impossible for us to perceive the lustre which the dispensation of Moses was intended to throw on the dispensation of Christ.t Fourthly. Because the proper meaning of these words is the principal, and indeed the only means which God has given to direct us in performing a sacrament of his church, and a sacred duty, binding on us all. And though there is no case in which the true meaning of God's words ought to be considered a subject of little importance, yet, in the present instance, we ought to feel the more concern; because, being a case which involves the ground of every believer's hope, and the rule of every believer's practice, the truth requires to be stated with so much perspicuity, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, might not mistake it; and to be given with so much point, that he who reads run. may Still, whatever be the importance which attaches itself to the subject, it is hard to conceive of a plan more completely adapted to obscure both the meaning of the words and the passages which contain them, than the one on which our translators have proceeded. For, First. Λουω, απολουω, and νιπτω, which, with their derivatives, are used in the New Testament about twenty-eight times, and indeed sometimes βαπτίζω itself with them, are all translated by the verb, to wash, without any discrimination whatsoever; and no one, unacquainted with the original, would ever dream, that in Mark vii. 1-4, and John xiii. 10, Acts xxii. 16, with Acts xvi. 33, this one word (wash) stands for four different words, differing from each other in their meaning, and contrasted with each other in those very passages. * Secondly. The word πλυνω occurs but once in the New Testament, Rev. vii. 14. There it requires a strong term to express the effort necessary to make those garments that were once very unclean, pure and white as they appear in heaven. But the indefiniteness of the term by which it is translated, has washed out the strength and spirit of the passage. The same uncleanness, and the same effort in removing it, are implied in the use of ouw and aroλouw, and even gavril, απολούω, ραντίζω, when used in a religious sense. But with respect to the use of νιπτο and βαπτίζω, the case is quite the reverse. They frequently express an action, which indeed may remove a trifling inconvenience, but which could not be called uncleanness: and sometimes rather indicates a determination to maintain a state of purity already possessed, than an effort to acquire it. Thus, those who have been lustrated (washed) need nothing more than just to rinse (WTT) their feet.† And John does not ask the Pharisees, ‡ &c. to be made clean by his baptism, but he requires them to become clean before they are baptized. In the common use of these words, therefore, there is something in the former three, which beautifully prepares them to describe the provision which God has made to heal those that are sick, and to cleanse those which are unclean; whilst the latter is, by the same means, prepared to express an act, which, in a dis * See Campbell's Gospels, Mark vii. 1-4. John xiii. 10. Epistle to the Hebrews throughout. John xiii. 10. + Matt. iii. 7. ciple of Christ, should be a sacred pledge of perpetual devotedness to him by whose grace he had been born again. For this very reason, we find that λούω, απο Louw, and gavriw, are often used to describe the atonement of Christ; but νιπτω and βαπτίζω are never used for that purpose, while the former three are never used in reference to the sacrament of baptism. This act, because it supposes the subject to have received the benefit of that atonement which they describe, is expressed by BarT2w alone. But any one will find it difficult to make out this difference from his English Testament. Thirdly. The word Barril, with its derivatives, is used in the New Testament about one hundred and twelve times. And whilst in the former case four Greek words are expressed by one English word (wash) which conceals the difference between their several meanings; here one word, which is never used in Scripture in a second sense, is so written as to appear three, each of which is said to differ from the others in its meaning. For wash is not synonymous with dip; and it takes a deal of trouble to persuade some of our brethren, that to dip is the same as to baptize; and yet the expressions rendered to wash in Mark vii. 3, 4, and to dip, in John xiii. 26, and to baptize, in Matt. iii. 16, 17, are after all nothing more than repetitions of the same word, βαπτίζω. Now, if our translators felt themselves perplexed with a ceremony which, at that time, had been newly introduced to their church by the supreme authority of the nation; and if on that account they wished to borrow and naturalize this word, Barriga, instead of translating it, they ought at least to have borrowed it in every case in which it is used ; they would then have given us a little (though but little) chance of fishing out the meaning for ourselves. This, however, is much less than we had a right to expect; for, since the subjects described by these words are of the last importance, and the words so used and contrasted as to be in danger of being confounded with each other, they ought not thus to have destroyed the force of God's word; but if they had determined to borrow the word Barriw, they ought to have borrowed all the other words which were so connected and contrasted with it, as to require its translation. And, since they had commenced this system of borrowing, they ought to have carried it so far as to bring out the meaning and the point of every passage, and to make them obvious to plain men. If, however, this, by exciting too much curiosity and discussion, would have defeated its object, and exposed them to censure; they had only one other plan on which they could proceed, i. e., to have translated them all, and Barr with them, and to have written dip or immerse, whichever they pleased, in every passage where it occurred. Whether the Baptist denomination can be justified in submitting for so many years to use such a version in their own country for the sake of peace, I shall leave others to determine. Certainly they have not thereby obtained the credit of being peaceable, and I from my heart believe that my brethren are wrong. But when zeal for God and love for souls placed our first missionaries C on the continent of India, and intrusted to their care the communication of God's word to its perishing millions, who could suppose that such men would issue a translation which they themselves knew to be inaccurate? They did not. They translated the words, and the Bible Society honoured their fidelity by rendering them its support. But when this very translation had been improved by many years of laborious study; and presented to India with the highest literary testimonials of its accuracy and taste; because that portion of the church which objects to baptism had gained a footing there, and found that the translation of these words was fatal to their practice, at their request the Bible Society refuses its support: and thus our fellow-servants forbid the translation of their Saviour's words. I would not write thus relying on my own judgment alone; but, from the highest ranks of our opponents, authorities may be produced in formidable multitudes; first, to prove that our translation is correct; secondly, to show that the subject is of weighty import: and yet, like the translators of our English version, in the very teeth of their own testimony, they resolve that the words shall not be translated until some form of expression can be found which implies that sprinkling is the same as immersion. If these brethren be our equals, by what authority is it that they do these things? If they be our superiors, then we have their superior testimony to prove that our practice is right, and that their resolution is wrong. At a distance of more than half the circumference of the globe our missionaries had found a sphere for devoted labour; they were peacefully cultivating their vineyard when agents from our opponents reached the place. They not only taught their own peculiar sentiments, and exhibited divisions before the heathen; they have laboured incessantly, and finally succeeded in stopping the circulation of God's holy Word, until the translation which we had made was modified to their practices. I will not undertake to describe the consequences of such an act. The following censure, though I think it harsh, may perhaps be admitted as it comes from the pages of our opponents, and was written on the same subject. "Those who would weaken Christian love or unity among Christians, especially those of the same congregation, for the sake of making proselytes to such non-essential, non-important principles and practices, or who would pursue their work at the risk of such love and unity, are the pests of society, the curse of the church of Christ. 'Mark them,' says the Apostle, which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrines which ye have learned, and avoid them.' They are almost always restless, proud, and party-spirited men. We cannot give them credit for principles better than some or all of these. They must be doing something, if it be mischief. They must make themselves noticed, because perhaps they are noticed so much as their pride tells them that they ought to be; and they naturally wish to have their opinions supported by the numbers who embrace them, whether they will stand the test of sound argument or not; whether they are trivial or im not portant; whether they may do his own party whenever an apgood or harm by their proceed-peal is made to fact. His sword ings. These reckless men care little for these things, so they can but promote their own party; and no censure is too severe to pass on those who would make such things the badge of a party, a line of demarcation between Christians, or the wedge to rend asunder those who are already united."* I have before stated that I think this too harsh, and I differ from my charitable fellow-student in reference to the ground of his censure. But while the conductors of that work can thus dishonour and blame an act of individual and conscientious obedience, how will they support a public resolution for which candour itself will find no apology save in the very principle they thus condemn? A more glaring case of misconception will scarcely be found in modern times, than that which is presented in the paper above referred to. The author seems to have no idea of the result to which his own positions must lead him : and, consequently, every reprehension inflicted on his brethren, returns with tremendous violence on himself and is sharpened for execution; but, when about to thrust his friend, he holds it by the blade and not the hilt; and, consequently, the wound inflicted must be on his own person. If, as servants and disciples, Christians are all equal, then no one has any right to ascend the tribunal and condemn his fellows. Infallibility belongs to God alone. It is rash, therefore, and full of hazard when a man, who is of yesterday, presumes to declare, that a command which our Lord has registered by inspiration is not sufficiently important for us to obey. It is still more hazardous when this same man will blot the register of his Lord's command that his brethren might not peruse it. But it is hard to conceive a point where presumption can be more appalling, than for a servant, who had been forgiven much, and redeemed by grace, to venture on exhibiting the study and observance of his Saviour's will, as a folly to be derided and as a crime for which "no censure is too severe." Dec. 7, 1836. C. STOVEL. COMMUNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS. DEAR SIR, To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. too, if, among the members of our I beg the insertion of the follow-denomination, strong doubts coning remarks in your Miscellany, in reply to the paper of Christianus on communion with Slaveholders. To me it would be a cause of great surprise, and of deep mortification Evan. Mag. Dec. 1836.-p. 543. cerning the lawfulness of communion with modern Slaveholders had not arisen. And why any who have objected to such communion should shun an appeal to the word and the testimony, I cannot conceive. By the decisions of this standard on every topic, I desire to abide. "Christianus" infers that its awards support his view of the question; this position, however, I think he has yet to prove. "abstractedly sinful," then I venture to conclude, there is no sin in the universe. "Christianus " will perhaps, allege that the above evils are the abuses of Slavery, and not slavery in the abstract. Here, Sir, lies another fallacy. Slavery in the abstract is Slavery nowhere. What fine-spun fancy is abstract Slavery? "He that hath a dream" on this subject, "let him tell it." Is a system meant that should not originate in steal not claim a freehold in man—that should not despoil the husband of his wife, the father of his childthat should not withhold from the servant "that which is just and equal?" Such a state, I maintain, would not be Slavery; and with it, therefore, the question at issue has no connexion. Really it is "high time" we had done with such abstractions; let us, in the name of justice and mercy, speak of slavery as it actually exists, and has existed for ages. Is not the distinction which "Christianus " makes between Slavery as a political evil, and something that is not "abstractedly sinful," fallacious? Every political evil that involves the undeserved abridgment of human rights is a violation of the princi-ing rational creatures-that should ples of rectitude; and such violation is, certainly, in all cases, "abstractedly sinful." If the distinction be valid, the abolition of Slavery would be wrong. For, evidently, the distinction of that which was not essentially sinful, could not be a holy deed. Moreover, how has it occurred that, if Slavery is not abstractedly sinful, Christianity, in its progress, has effected its abolition ? Does that sacred system destroy something beside sin? Does it, in its career, deface any of "the beauties of holiness?" While Christianus " asserts that Slavery is not "ab-in stractedly sinful," yet he tells us it produces "cursed fruits." This is "passing strange," and since his trees yield conversely, he of course plants "thorns and thistles," in the expectation of gathering grapes and figs."-But surely Christianus," cannot mean to affirm that a system founded in man-stealing, that most heinous of all robberies, is not "abstractedly sinful;"-that a system which must subject its victims to numerous woes, which deprives them of all right in themselves, in their wives, in their children, in their labourand which makes them, although immortal beings, the chattels of others, is not " abstractedly sinful." 66 66 If such a system is not It did Their But lest "Christianus" should charge me with reluctance appealing to the Scriptures, permit me to inquire, whether they enjoin communion with the modern holders of Slaves? Of Slavery as it now exists-the Slavery I have just described the sacred writings know nothing. not exist among the Jews. bondsmen were either their brethren, or the surrounding heathen. The bondage of the former was either voluntary, or in payment of just debts; and unless the parties serving willed to the contrary, their servitude was temporary. The bondage of the latter was the judicial visitation of Heaven upon a guilty race; and its permission was an act of divine mercy, since it commuted the sentence of extinction into that |