right, and his opponent wrong. He that imagines that his bold, simple, unsupported assertion will pass with the community for proof, "strong as holy writ," conceives not of his audience as I do, nor as I wish to do. With me, a man's saying that he has proved a proposition, and repeating it a thousand times, passes for nothing. And thus I judge of my audience.