from Mark vii, 3, 4, and Luke xi, 38. The truth is, that nipsoontai, and ebaptisthee, are used to express the washing of hands, which Campbell says was done by pouring a little water on them, and which Josephus says was done by sprinkling water on them, which the verb baptizo, in Luke xi, 38, seems to express, to use his own idea.

One remark more before dismissing Campbell's translation, which establishes not only all we want, but more than we need. In the third verse nipsoontai is used, and in the fourth verse baptisoontai; and we are satisfied on this account that the said translation was made to cause a marked difference between these terms, which led to the consequence we carefully noted above.

We shall now invite the attention of the reader to the Missionary Baptist translation of Mark vii, 3, 4, which runs thus: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, eat not unless they wash their hands carefully, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, they eat not till they have bathed themselves." The same reasoning and conclusion that are connected with our remarks on Campbell's translation, would apply here. This translation makes a careful washing of the hands necessary when not at the market, and a bathing necessary when at the market. But when we turn to Luke xi, 38, of this translation, we find ebaptisthee translated bathe, which not only palpably violates the rule set forth in the translation of Mark vii, 3, 4, but most horribly violates the plain truths connected with the text. The Savior had not been in the market. How canhow dare, any man venture to translate Luke xi, 38, as if the Savior had been at the market? It shocks our moral sensibility to look on so flagrant a violation of the truth of inspiration. Mark vii, 3, can be translated under the idea of washing the

hands carefully, when not at the market; and the 4th verse under the idea of bathing after returning from the market; but when Luke xi, 38 is to be translated, the truth of God must be perverted to subserve the purpose of immersion, by presenting the case of the Savior, in the translation, as if he had been at the market. We invite the attention of all to this, but especially the attention of every Baptist that has any regard for the plain teachings of the book of God.

It will not do for a would-be critic to say that nipsoontai is used in Mark vii, 3, and baptisoontai in the 4th verse, and therefore the necessity of a difference. This will not in the most remote sense obviate the difficulty. The question is, was the Savior in the market? If not, the translation is a falsehood, told and published on the Spirit of all truth.

Dr. McKnight translates Mark vii, 4, thus: "For when they come from the market, except they dip themselves they eat not." Now, as the Savior had not been in the market, his case, which is pointed. out by the use of the term cbaptisthee, fell in with the case described in Mark vii, 3, by the use of the term nipsoontai; thereby making both words the same in meaning in these instances. But rather than allow this to be so, inspiration must be bent to the notions of immersionists on the term baptizo. It will never do for them to admit that this darling word of theirs was used to point out an act, simply the washing of hands by having a little water poured or sprinkled on them. This would totally ruin their cause. The Holy Spirit, however, caused Mark and Luke to fix this meaning to it, and as long as men who love truth more than party will be found on earth, this signification of the word will be advocated.

But we have not with these remarks entirely

disposed of this deceitful manner of handling the word of God. O, no! The matter is of too much importance, and too much interest, to be passed over slightly. There is one thing most remarkable and singular about the whole affair; namely, how it came to pass that Baptists would contend that baptizo uniformly signifies in the New Testament immersion, yet translate it by the term bathe, in Mark vii, 4, and Luke xi, 38. Nor is this all; they do not inform us what part of the body was bathed-whether hands, feet, head, neck, or the whole person. We always thought that Baptists taught the people that baptizo is a specific word; ever signifying to immerse; but lo and behold! the very moment their translators get to Mark vii, 4, and to Luke xi, 38, this specific word becomes a convertible thing, having the sense of bathed, which term Webster informs us signifies: "Washed, as in a bath; moistened with a liquid; bedewed." Well, well, in the sixth edition of the Baptist Bible, which is now before us, published in 1847, we clearly see that baptizo is made to signify moistened with a liquid; bedewed. We hope they will complain no more about the meaning we attach to it. Surely this translation, of their own making, reduces the term to as small a point as any Pedobaptist would contend for. Bedewed. And has it come to this, that baptizo means to bedew! The reader can look at the translations as given in this chapter, and then at the import of the term bathed, as given by Webster, and he will be perfectly satisfied on this subject.

We insist on pressing the inquiry, why did they not translate the word immerse in Mark vii, 4, and in Luke xi, 38? Will some one of the immersing household explain this matter to the public, and enlighten us on how it comes to pass that the term in these places may signify to bedew, and not to bedew in other portions of the Scriptures?

D*

But there is something else connected with this. matter quite novel. The 4th verse of the 7th of Mark contains in the original baptisoontai, and baptismous. The former term is translated by the Baptists bathed, and the latter immersing. Why all this, if the word means always to immerse !

The translation is not only deceitful, but a shocking abuse of language. The 3d and 4th verses of Mark 7th are in a parenthetic attitude in the original, showing nipsoontai and baptisoontai. Both terms are the same in sense in the passage—were intended to be so by the writer, who acted on the law of the interchange of words, common to the Scriptures, and all writings. But to render nipsoontai wash, baptisoontai bathed, and baptismous immersing, is an unpardonable offense against propriety and truth.

The Missionary Baptist translation, so called in this chapter, was rejected by a majority of the members of the Baptist Bible Society, at its annual meeting, in New York, this year, but heartily subscribed to, and advocated by the minority. We make this observation here, to avoid a false issue. This version, however, so far as baptism is concerned, but speaks the sentiments of every immersionist, if practice be the judge.

From this version, and Campbell's translation, it will be seen we sustain affusion. This is doubly confirmed by our established version, which shows that baptizo was used to express the washing of hands among the Jews, which was done by the application of water, in the form of pouring. In proof of this: "Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on the hands of Elijah.” (2 Kings iii, 11.)

The language of Josephus on this point is: the verb baptizo "seems to be used concerning washing of hands, which is done by sprinkling." Observat. Sac. pars 3, Observ. 26, 2 Lips. 1725.

Wetstein, speaking on this point, says, "That the act was done with as much water, at least, as they could hold in the hollow of the hand, the fingers being gathered up."

Here then we have Josephus and Wetstein making it appear that the washing of hands, which ebaptisthee was applied to, was done by the application of a small quantity of water. This also is the testimony of the Scriptures.

No wonder that Campbell and the Baptist translators ran ashore here, with the words pouring, wash, bathed, which they here give in their translations.

Of a truth, immersion is getting sick unto death.

CHAPTER XII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

In our last, we spoke of a translation of the Scriptures in the English language by the Baptists, and gave a sample therefrom. The title page runs thus: "The Holy Bible; being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments, made by order of King James I., carefully Revised and Amended, by several Biblical Scholars. Sixth Edition. Mansville, Jefferson county, N. Y. Published by D. S. Dean & Rhodes Baker, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1847." Let it then be no longer a matter of doubt concerning the Baptists having a Bible of their own, exactly suited to their creed on baptism. We admit that it is not generally received; still, does it not reflect their ideas of baptism? And have they not sent such a Bible to foreign lands? Would they not generally receive it, only for fear