The First Day of the Week the Christian Sabbath.

The apparent difficulty as to the time of Jesus' interment, affords no ground for argument against the common version. For the time is distinctly marked. Let it fall where it may in the week, it must be admitted, that Christ was buried in the evening after His crucifixion, and rose on the morning of the third day. The apparent discrepancy between the prediction and the event may be satisfactorily explained, although it would not be removed by Mr. B.'s translation.

We have evidence independent of these passages, that Christ rose on the first day of the week. The Jews were accustomed to prepare food for the Sabbath, on the sixth day of the week, "the day before the Sabbath." Should it be objected, from John 19: 14, that the day on which Christ was crucified was not the preparation of the Sabbath, but of the passover, it should be observed that the language of John implies no more than this, that the preparation of the Sabbath occurred in the feast of the passover. Or, in other words, it was the preparation of the passover Sabbath. Indeed, this is the only sense in which we can understand the language of John, in harmony with the explicit declaration of Luke: "It was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath." The word which is here rendered, "the day before the Sabbath," denotes uniformly the sixth day of the week.

But to conclude. The common version is sanctioned by the consent and practice of the best scholars and most orthodox Christians in every age of the Church. The passage was so understood in the apostolic age, when both the writers and those addressed, were acquainted with the language, and not likely to mistake its meaning, For no possible reason can be

Banrio Transferred by Order of King James.

the best of their judgment and ability, but requiring them to preserve all the technical words and phrases as they are found in the old edition. Now should some one proceed to translate the phrases habeas corpus, ex officio, and the like, into pure English, claiming that such translation was nowhere prohibited, would not the committee point him at once to the gen eral rule, which required them to preserve all technical words. and phrases as they are found in the old edition? The rule in question required the translators of our Bible "to keep the old Ecclesiastical words," found in the Bishops' Bible, which they were to follow, as to phraseology, as nearly as the originals would permit. In this are comprehended all Ecclesiastical words, found in the Bishops' Bible. Now all must admit that baptize is an Ecclesiastical word, and that it was found in the Bishops' Bible. The word baptize, therefore, was kept untranslated by the express order of King James. For although this word was not named, yet it belongs to that class of words the translation of which was positively prohibited.

And as the King is said to have repeatedly enjoined the strict observance of these rules, especially the third, it may be fairly inferred that he had a special predilection for the old Ecclesiastical words, among which church, baptize, and easter could not have been the least in his estimation. We have no evidence that the translators complained of any restrictions. imposed upon them; but admitting that they were like-minded with the King, the case remains the same. Whether they did it cheerfully or reluctantly makes no difference, as to the fact, that the word was retained by order of the King. That the King did not feel sure of the translators retaining these words. of their own accord, is evident from the rule itself.

Part Second. Sundry Essays.

In the translators preface, they profess to have avoided, on the one hand, the obscurity of the papists, who have left too many words untranslated, such as azymes, holocaust, pasche, etc., and on the other hand, the opposite extreme of the puritans, who have translated such words as baptize, etc. But why condemn in the same breath, the papists for transferring pasche, and the puritans for translating baptize? Is not the sense just as much obscured by a transfer in one case as in the other? And what possible reason can be given for translating pasche, that will not apply with equal, nay, greater force to the translation of baptize? That designates an antiquated Jewish rite which can be of no practical importance to us, while this describes an ordinance which every Christian is expected to understand and observe. The translators of the common English version of the Scriptures admit that the papists have made their version obscure by the transfer of numerous foreign words, and yet they have ventured to pursue, to some extent, precisely the same course. According to their own judgment, therefore, they have obscured the sense of the Divine Word; for in the transfer of Ecclesiastical words they have followed the example of the papists. Nay, the papists have preserved the more consistent course. trasfer such words as baptize, and its cognates, why not retain pasche, holocaust, azymes, and the whole family? But neither course is consistent. For if it is expedient for the people to have the Scriptures partly in Greek, why not give them the Greek Testament entire? To withhold, or to obscure the truth is inconsistent with faithfulness to the souls of men.

For if we must

When the apostles told their anxious hearers, to repent and

On the Character of the Vulgate.

be baptized, they did not perplex them with barbarous and unintelligible words, but they addressed them in their own vernacular tongue. See Acts 2: 38, compared with 2: 11. All the early, and nearly all the modern translators of the Scriptures, with the exception of the Latin and the English, and such as have been either directly or indirectly influenced by these, have invariably proceeded upon the principle of translating baptize, and not of transferring it. The ancient Britons, who received the Gospel in the days of apostolic simplicity and purity, always designated the rite by a vernacular word, which their descendants have retained to the present time. ancient Saxons, likewise, described the rite by an appropriate vernacular expression. To them baptize was a barbarous term. And but for the influence of Romish missionaries, in subsequent times, and a blind adherence to the Vulgate, this exotic word would never have found a place in our English Bible, nor in the English vocabulary.

The

"What are we to understand by the Vulgate translation of the sacred Scriptures? Is it a faithful translation."

The Vulgate is the authorized version of the Latin or Roman Catholic Church. It was not till after the general diffusion of Christianity over the Roman empire, that they began to feel the want of the Scriptures in their vernacular

*This article, together with those which follow, relating to the sacred Scriptures, was written in reply to certain inquiries, addressed to Mr. Judd, through the N. Y. Baptist Register; which inquiries are placed at the head of the several articles respectively.