mate result of attempting to run between the commands of God and human institutions. He sometimes falls in with one, and then with the other. Now God either has made a revelation of his will to us, or he has not if he has not, then we are wholly without a guide; if he has, then the Bible is his will and our guide. If the Bible is his will respecting our duty, then it is complete, or it is not: if it is complete, then our duty is clearly expressed. If it is not complete, then it is so because God would not, or could not, make it complete: but to say that he could not, limits omnipotence; and to say he would not, impeaches his goodness. The conclusion is evident, the Bible is a full and complete rule of faith and practice. SECTION II. THE next position of Mr. Sawyer's which I shall notice, is that in order to establish his doctrine, he denies the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures; charges the Greeks, as a nation and a church, with not understanding their own language; the apostles and primitive church with ignorance and error; and the translators of our English version with error and want of ability to accomplish in their whole effort even as. much as he has done in his little book of 24 pages. 1. He denies the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. On p. 2 he says, "The English verb baptize corresponds to the Greek Bantigo, from which it is derived. The noun baptism corresponds to the Greek βαπτισμα and βαπτισμος, both of which are applied to denote the rite of baptism in the New Testament. -The language of the Septuagint is Hebraistic, not strictly classic; that is, it differs from the language used by native Greek writers, by being, in many instances and particulars, conformed to the Hebrew, of which it is a แ translation, and by being used to express ideas and denote objects unknown to Grecian literature." On p. 3 he says, "Bantigo, as used by the classic Greek writers, signifies to dip, to immerse in a liquid." On p. 8 he "In adopting the Greek language, and applying it to describe their own peculiar institutions, 'it was not possible for the Jews to use all the words of that language in senses previously established by Grecian usage." says, Thus Mr. S. argues through his whole book, to prove that the writers of the New Testament, either from choice, or ignorantly, or for want of language, did adopt and use a classic Greek word, the meaning of which is universally known to be DIP, while they by using this word intended to teach the whole church of God to sprinkle. Now Mr. S. has proved his point, or he has not. If he has not proved that Christ and the apostles were all mistaken in the use of the word Bantigo, then his whole scheme is gone at a dash; for he concedes that the legitimate meaning of that word is dip. But if he has established the point that the writers of the New Testament fell into the same error with which he charges the translators of the Septua gint, then it is obvious that he denies the inspiration of their writings. Mr. S. would make us believe, that he is only arguing the difference between classic and Hebraistic Greek, while he evidently aims to fix on the mind of the reader, that the language of the Scriptures was not inspired. What if the translators of the Septuagint before Christ's incarnation mistook? and what if the translators of the English version were mistaken? If Christ and his apostles are correct in their use of the word ßantigo and its cognates, this is all we wish to know. The distinction between classic and Hebraistic Greek has nothing to do with this argument. The question that Mr. S. has introduced is concerning plenary inspiration; that is, were the wurds as well as the sentiments of the Bible dictated by the Holy Spirit? or were the apostles and the whole primitive church left to use a classic Greek word, calculated to mislead themselves, and the churches in succeeding ages? On this important point we need light. 1. The testimony of our Lord. "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.". Exodus xxiv. 4. "I have also spoken by the prophets."-Hosea xii. 10. "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the WORDS of God."-John iii. 34. See also Deut. xxxi. 12: Prov. i. 23, &c. &c. 2. The testimony of the apostles. "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy."-Rev. xxii. 18, 19. "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."-1 Cor. ii. 13. "Take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say."-Luke xii. 11, 12. See also Acts v. 20: John xvii. 14: Rev. i. 3: xxii. 18: xxi. 5: Heb. iv. 12. 3. The testimony of pedobaptists. 66 And this is the most literal, and no doubt the most correct, rendering of nokha idara, the Greek words which were dictated by the Holy Ghost."-Evangel. Mag., Hartford, Ct., June, 1836. "In the text we are presented, among other things, with a commission given to the apostles and others, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and Bantiσbeis, (is baptized,) &c. Their preaching therefore was a business of mere delegation; or in other words, Christ preached the gospel by their instrumentality.Can he who came to publish the will of God to mankind concerning this immensely important subject have left it to be chiefly published under his authority, by the mere force of human memory, and mixed with human frailty and human opinions, and thus necessarily have become a mass of truth and falsehood, so blended that those who read their writings could never be able to separate the falsehood from the truth? Does any human legislature suffer its own laws to be published in such a manner? Was Christ possessed of less wisdom, or less integrity, or less benevolence, than human legislators ?The same truth is evident, from the promise given to the apostles by our Savior in his last discourse, of the descent of the Holy Ghost... That he (the Holy Ghost) should bring up to the full view of the memory the things which Christ had taught them. It will be evident to the slightest attention, that the things here promised contain whatever is involved in the plenary inspiration of the apostles. If it was fulfilled, then the apostles wrote and preached the gospel under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, because the promise assures them of such inspiration, in the amplest terms conceivable. If it was not fulfilled, then Christ was a false prophet.The apostles testify directly, that the gospel which they preached was revealed to them from God, which things also we speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual; or as the last phrase is rendered by Dr. Macknight, explaining spiritual things in spiritual words."-Dwight's Theology, Sermon 48. "But God has given us his word to this very end, that it may be our rule; and therefore he has so ordered it that it may be understood by us; and strictly speaking this is our only rule. If we join any thing to it, as making it our rule, we do that which we have no warrant for; yea, that which God has forbidden. Deut. iv. 2: Prov. xxx. 6."-Pres't Edwards, vol. 4, p. 482. Should Mr. Sawyer read Pres't Edwards' works, vol. 1, from p. 128 to 341, I think it would relieve him from his present embarrassment. I close this head, by quoting Mr. Dick: "It is manifest, with respect to many passages of Scripture, that the subjects of which they treat must have been directly revealed to the writers. They could not have been known by any natural means, nor was the knowledge of them attainable by a simple elevation of the faculties. With the faculties of an angel we could not discover the purposes of the Divine mind. In fact, by denying that they were constantly under infallible guidance, it leaves us utterly at a loss to know when we should or should not believe them. If they could blend their own stories with the revelations made to them, how can I be certain that they have not, on some occasions, published, in the name of God, sentiments of their own, to which they were desirous to gain credit and authority? Who will assure me of their perfect fidelity in drawing a line of distinction between, the divine and the human parts of their writings? The denial of the plenary inspiration of the Scripture tends to unsettle the foundations of our faith, involves us in doubt and perplexity, and leaves us no other method of ascertaining how much we should believe, but by an appeal to reason. when reason is invested with the authority of a judge, not only is revelation dishonored, and its author insulted, but the end for which it was given is completely defeated. No man could write an intelligible discourse on a subject which he does not understand, unless he were furnished with the words as well as the sentiments; and that the penmen of the Scriptures did not always understand what they wrote, is intimated by Peter, when he says, that the prophets 'inquired and searched diligently what, and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did But |