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 unsetttle 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

signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.' 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. And in another place, having observed that 'eye. had not seen, nor ear heard, neither had entered into the heart of man the things which God had prepared for them that love him,' he adds, 'But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.' See Rev. i. 1: Gal. i. 12: Eph. ii. 5: 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10. Paul affirms that he and the other apostles spoke 'not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost taught,' 1 Cor. ii. 13; and this general assertion may be applied to their writings as well as to their sermons. Besides, every person who hath reflected upon the subject, is aware of the importance of a proper selection of words in expressing our sentiments; and knows how easy it is for a heedless or unskillful person not only to injure the beauty and weaken the efficacy of a discourse by the impropriety of his language, but by substituting one word for another, to which it seems to be equivalent, to alter the meaning, and perhaps render it totally different. If, then, the sacred writers had not been directed in the choice of words, how could we have been assured that those which they have chosen were the most proper? Is it not possible, nay, is it not certain, that they would have sometimes expressed themselves inaccurately, as many of them were illiterate; and by consequence would have obscured and misrepresented the truth? In this case, how could our faith have securely rested on their testimony? Would not the suspicion of error in their writings have rendered it necessary, before we received them, to try them by the standard of reason? and would not the authority and the design of revelation have thus been overthrown? We must conclude, therefore, that the words of Scripture are from God, as well as the matter; or we shall charge him with a want of wisdom in transmitting his truths through a

channel by which they might have been, and most probably have been, polluted."

In view of the above, it is not only the inspired writers who stand charged with the use of misguiding classic Greek words; but the Holy Spirit also, However, the holy apostles and primitive church having been led astray by the use of this word, it is reasonable to suppose that they should wish to retract; and in view of the entire absence of any thing of the kind, we will SUPPOSE a confession :

Whereas it has recently come to our knowledge, that a little handful of people, calling themselves Baptists, who, under a pretense of keeping our Savior's law, following our example, and keeping the ordinances as we delivered them to the primitive churches, do constantly affirm that the word fanrit does mean to immerse, and that our practice did conform to this use of the word,-therefore urging that sprinkling is not baptism; and whereas these Baptists have been supposed to cause much trouble and dispute on earth, and probably will cause still more, unless there is a new revelation on this point:-Now know therefore, that we, the sacred penmen, do freely confess, that we have been the sole cause of all this trouble. It was not designed by us, but was purely a mistake. the time we wrote the Scriptures, we were ignoraut Jews, and did not understand the Greek of the age; besides this, we had before us the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew text, which used the word Barigo with reference to the Jewish washings; and we being familiar with that, and yet wholly ignorant of the true use of the Greek language, and being left to our own judgment as to the choice of words in communicating what the Holy Spirit taught us, we did fall into the mistake of using the word fartigo (immerse) instead of the word Partigo (sprinkle,) and even went so far as to submit to immersion ourselves, (which

At

fully proves our honesty in this matter.) The primitive church, following our example, were immersed also; and the Greeks, who were a very ignorant and stupid race, understanding only the classic use of their own language, fell into this error, and finally the whole church for about 1300 years. But in as much as sprinkling has made its appearance, and disturbed the churches in the western part of your world for about three or four hundred years, [see Mr. S., first page,} and as the world is getting wiser and still wiser, and especially as a certain Rev. Mr. has recently outstripped all others, going beyond Lexicons, Translators, Councils, and the judgment of the whole church for century upon century past, and a large majority of the church at the present day, diving into the very bowels of the divinely inspired original, [see p. 21 of Mr. S.] and found out and triumphantly established the truth; [see his first page;] therefore we stand fully convicted, and do herewith send orders, that the word Bantiga (immerse) be removed from the New Testament, and the word Partita (sprinkle) take its place. This, with FIVE other alterations suggested by Mr. S., [pamphlet, p. 18,] will correct the whole, and henceforward prove that immersion is a mere nullity. [Signed, &c.]

2. On p. 19, Mr. S. sets aside the judgment of the first Christian churches after this manner : "Most of the early Christians were unacquainted with the Hebraistic Greek dialect, being familiar with the usage of the classic; and being in a great measure ignorant of that which prevailed among the Jews, the great mass of the ancient Christians would easily have fallen into error on this subject, and have understood the Scriptures as teaching immersion, where they really taught sprinkling; besides, most of them were illiterate," &c. Poor church! you are set aside, en masse.

3. On p. 21, Mr. S. overthrows the judgment of the

"The same

whole Greek church, without ceremony. remarks apply to the immersions of the Greek church. The native Greeks, and others who derive their knowledge of the Greek language from the classics and from native Greek usage, have in every age been liable to err in the interpretation of the Greek Scriptures." POOR GREEKS!

4. On p. 21, he says, "Some are unwilling to look beyond the common English version of the Scriptures, for information on religious subjects, which, however faithful and correct in the main, is confessedly imperfect and inadequate in many particulars. It is especially so in relation to the mode of baptism, as has been demonstrated in the foregoing pages." POOR TRANSLATORS! what a pity they had not the light of Mr. Sawyer's pamphlet to guide them.

But why does Mr. S. condemn Lexicons, the Septuagint, the judgment and practice of the apostles, and of the whole Greek church and nation, all the primitive Christians, and all the translators? The true answer is, because he finds them all opposed to his views.

It is a well known fact, that the Greek language is the most copious and eloquent in the world; and it was the special design of God that this should be the language by which the sacred oracles should be published.

"Homer watered the tongue, and in succeeding ages it flourished till it grew ripe in the New Testament. As Athens in old times was called the Grecia of Grecia, so the New Testament may be styled the Greek of Greek."-I. Lightfoot, D. D. vol. 1, p. 1015.

"As to that doubtfulness that some have taken up about the original tongue of this epistle, (i. e. to the Hebrews,) as thinking it strange that he (Paul) should write in the Greek tongue to the Hebrews, especially to the Hebrews of Judea, we need no better satisfaction than what the Hebrews themselves, yea, the Hebrews