From the American Baptist Magazine

The Rev. William Ward, A. M. fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, a clergyman of the Church of England, and who officiated as curate in the county of Norfolk, received a presentation of a living in the north of England, of considerable importance. At the time when the French revolutionists were following the clergy of the nation with imprisonment and death, which occasioned a great number of them to seek refuge in England, Mr. Ward first visited his living in the north. Stepping into the Edinburgh mail, he observed an elderly gentleman of venerable appearance in the dress of an ecclesiastic. He soon perceived that he was a foreigner, and was explicitly informed that he was a French emigrant Bishop. The conversation turned upon the politics, literature, and arts, and sciences, &c. Mr. Ward perceiving he was a man of profound learning, general knowledge, and liberal sentiments, began the following conversation:

Mr. Ward. I am much surprised sir, that a gentleman of your liberality and knowledge can be content to continue in communication with the corrupt church of Rome.

Bishop. I presume sir, you are a clergyman of the church of England.

Mr. W. I am sir.

B. May I not retort?

Mr. W. No. Our church is reformed from corruption.

B. I deny the assertion. Your prayer book is nothing but the Roman Missel translated into English, with a few trifling alterations, and the psalms you read are not from your translation, but from ours, of the corruption of which you are perpetually complaining.

Mr. W. These are trifling things sir, we are

satisfied that we are following the Apostles and primitive church.

B. This is assumption, and assumption is no proof. We must fix upon some point, and abide by it, for instance, pray where do you receive your authority for infant sprinkling?

Mr. W. I am surprised at your question, sir, pray do not your church practice the same as we do upon that point?

B. Yes sir.

Mr. W. Why then ask the question?

B. Because I presume you cannot defend yourself upon your own principles.

Mr. W. If I cannot, as you practice the same, you of course must lie in the same difficulty.

B. That does not follow. But pray, sir, shew [show] me your authority for infant sprinkling.

Mr. W. We refer to the New Testament, (taking one from his pocket,) here is one let us examine it.

Is it the English version, if it is, I shall not abide its decision, for it is not a fair translation.

Mr. W. You surprise me, sir; were not the translators learned men, and men of probity?

B. I grant this part. But sir, who is not sensible how far party zeal influences views, sentiments and practice. Look for instance at the wild notions of the learned Dr. Lightfoot, that proselyte baptism is as old as the fall of man; and that christian baptism is analagous [analogous] to it. Now many learned men have been duped by the authority of this individual and taken for granted what he asserted and have never examined the point. Yet I challenge the whole world to produce one instance of baptism before John. You must know, sir, that every learned man, who has examined for himself, both in your communion and in every other, has been forced to accede the point to the ana-baptists.

Mr. W. I can by no means admit the imperfection of our version, sir, nor can I see the consistency of your reasoning. It appears that you expose your own practice as much as any.

B. I will produce an instance or two where the object of your translators must have been to deceive the public, and to make the evangelist appear to support their sentiments of sprinkling where the opposite is apparent in the original, Matt. 3:11. Your version says, "I indeed baptise [baptize] you with water, &c. he shall baptise [baptize] you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."-Notice this translation sir, now in the 6th verse where they perceive that the same rendering would appear ludicrous, they have translated the preposition en by the English preposition "in Jordan." Will you assist me sir, to account for this conduct upon any principle than that of intentional deception and determination, right or wrong, to support hypothesis. I will not dispute about the signification of the preposition en . You must allow that we are more honest than protestant writers. We render it "in aqua," "in spiritu sancto." If the whole did not amount to the signification of dipping or plunging in water, I would ask you why the evangelist used in the application to baptise [baptize], the verb anabaino which cannot admit of any other explanation, but to arise, or emerge or ascend, see verse 16, also Acts 8:39. It cannot be admitted, sir, either that this arose from inadvertance[inadvertence], or from want of knowledge; for your translators knew how to render the word, when the controversy was out of sight: see for instance John 13:26. "When I have dipped bapsas it, and when he had dipped embapsas , the sop, &c. Why sir, did they not render this baptised [baptized]? You will not charge me sir, with inconsistency between my sentiments and practice. In our communion we never refer to the scriptures for authority for infant sprinkling, you know sir, that the Greek and Armenian churches which controvert our supremacy, practice dipping to the present period. The church has authority to decree rights and ceremonies and her orders are infallible. Here we depend for this and many other points, of sentiments and practice, which you hold in common with us; but referring to scriptures for your authority, cannot support your practice. There is sir, in fact no ground upon which you can stand, or any other protestant with consistency, between the two extremes, you must either return to the bosom of the Holy Church, or join the wicked, heretical anabaptists, who reject the authority of the church.

Mr. W. I have not I confess examined these subjects, but I consider it right to be honest and follow the dictates of truth.