Prof. Eaton, of Hamilton Baptist Institute, in his speech before the Baptist Bible Society, at their anniversary in 1840, says, Report p. 74-"The translation" of the Baptist Missionaries" is so undeniably correct," that its incorrectness could not be "pretended," without committing the objector's character for scholarship and candor. "Who are they, sir," said he, "who cavil about the plain meaning of the original word whose translation is so offensive? Are they the Porsons, and the Campbells, and the Greenfields, and such like? No, sir. But the cavillers are men who, whatever may be their standing in other respects, have no reputation as linguists and philologists to lose. There really can be no rational doubt in the mind of any sound and candid Greek scholar, about the evident meaning of the word in question. I venture to say, at the risk of the little reputation for Greek scholarship which I possess, that there are no words of plainer import in the Bible. The profane tampering which has been applied to these words," &c. &c. See Hall's Baptist Errors, p. 39, for the preceding quotation—a very able work.

Mr. Hinton, after an argument on the import of the word Bazzilo, and a professed history of the origin and progress of pouring and sprinkling, says, p. 196, 7-" May I respectfully ask the paedobaptist who reads this volume (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Methodist), 1. Whether he has not been kept in ignorance of these facts? 2. Whether those clergy who withhold these facts from their flocks, do not take upon themselves an undue and dangerous responsibility? 3. Whether he will have independence enough to take every adequate means to ascertain if these statements can be denied? And finally, if they cannot be gainsayed, whether he will dare to remain unbaptized, and therefore in a state of disobedience to the King of kings?"

On the 28th of April, 1840, The Baptist American and Foreign Bible Society passed the following resolution: “Resolved, that the fact that the nations of the earth must now look to the Baptist denomination ALONE for faithful translations of the word of God, a responsibility is imposed upon them, demanding for its full discharge an unwonted degree of union, of devotion, and of strenuous, persevering effort throughout the entire body." Moved by Prof. Eaton, seconded by Rev. H. Malcom.

In their Report, this Society stigmatize the translations of all other denominations, as "versions in which the real meaning of words... is PURPOSELY KEPT OUT OF SIGHT, so that Baptists cannot circulate faithful versions. . . unless they print them at their own expense." They assert, p. 45, “It is known that the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society, have virtually combined to obscure at least a part of divine revelation, and that these Societies continue to circulate versions of the Bible, unfaithful at least so far as the subject of Baptism is concerned."-Hall on Baptism, pp. 27, 28.

Again, Prof. Eaton says, Report p. 79, "Never, sir, was there a chord struck that vibrated simultaneously through so many BAPTIST hearts from one extremity of the land to the other, as when it was announced that the heathen world must look to THEM ALONE for an unveiled view of the glories of the GOSPEL OF CHRIST." "A deep conviction seized the minds of almost the whole body, that they were DIVINELY AND PECULIARLY SET for the defence and dissemination of THE GOSPEL as delivered to man by its heavenly author. A new zeal in their Master's cause, and unwonted kindlings of fraternal love glowed in their hearts; and an attracting and concentrating movement, reaching to the utmost extremity of the mass, began and has been going on and increasing in power ever since."-Hall's Baptist Errors, p. 38.

More facts of a similar kind can be found in a correspondence between the Rev. J. Davis Gotch, of the Baptist denomination, and the Rev. T. Milner, a Congregational minister, in which the latter declines attending the celebration of the first half-century since the commencement of Baptist missions, and assigns as a reason the ground taken by the Baptists towards other denominations.-See London Congregational Magazine, and the New England Puritan for August 18, 1842.

Indeed, their whole body has been rallied by a universal impulse, as if on the eve of a general victory, and as if their triumph was destined to usher in the glories of the millennial day.

§ 40. Inferences from the opposite system.

The logical consequences of the other system remain now to be stated. These can easily be inferred from its funda

mental position, THAT THERE IS NO COMMAND TO DIP OR IMMERSE IN THE NEW TESTAMent, but soleLY A COMMAND TO Purify, in the NAME OF THE TRINITY; and that each denonitnation may select for itself what it deems the most decorous and appropriate mode of fulfilling this command. This, if kindly received, is a conciliating view, and tends to unity; for it gives Christian liberty to all. So I presentedit, and I hoped for it a kind and a candid reception. My hopes have been disappointed. Efforts have been made to suppress it, by affected contempt of the view, and its advocate. Or it has been rejected with scorn, attended by unparalleled personal attacks upon the intellectual and religious char acter of its advocate. This I deeply regret, for I wrote with feelings of great kindness towards the Baptist denomination, and strong desires for unity in the love of Christ. But perhaps I ought not to be surprised. If the view I advocate is correct, close communion must die, and all the charges of Baptists against other denoniinations must be retracted, and their course as to the translation of the Bible, and the Bible Society, retraced. At all events, union and conciliation they reject; they still continue their attack. Hence logic must have its course.

Of this system, the logical consequences are clear, and no Christian charity calls for their suppression. I announce them soberly, calmly, and yet decidedly, and as in the presence of a holy God."

1. That other denominations are not unbaptized, though unimmersed, because they are purified.

2. They are not substituting human forms in place of a commandment of God-nor are they in rebellion against God.

3. There is no good reason to exclude them from the table of the Lord-nor

4. Are they guilty of mistranslating or obscuring the word of God.

5. The Baptists mistranslate the word of God—not only concealing its meaning, but putting in place of it, one entirely foreign to the mind of the Holy Spirit.

6. They are not divinely set apart to the great work of giving correct translations of the Bible to the heathen world; on the other hand, they are the only denomination

who are combined systematically to mistranslate it, and to hide its meaning from the world.

7. They are guilty of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and because others will not comply with uncommanded external forms, of charging them with rebellion against God, and of excluding them from the table of the Lord.

8. For the sake of this same uncommanded form, they have divided the Bible Society, and do still divide and agitate the church of God.

If the position on which this system rests is true, it needs no labored argument to show that these things are so. They are but its logical and necessary consequences. As such, I announce them.

In one point, however, this system does not reverse the position of our Baptist brethren. It does not pronounce them unbaptized, nor exclude them from the table of the Lord. It admits that immersion is baptism, not indeed because it is immersion, but solely because it is one mode of purification.

§ 41. Translation of the Bible.

Upon the question of translation, however, a few words may be needed. I remark, then, that to transfer words from one language to another, is not to mistranslate, but simply to take a word from the stores of one language, and by it to enrich those of another. The sense of such a word is to be fixed, as is the sense of all other words, by the association of ideas. For example, to dip, is of Saxon origin, and belongs to the native stores of our language. On the other hand, the word immergo did not belong to our language, but to the Latin. At length, from a form of this verb, the word immerse was transferred to our language, and immersio was transferred as immersion. In like manner, baptize and baptism have been transferred from the Greek. But these are not all. Characterize, scandalize, &c. have been transferred in the same way. Thus also the words, the Christ, the Messiah, and Jesus, have been transferred from the Hebrew and the Greek, meaning the anointed one, and the Saviour. Shall a clamor then be raised, because immersion, Messiah, Christ, and Jesus, have not been translated like

that which is made about not translating baptize? And shall we translate scandalize and characterize?

But it may be said that in the case of these words the association of ideas has done its work, and that their meaning is so fixed that they have become a part of our language. True, and what hinders the same result as to baptism, and baptize? Not the fact that they are transferred words, but that a controversy exists as to their meaning in the original, so that the natural operation of the association of ideas has been, and still is, interrupted. Let the controversy cease, let all think correctly as to the import of the Greek words, and baptize and baptism will soon become as significant as catechize and catechism, or exorcise and exorcism, or even as immerse and immersion.

All will know that BAPTISM means A SACRED PURIFICATION or CLEANSING, and that BAPTIZE means TO PURIFY or CLEANSE. And there are certainly advantages in not translating, but in transferring this word. Sacred purification, will then have in all languages one and the same sacred name. This, like Jesus and Christ, will be known and read of all men, in all languages, as denoting either an external sacred purification, or that one sacred purification of the Spirit which it symbolizes, and which is by the apostle associated with one Lord and one faith.

But if the word fanrico is to be translated and not transferred, it should by all means be translated PURIFY and not IMMERSE. To translate it immerse, is but to perpetuate error and sectarianism, by a false translation of the word of God.

$42. Commandments of men.

As to teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, this is plain, that if God has commanded only the genus, no one has a right to limit the command to the species. If he says, go preach, no one has a right to limit us to one specific mode of going. If he says, cultivate the earth, no one has a right to limit us exclusively to digging, or to ploughing. So if he commands "purify," no one has a right to limit us to immersion, as the only mode. It is not indeed wrong to immerse, but to insist on this as the only mode, is wrong. And to yield to such a demand, is to sanction a groundless usurpation over the consciences of men. This is our answer to the inquiry of our Baptist brethren," Why not join us and be on the safe side and thus unite the church? for you all admit that immersion is baptism.' We reply, we might not in certain cases object to immersion,i

SECOND SERIES, VOL. IX. NO. I.

5