# «3 " ^ CL • ^ /^ «^ ^ IE m"^ _Q. ^ 0) ^ m .s ^ CL S) s o «» $ C < (U ^' o 3 ^ s ^ rt ^ ^ ^ £ CO ^ •5t ^ -a <:i % 0) § ^ CO OJ ^ •^^ CL g V ■ ^0 <- -1-. fr ^ ■•' ■ .. - "-*_-'■ / >'; l(0O I M M E R S I N I S T S THE bible; OR, THE BABEL BUILDERS CONFOUNDED, IN AN EXPOSITION OF THE ORIGIN, DESIGN, TACTICS, AND PROGRESS OF THE NEW VERSION ilOVEilENT OF CAilP- BELLITES AND OTHER BAPTISTS. BY THE y REV. N. H.^^EE, OF THE LOUISVILLE CONFERENCE. EDITED BY THOMAS 0. SUMMERS, D. D. Nasljbillc, %va\\. : SOUTHERN METHODIST PUliLISKING HOUSE 18-30. PRINTED BY A. A. STITT, JIBTHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILIiB, TENN. jTT^ PREFACE BY THE EDITOR Ill CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 9 CHAPTER 11. THE ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT 13 CHAPTER III. THE MAIN DESIGN OF THE MOVEMENT 35 CHAPTER IV. THE MAIN DESIGN, CONTINUED 54 CHAPTER v. THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT 87 CHAPTER VI. THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT, CONTINUED 108 CHAPTER VII. DISPARAGEMENT OF THE COMMON VERSION 123 (iii) IV CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. THE IMMERSIONISTS HAVE DONE AND ARE DOING WHAT THEY CHAEGE KING JA3IES WITH DOING.. 159 CHAPTER IX. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT OF THE REVISIONISTS 171 CHAPTER X. CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE COMMON VERSION 208 CHAPTER XL THE PORTION OF THE REVISION PUBLISHED 229 CHAPTER XII. CONCLUSION 240 fe^^ ^ufece \i tbc t'Mtar, We deeply regret the necessity whicli exists for tlie publication of such a work as the present volume. The exposure of Jesuitism, whether popish or Protestant, is a task so irksome that we instinctively shrink from its performance ; but when it is needful to be done, he who performs it in a candid, charitable spirit, deserves the gratitude of all concerned. We think the author of the following pages has tempered unavoidable severity with the meekness of wisdom; and that no one can justly complain of a want of fairness and courtesy in the mat- ter and manner, tone and temper, of his production. The "tactics" of the immersionist translators ought to be exposed, though the exposure is humiliating to every lover of the Bible. The rampant sectarianism which is at the head and front of the movement is too palpable, and, as Mr. Lee shows, has been too often ad- mitted, to be denied with any credit. We see, indeed, 1* (V) VI PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. while these sheets are passing through the press, that some of the leaders in this schismatical movement are beginning to hesitate as they approach the brink of the precipice : they are afraid to take the leap, and well they might be ! What if the masses for whose benefit "immersion" is to be "printed in the Bible," should learn to attach the idea of sprinkling to that term, rather than that of dipping to the mode of baptism! It is shrewdly suggested that such a thing as this would not be without precedent. And truly no one need mar- vel at this, for it would not be a tithe as absurd to make immersion mean affusion as to make baptism in the New Testament mean immersion. As to the other changes proposed in the New Version, all we have to say on this subject is, that if they are amendments we do not want them in our standard Bible, unless put there by competent authority : of course, we do not want them if they are not amendments, but mere alterations, frequently for the worse — as are many of the changes that have come under our notice. We care not how many versions and commentaries are made by learned men, provided they do not usurp the place of our old English Bible. We can tolerate an occasional correction of the authorized text in the coui'se of a sermon, though we think this should be very seldom attempted. We sometimes hear such pulpit criticisms PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. Vll of the version of the forty-seven translators of our Eng- lish Vulgate as remind us of the anecdote told by old Isaac Walton, in his Life of Bishop Sanderson. When Mr. Sanderson was at Lincoln College, Oxford, under the care of the learned Dr. Kilbie, one of " King James's translators," he and the learned Hebrician made a tour into Derbyshire, and being at church on a Sunday, heard a young preacher declaim against the then late transla- tion, somewhat, it would seem, in the spirit of the im- mersionist revisionists. He showed, says Walton, '* three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the doctor's friend's house, where, after some conference, the doctor told him he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors' ears with needless exceptions against the late translation ; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he said, he and others had considered all three, and found thirteen more con- siderable reasons why it was translated aS now printed ; and told him, if his friend, then attending him, should prove guilty of such indiscretion, he should forfeit his favoi", — to which Mr. Sanderson said, he hoped he should not; and the preacher was so ingenuous as to say, he would not justify himself." Vlll PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. We are not sanguine enougli to expect such ingenu- OTisness on the part of those who are engaged in the present movement, as a blind sectarianism is the mo- tive by which they are influenced. Nevertheless, a fair exposure of their movements and methods may keep the unsuspecting from an entangling alliance with them, if it should not be otherwise serviceable to the interests of truth and righteousness. With this view the present little book was written by the author : that its circula- tion will be productive of good is the belief of those who have examined it, including Nashville, Texn., March 8, 1866. Immtrsionists arjiiinst t|t ^iik. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. The manner in which the New Version move- ment has been advocated, has had, as I conceive, a tendency to lessen the confidence of the public mind in the Divine origin and the uncorrupted preserv- ation of the Sacred Scriptures. And, indeed, this is the necessary tendency of the movement itself. It should therefore be exposed and resisted by every lover of Divine truth. An eminent British statesman has said, that public confidence may bo far more easily destroyed than restored, when once affected. A brainless fanatic may destroy in an hour a temple which required ages, and in- calculable treasure, with the direction of the 10 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. highest order of genius, to complete. Let the confidence of the masses of the people in the truth of the Bible be once destroyed, and what may we not expect ? The scenes enacted in France, in the latter part of the last century and the beginning of the present, may be roenacted ; or the state of things which has existed in the greater part of Europe, and especially in Ger- many, may prevail throughout Christendom, — in which, while the Bible is avowedly received as the text-book of religion, it is made to bow down in subordination to human reason. If, as the ad- vocates of this movement contend, the version in common use is sectarian, and not to be trusted as a guide to truth and duty, in a great many cardinal respects, how much more confidence can they expect to be placed in their proposed ver- sion ? And, should they succeed in destroying confidence in King James's version, how will they manage to secure confidence in their owu ? They will not be able to do so, unless they ccui demon- strate that they are free from sectarian hias; and in order to do this, they must demonstrate that IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 11 they are infallihlc : that is^ under the influence of Divine inspiration. Should they not be able to do this, and the contingency referred to should occur, what foundation will the Church have for her faith? ^'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do ?" Paine and Voltaire have scarcely employed more profanity in their attacks upon the sacred writings, than the most prominent advocates of this scheme have used in reference to the version in common use. They have indulged in low, vulgar abuse, which would far better become the very lowest injidel club than an assembly of those calling themselves Christians. Indeed, they have made some of the very same objections to our translation which Paine and others of the lower class of infidels have made ; and one avowed object of the movement is to endeavor to remove all ground of objection to the Holy Scriptures upon the part of infidels. And, though these "nihblin(j critics" have generally little talent, and less learning, yet they have misled many of the unwary, and will, if not 1:: IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. cliecked, do much harm to the cause of truth. It is our design, in these pages, to stop the mouths of these gainsajers. One thing which distinguishes the advocates of the New Version movement is, their habitual (though we hope unintentional) suppression and misrepresentation of facts. They are endeavor- ing to make false impressions in regard to the origin of the movement, and in regard to the main object had in view. Mj main object in the following pages will be to present the movement) in its true light, by presenting the facts in con nection with its origin and history. And, in do- ing this, I shall not depend upon rumor, but I shall present extracts from authentic and reliable documents — principally those published by the American and Foreign Bible Society, the Ameri- can Bible Union, and societies coordinate and subordinate to those. I will get my authority mainly from the men who led the way in getting up the movement, and who have been mainly concerned in the pro- secution of it from the beginning. IM3IERSI0XISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. lo CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT. A GREAT outcry lias been made against the American Bible Society by the advocates of the New Version movement. It is charged that the Society has treated imraersionists with great in- justice, in their refusal to patronize versions of the Holy Scriptures made by them, while, at the same time, they have liberally sustained, by their influence and appropriations in money, versions made by other denominations. They complain especially of the action of the Society in reference to the version in the Burmese language, made by Dr. Judson, which was the immediate occasion of their secession from the Society, and the form- ation of the American and Foreign Bible Society. That the reader may see whether there be any valid ground of complaint or not, I make the following extract from the account given of this 2 14 IMMERSIONTSTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. matter by the American Bible Society. (Bible Translations, pp. 4, 5, 6.) '^In July, 1835; a letter was received through a friend in Philadelphia, from the Rev. Wra. H. Pearce, an English Baptist missionary at Bengal, in India. In this letter information was given that the writer, together with the Rev. Mr. Yates, a brother missionary, had prepared a new version of the Bengalee Scriptures, which they were desirous of having published. With Christ- ian frankness it was stated, that in this version they had translated the Grreek terms hcq)tizo and haptlsma by words which sigmij mimerse and im- mersion, and that the Bible Society at Calcutta had, on this account, refused to patronize it. Had this letter contained nothing further, the Board could easily have dismissed the whole mat- ter, as they had no responsibilities connected with that version. But it was further stated that this new Bengalee translation was made on the same principles as those which obtained in the Bur- mese translation, which it was understood the American Bible Society patronized. Here was a IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 15 new and startling announcement. The Board had indeed granted, at different times, many thousand dollars towards the publication of this Burmese version, but without information from any quarter, or the least suspicion that it was of the character described by Mr. Pearce. They knew the Rev. Dr. Judson, the translator, to be a learned and pious man, and therefore felt a confidence that he had made what they considered a faithful ver- sion; i. e., one which conveyed the inspired meaning — the only point to which they had thought of directing attention — presuming every friend of the Bible Society to be aware that its Board could not appropriate moneys for any new version of a marked denominational character. ^' On inquiring of the Bev. S. H. Cone, (one of the Standing Committee on Distribution,) who had repeatedly solicited funds for the Burmese ver- sion, whether that version was prepared as de- scribed by Mr. Pearce, he, for the first time, informed them that such was the fact. Although this letter had been once before the Committee on Distribution, the Board, at its meeting in 16 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE- August, referred it to tlie same committee again for further consideration. The committee, after frequent meetings, were unable to recommend any course which would satisfy all concerned. In order to give this subject the most full and impartial investigation, the Board now appointed a special committee of seven, namely : a Presby- terian, an Episcopalian, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Moravian, one of the Beformed Dutch Church, and one from the Society of Friends. After re- peated meetings of this select committee, and much inquiry, they brought in a report with sun- dry resolutions. The Bev. S. H. Cone, one of the number, also presented a minority report. The whole subject was now postponed for a further and careful consideration. The managers were not yet disposed to adopt the resolutions sub- mitted, as they hoped, by a prudent delay, for the adjustment of the difficulty which had arisen, in a way satisfactory to all who were interested, '^Before the next meeting of the Board, in Sep- tember, several letters were received from Baptist clergymen, in whose judgment they had great IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 17 regard, expressing the hope that no hasty mea- sures would be adopted, and suggesting some changes and, additions in relation to the pending resolutions, which they had seen in a Baptist papor. ^' These letters were laid before the Board, and the proposed changes were made. After frequent postponements and much deliberation, (more, pro- bably, than they ever before bestowed on any one topic,) at a special meeting in February, 1836, they adopted the following preamble and resolu- tions — resolutions which had been prepared, or modified, and approved of by some of the most intelligent and worthy Baptist clergymen in America : " By the Constitution of the American Bible So- ciety, its managers are, in the circulating of the Holy Scriptures, restricted to such copies as are ^without note or comment,' and, in the English language, to '■ the version in common use.' The design of these restrictions clearly seems to have been to simplify and mark out the duties of the Society, so that all religious denominations of 2* 18 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. which it is composed might harmoniously unite in performing these duties. "As the managers are now called to aid exten- sively in circulating the Sacred Scriptures in all languages other than the English, they deem it their duty, in conformity with the obvious spirit of their compact, to adopt the following resolu- tions as the rule of their conduct in making ap- propriations for the circulation of the Scriptures ,in 'a\\ foreign tongues. '■^Resolved, That in appropriating money for the translating, printing, or distributing of the Sacred Scriptures in foreign languages, the managers feel at liberty to encourage only such versions as con- form in the principles of their translation to the common English version, at least so far as that all the religious denominations represented in this Society can consistently use and circulate said versions in their several schools and communi- ties. ^^ Resolved, That a copy of the above preamble and resolutions be sent to each of the Missionary Boards accustomed to receive pecuniary aid from IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 19 this Society, with a request that the saDie may he transmitted to their respective mission stations where the Scriptures are in process of transhition; and also, that the said several Missionary Boards he informed that their applications for aid be ac- companied with a declaration that the versions which they propose to circulate are executed in accordance with the above resolutions.'^ Now, what ground is there for the complaint of injustice, if the above be a true account ? And no one has dared to say, as far as I know, that it is not a correct account. In what light does Dr. Cone, who had repeat- edly solicited funds for the Burmese version, and others connected with that enterprise, appear ? Did they not know that it was being made on im- mersionist principles ? And were they not aware that the grant of pecuniary aid was in contraven- tion of the condition upon which the Society was originally organized ; as also of the spirit of the constitution of the Society ? Yet the matter was kept a profound secret. The managers say that they had been ^^ without any information from 20 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. any quarter, or the least suspicion that it was of the character described by Mr. Pearce/' till they were informed by that gentleman in July, 1885. And it seems that Mr. Pearce made this dis- closure incidentally. The Calcutta Bible Society having refused to patronize the translation made by himself and Mr. Yates into the Ben<2:alee lamruao-e, he was seeking aid from the American Bible So- ciety, and, in order to succeed in his suit, he ad- duced the fact that they were already patronizing the Burmese version, which was made upon strictly immersionist principles. Thus, incidentally, was '' the cat let out of the wallet.'^ And what ground for the loud complaint of injustice in the final action of the Society in this case ? The So- ciety had ample ground of complaint against Dr. Cone and others, who were in the secret in regard to the character of the Burmese version, and who successfully solicited funds in aid of it, to the amount of " many thousand dollars." The So- ciety might in justice, in conformity with the spirit and letter of the constitution, have demanded the refunding of these "many thousand dollars.'' IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 21 The adoption of some version whicli could be conscientiously used by all tbe denominations composing the Society, was a condition indispens- able to its original organization. And, had the Board of Managers continued to patronize a ver- sion known to be strictly denominational in its character, the Society would have been annihilated in a very short time. Although it could be proved that the Society erred in selecting the version in common use as their standard, (and this we think cannot be done,) yet there is no ground to complain of the course they pursued in this case. And yet, strange to say, they complain, and make very serious charges against the Society, which it may be proper to notice briefly. It is objected that the Society have changed their policy — objecting to and withholding their aid from, versions of such a character as they once patronized without hesitation. The reply of the Board of Managers to this is as follows : "■ That they never, in a single case, granted aid to a ver- 22 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. sion which they knew at the time to be of such a character that only a part of their associates could consistently use it. Taking it for granted that none would ask them to aid denominational ver- sions, they now find that in two instances they have aided such, though in honest ignorance. It appears that a small edition of an Indian Gospel was once printed by them, where haptiw was translated by a word which signifies to sprinMe or pour ; and that one version in India has been aided where the same Greek word has been tran- slated by a term signifying immerse. Had the peculiarity of these translations been known at the time, they would by no means have been en- couraged. '^ It is charged again that the Society has acted with partiality, by allowing other denominations to make such foreign versions as they choose, while Baptists have not this privilege. The Board of Managers reply : " This charge can have no foundation, unless other denominations choose to make versions of such a character that all the IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 23 members of the Bible Society can use them, while those who complain make such versions as their denomination alone can consistently use." It is alleged again, that the managers have laid down such rules in regard to versions, as Baptist translators cannot conscientiously follow. They reply, " That they lay down no rules which they do not consider as enjoined on them by the conditions of their union, by the framers of the Society. If these rules bear with undue press- ure on any portion of the compact, it is for those who appoint the Board, and who have con- trol of the constitution, to alter that instrument so that men of every creed and sentiment may prepare such foreign versions as they please, with the expectation they tcill he puhlished out of the common Bible fundi At present such license would be deemed a violation of what the consti- tution requires. '^ The managers are charged with the inconsistency of patronizing German and Dutch Bibles, where 24 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. haptizo is translated by words which signify im- merse, and yet withholding aid from the Bengalee and Burmese Bibles translated in the same way. The reply is, '' That the German and Dutch are ancient ' received versions/ such as the found- ers of the Society promised to patronize. In the next place, the translated words alluded to, though they once signified immerse, have (like many words in the English Bible) lost their first mean- ings and are now of as general import as the Eng- lish word baptize. They are versions which both Baptists and Pedobaptists can and do use con- tinually without objection. Should the versions referred to in India, as they are in the main good, undergo a similar change as to the import of a few words, so that diflferent denominations can use them, the managers will feel no scruple in grant- ing them patronage." Another grave charge made against the So- ciety is, that it has received a large amount of money from Baptists, particularly that it has re- ceived forty or fifty thousand dollars in the way IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 2t) of legacies_, while it has made to the denomination, as such, but very partial appropriations, and now refuses to refund what is still dae. The reply of the managers to this is, ^' That while a part, perhaps a large part of the denomi- nation who aid the Bible cause in any form have seceded from the American Bible Society, and formed one exclusively under denominational con- trol, (its managers being necessarily Baptists,) yet a highly respected and valuable portion are still coadjutors with the national institution." '' It would be improper, then, by returning Baptist funds, even if the alleged amount were correct, to treat the denomination as if it were no lousjer a part of the Bible compact. " But the charge as to the amount is not correct. The aggregate of legacies received from Baptists, so far as known to the Board, is no more than $18,000. "And how was this amount expended ? In pre- paring and circulating English, German, and French Bibles for the good of our own common country; and a large debt remained after it was 26 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. expended. No portion went to aid the missions of other denominations in preparing the Scrip- tures in any form. It cannot be asked, then, that these funds should be paid back to the com- plainants. " It appears, on examining the Society's books, that while no more than SI 8,000 has been re- ceived from Baptist legacies, and that this was all expended at home for a common object, the Bap- tist Foreign Mission Society was furnished, be- tween the years 1831 and 1838, with no less than $27,000 for the exclusive use of that denomina- tion in preparing and circulating the Scriptures in France, Germany, Bengal, and Burmah. In addition to these grants of money, the managers made numerous donations of English and other Scriptures, for the exclusive use of Baptist mis- sions. During the years 1838 and 1839, Messrs. Paste and Love, Baptist missionaries in Greece, were furnished by the Society's agent in the Levant (and with great pleasure) with no less than 12,933 portions of Scripture, amounting in value to some $5000. It appears, then, that no IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 2/ less than 830^000 in money and books have been furnished by the Board to aid Baptist mission- aries in circulating the Scriptures, while little more than half of that sum has been received from Baptist legacies; and this was received under such circumstances as to pay no part of those large grants. " But it is said that although the $40,000 or $50,000 of legacies spoken of as furnished to the Society may not as yet be actually paid over, still that sum will be paid from the residuum of the estate of 3Ir. 3Iarsh, according to the provisions of his will. The American Bible Society, it is true, is one of the residuary legatees of said estate. How far there is a prospect of any speedy avails from this quarter will be seen after reading the following letter from the executor : '"Hackkxsack, Jan. 18th, 1840. " ' DEx\r Sir : — In reply to your letter of the 15th inst., respecting information of the present condition of the legacy left by the late Mr. Marsh to the American Bible Society, I have to state. 28 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. that by the will of Mr. Marsh the Societyj in addition to the legacy of $10,000 which has been paid, are residuary legatees in common with the grandchildren, and their children, of the eight uncles of the testator, — the Society to receive one-third, the aforesaid children the other two-thirds. These residuary legatees are very numerous, and scattered throughout England. We have ascertained about one hundred; and from information received, there are, at least, as many more, whose names we have not been able to ascertain. Proceedings have been instituted in the Court of Chancery to have the estate settled, but from various causes it has not been brought to a close ; and when it will be it is im- possible for me to say. I am advised that I can- not safely pay any of the residuary legatees with- out having them all brought in some way into court, so as to be bound by a decree, in order to a final settlement of the estate. " 'Very respectfully yours, " 'James Hague.' " It is obvious that a long pc»iod must intervene IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 29 before this residuum (if it ever come) will reach the treasury. Should it ere long be received, it can with every propriety be employed, as was the $10,000 already realized from the same estate, in furnishing English, French, and German Bibles to the mixed population of our own country. '^ But it is contended that in addition to the legacies in question, a large amount has been furnished by Baptists in the way of life-director- ships, life-memberships, etc. Some have placed the amount of payments of this kind at $40,000 or 850,000, equal to that of the legacies received and prospective. ^^Xow, while the managers are greatlj^ averse to comparisons as to contributions of different de- nominations, they have been led, by the repeated charges referred to, to examine with some care as to their accuracy. They find, in the first place, in relation to life-directors, that out of a list of more than four hundred belonging to the Society, only thirteen are of the Baptist denomination. Of these thirteen, two were constituted directors on 3* 30 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. account of having been members of the Conven- tion which formed the Society. Four others were made directors in consequence of having been executors where legacies were left it. Two others were made directors by contributions furnished by men of other denominations; and one of the remainder is still a friend of the American Bible Society. It does not appear, then, that there are, in any view of the matter, more than the value of four directorships to be returned. " In relation to life-members, it is not easy to determine the precise number belonging to the Baptist persuasion. In looking over a list of more than four thousand names, not more than about one hundred can be thus identified ; while several of these were constituted members by those of other creeds, and several more are still friendly to the Society. But, allowing there were one hundred and fifty life-members, each of whom has contributed thirty dollars, the total would amount to no more than $4,500, to be added to the $000 for life-directorships. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 31 ^^ The Board have next looked over the names of the one hundred and twenty citizens in New York who aided in the erection of the Society's house, at an expense of $22,000. While they find subscriptions from almost every other denomi- nation, they find but one (Dr. Luke Barker's) belonging to that from which these charges now come. This contribution was thirty dollars, to be added to the $5,100 above named. They look, then, at donations made specifically to aid distri- butions in Burmah. Presuming these to have been made by Baptists, they find them to amount in all to less than $1000. As to contiibutions made through auxiliaries, there are no means for determining definitely what amount has been thus received. From the large auxiliaries in New England, New York, and a few at the South, whence most of the free donations come, it is clear to the Board, from inquiry and state- ments of agents, that a small amount, compcira- tively, (as in the case of life-directorships, life- memberships, and the buikling-fund,) has ever 82 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. been furnished by Baptists, particularly by those ■\7ho have seceded. '^ In the newly-settled States, those of that de- Domiiiation have united with others in procuring and distributing Bibles in their respective counties. But here the value was returned in books, and, in many instances, large gratuitous supplies in addition. Not a few of their number continue still to aid in these domestic distributions, both to the gratification of the auxiliaries and the parent Society. Funds thus paid in for books add nothing to the capital of the institution, and can furnish no claim for a demand on those which come as free donations. While, then, it cannot be determined with minute accuracy what amount of money has been furnished by Baptists, gratuitously, or so that it can be used by other denominations, the Board have no belief that it can surpass or equal the more than $30,000 which they as a sect have received from the iustitu- tion. Aside from the $18,000 of legacies, (used at home, and not to be counted,) there is no evi- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 33 dence of their having contributed to the treasury one half the amount which they have received from it. Under such circumstances, the man- agers cannot, of course, feel the obligation of making further returns to those who have chosen to leave the Society, and to assert in so many ways its wrong-doing." — Bihle Translations, pp. 7-14. From the foregoing exhibition of facts, it would seem strange indeed that the immersionists should complain of the injustice with which the}' have been treated by the American Bible Society. With what face can they complain that they were not permitted to draw from the fund contributed mainly by Pedobaptist denominations, to publish versions of the Sacred Scriptures which were made so as to express their peculiar, strange, and false views of baptism? — that the American Bible Society were unwilling to take the money contributed to publish and circulate such versions of the Holy Scriptures as they could all consci- entiously use, to publish and circulate their pecu- liar dogma of " c?^}^, and nothing hut dij[)T' 34 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. They take it exceedingly liard^ indeed, that they have to print at their own expense versions intended specially to sustain their peculiar notion about baptism. It would seem but reasonable that, if they are determined to take the responsi- bility of altering the word of God for their own accommodation, they should be willing to bear the expenses themselves, and not wish to involve others in the consequences of their temerity. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. oO CHAPTER III. THE 3IAIN DESIGN OF THE MOVEMENT. This, we will prove, is the substitution of im- merse and its cognates for baptize and its cog- nates — at least, so far as the word relates to the ordinance of baptism. It may be proper, how- ever, before we proceed to the proofs, to place the issue involved distinctly and clearly before the mind of the reader, that he may be the better prepared to appreciate the argument. The question to be settled is not whether there are errors in the commonly received version of the Bible. We admit this; yet we deny that they involve any doctrine or precept of Christianity. Neither is it the question, whether there ought to be a new version of the Holy Scriptures. And yet we are prepared to show, from the best authority, that there is no necessity for it. 86 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. The real questicfc is this: Ought there to he such a version of the Holy Scriptures as the ad- vocates of this movement cojitemplate, i. e., a strict!?/ sectarian one — one in which immerse and its cognates shall he siihstitnted for haptize and its cognates? This IS THE QUESTION. Here is the real issue. It is important that the reader should keep his mind steadily fixed on this point. The New Version advocates have endeavored, and are endeavoring, both in public addresses before the people, and in their publications, to mislead other denominations, and the public as well as their own people, in regard to the main design of the movement. They are afraid to risk it on its own merits. And the policy is to avoid public odium. as far as possible, in order that they may the more certainly secure the means of prosecuting the enterprise ; for it is an expensive business. And no doubt they design also to keep the real cha- racter of the movement out of view as long as possible, that they may have time to drill their own people into an acceptance of the denomina- tional version, when it appears. They dwell IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 6i largely upon the thousands of errors which they say are in King James's translation — the removal of which they urge is the object of the move- ment. They disclaim the sectarian character of the movement in these "Buncombe" productions, and assert that nearly all the Protestant denomi- nations are united in it — that a large proportion of the translators are Pedobaptists, etc. Not- withstanding all this manoeuvering, I will show that the movement, from its incipiency, has been strictly sectarian — that it was begun, and has been and is still prosecuted, for the purpose, mainli/, of subserving sectarian views and in- terests — that it is designed to produce a strictly immersionist version — baptize and its cognates being rejected, and immerse and its cognates be- ing substituted. And I will make this showing not from rumor, but mainly from official docu- ments of the associations concerned in the move- ment. The history of the movement shows this to have been the predominant idea. In the preface to Professor Stuart's work on 4 t>5 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Baptism, we learn that five Baptist missionaries, viz., Bennett, Jones, Judson, Kincaid, and Wade, in a letter, dated Maulmain and Kangoon, May, 1832, inquired of Professor Stuart : ''Shall we transfer the Greek word paTTrl^o) into the Burmese language, when it relates to the ordi- nance of baptism, or translate it by a word sig- nificant of immersion, or by a word of the same import ?" He answered this inquiry, and advised them not to translate baptizo by immerse^ or any other mere modal term ; but to transfer it into- the heathen tongues as it had been done into the Latin, French, English, etc. ; and his book on Baptism was written to sustain the correctness of this advice. These missionaries, however, refused to follow this advice ; and Dr. Judson, as we have already seen, proceeded to use a term in the Burmese version which signifies exclusively to immerse. We see, then, that the manner in which jSanrt^G) should be translated was a sub- ject of chief interest before the enterprise was entered upon. The determination to translate it by a word signifying immerse was no doubt IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 39 formed before they consulted Professor Stuart. Nothing he could have said would in the least have changed their purpose. They were not, indeed, asking for light ; but they hoped to se- cure the influence of Professor S., preeminently distinguished for his classical and biblical learn- ing, in favor of the enterprise. They remind me of the case of a preacher, who, in a very serious tone, consulted a clerical brother in regard to his marriage with a certain lady. The brother con- sulted wished to know how far the case had progressed. ''0," said he, ^^we are engaged.'* ^^Weiy said the other, "it is too late to consult me now : why did you not consult me sooner ?" "0," said the inquirer, ''I was afraid some one else would get her.'' The desire to get immerse in the place of bap- tize is clearly seen from this incident to have been at the very bottom of the whole movement. This desire has led the way in every step that has been taken from the beginning. Immerse is the '^hcad and front'' of the whole movement. It is the central idea round which every thing else 40 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. resolves, and to which every thing else is subor- dinate. This clearly appears in the further his- tory of the movement. Why did the Calcutta Bible Society refuse to patronize the version in the Bengalee language made by the Bev. Messrs. Pearce and Yates ? Why, exclusively on the ground that it was an immcr- sionist version. Why did the xYmerican Bible Society refuse to patronize this version ? and why did they resolve to cease patronizing the Bur- mese version made by Dr. Judson, when they learned, through the Rev. Mr. Pearce, the true cha- racter of it? Why, simply because it was a sec- tarian version, and they could not patronize it in accordance with the constitution. Why did the Baptists take exception to the action of the Board of Managers, and, with Dr. Cone at their head, secede from the Society, and form one of their own ? It was on account of their devotion to the principle of substituting immerse for haptize. Let the Board of Managers of their own Society tell us : " Since the die is cast, and the Bible socie- ties of Asia, Europe, and America have united IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 41 in the determination neither to sanction nor patronize any version in which haptizo is made to signify immerse^ what have the Baptists to do but to come up to the help of the Lord, even to the help of the Lord against the mighty?" — Quar. Pap., p. 4. Let Dr. Cone say why the Baptists seceded from the American Bible Society, and why they organized the American and Foreign Bible So- ciety, in his speech at the first anniversary of the American Bible Union, at New York, October 3d, 1850 : ''The American and Foreign Bible So- ciety was organized to vindicate A principle ; and, in accordance with this principle, haptizo and its cognates should be rendered by words signify- ing immerse, immersion,'^ etc. Did the managers know the principle upon which the secession took place ? Did Dr. Cone know ? Is it likely that the managers and Dr. Cone, the president of the A. and F. Bible Society for many years, were ignorant of the principle upon which the Society was organized ? It is true that the A. and F. Bible Society resolved to use the commonly re- 42 laiMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ceived version till otherwise ordered by the So- ciety; but, at the same time, they meditated a new English version, " in which (to use their own language) the word panrt^o) shall be faith- fiilhj translated to immerse." The final consideration of this project was de- ferred till 1850, when (the matter being before the managers) ^' they shrank from the responsi- bility of their original purpose," and decided to be content with the commonly received version of the English Scriptures. And, at the anniver- sary of the Society in the same year, this decision was approved and adopted by a large majority. Upon this decision, the minority, with Dr. Cone at their head again, " seceded from the secession," and formed what is styled the American Bible Union. Why were they induced to take this step ? Hear Dr. Cone again upon this point, in the speech from which we quoted above. Having said, as we have quoted, " that the A. and F. Bible Society was organized to vindicate a princi]ple," and "that, in accordance with this principle, ha2'>tizo and its cognates shou-'d be ren- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 13 dered by words signifying immerse, mimcrsion," etc. , he proceeds to indicate the principle which was to govern the American Bible Union : ^^And here (i. e., whether laptizo should, be rendered iminerse) we fought the battle with the Pedo- baptists, and here we have to fight the battle over again with the Baptists, who will not allow 'immerse, immersion, etc., to have a place in the New Testament. 'When Greek meets Greek, Then comes the tug of "war.' Either fear ^that the Pedobaptists will come down upon us with tremendous power/ as a dis- tinguished brother said, or shame, or some other motive of which I know nothing, deters many from bearing in English the same testimony for Christ's despised ordinance of immersion, which they have made it the imperative duty of their missionaries to bear in all the languages of the heathen. '^ Does not the above quotation most conclusively show that the reason of Dr. Cone and his bve- 44 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. tliren's seceding from the American and Foreign Bible Society was simply tliat they (the Society) would not agree to have an immersionist version of the English Scriptures ? Would they have been satisfied with any version which should not have conformed to this principle ? It was not merely a new version which they wanted, that should contain a correction of errors in general, but it was a new version which should have im- merse instead of haptizej in accordance with the principle announced by Dr, Cone. This was a sine qua non with them. This, then, is the ^^principle,'' for the sake of which they separated from the A. and F. Bible Society, and upon which they organized the American Bible Union. Have they since abandoned this principle ? Where is the record of it ? They have never published it to the world. There is abundant proof that they intend to adhere to it with a pas- sionate devotion. Ah ! to have their favorite dogma in the New Testament ! It will save them a world of trouble and vexation. It will be in- deed a great acquisition. They will be IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 4o . "As rich in having such a jewel, As twenty seas, if all theii' sand were pearl, The water nectar, and the rocks pure gold." Why did the immersionists in India and Europe secede from the Bible Society of Cal- cutta, and the British and Foreign Bible Society ? Because these societies refused to sanction or patronize any version in which jSaTTrl^G) is made to signify immerse. Would they have seceded, had it not been for this ? And would any thing short of a revocation of this decision have satis- fied them ? It would not. And this is settled beyond all controversy by the fact that they formed a society in England, subsequently to the organization of the American and Foreign Bible Society, called '^ The British Translation Society," one article of whose constitution reads as follows : ^'It shall be the object of this Society to encour- age the production and circulation of complete translations of the Holy Scriptures, completely authenticated for fidelity, it being always under- stood that the icords relating to the ordinance of 46 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. baptism shall he translated hy words signifying immerse.'' This for ever settles the question as regards the main object the British Baptists have in view. Their main object is to put immerse in the place of baptize ; and they are candid enough to avow it even in the constitution of their Society. I regret I cannot say the same of the immersionists in this country. But it may be said that the ad- vocates of revision in this country have nothing to do with the movement in Great Britain, and are not responsible for any position they may have assumed. But it is a fact, that the Translation Society of G-reat Britain was organized under the auspices of the American and Foreign Bible Society, the managers of which appointed Dr. McClay, in September, 1839, to visit the Baptists of England. And, in a letter addressed to them, they give their reasons for sending their agent. I make the following extracts : "While it is our sincere prayer that the appointment of brother McClay may promote a more intimate fraternal IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 47 union between British and American Baptists in every thing that relates to the prosperity of the Eedeemer's kingdom, we particularly hope that in the publication of faithful versions of the Bible in all lauds, we may ere long obtain the active cooperation of every Baptist in Great Britain. Why should they not thus unite, when it is known that the British and Foreign Bible So- ciety and the American Bible Society have virtu- ally combined to obscure at least a part of Divine revelation ? To the friends of truth it cannot be otherwise than a subject of deep lamentation that these societies, which, of all others, ought to be anti-sectarian, continue to circulate versions of the Bible unfaithful, at least so far as the subject of Baptism is concerned." — Third Annual Re- port, pp. 45, 46. In these extracts, Dr. McOlay is recognized as the agent of the Society; and the managers ex- press the hope that he may influence them (the English Baptists) to cooperate ^'in the publication of faithful versions of the Bible." And we learu what they mean by "faithful versions" in. 48 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. their lamentation about the course pursued by the B. and F. B. Society and the A. B. Society in cir- culating " versions of the Bible un/ait7i/ul, at least so far as the subject of baptism is con- cerned.'^ Here is more than a hint as regards the principle upon which they expected the English Baptists to cooperate with them. They were expected to recognize immersion as a sine qua non in versions of the Bible. Dr. McClay, after visiting the Baptist churches generally, writes to the American and Foreign Bible Society from London, as follows : " It is proposed to organize a Translation Society/' etc. (Quar. Pap., p. 122.) In the next letter he writes as follows : '^My mission to Great Britain, by the Divine blessing, has been crowned with success. It has aided in the formation of the Bible Translation Society, whose object is to pro- mote the circulation of faitliful versions of the Sacred Scriptures in all languages." And what he means by such "versions,'^ we learn from what he says of the British and Foreign Bible Society : '^A society that has treated us with in- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 49 justice and contempt, and by their actions say that they would rather see the heathen perish in their idolatry, ignorance, and unbelief, than give them a Bible that shall inform them of the exact mind of the Holy Spirit on the subject of hap- tism." And this Society (the British Translation Society) was formed to promote this end — i. e., to do what the B. and F. Bible Society had failed to do, and were unwilling to do — inform the hea- then of "the exact mind of the Holy Spirit on the subject of haptism.''^ To show more fully that the societies in Eng- land and America are one in their position on the subject of a new version, the managers of the American and Foreign Bible Society, speaking of the success of their agent in the formation of the Translation Society, use the following language : " Your Board consider as auspicious in the history of our denomination the union of Ameri- can and British Baptists in one common effort to give to the remotest nations the revelations of Infinite Wisdom, unadulterated by any admix- 5 50 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ture of human superstition." (Third Annual Report, pp. 11, 39, 41.) Here is a hearty and unqualified approval of the Bible Translation Society of Great Britain. They speak of the ^' union of British and Ameri- can Baptists" in the translation movement. But how could this be if they did not agree in the great cardinal principle ? In the appendix to the Third Annual Report, p. 65, the managers publish the entire constitution of the Translation Society, embracing the second article which we have quoted above. In their Fourth Report, p. 65, they welcome the institution in the follow- ing; terms : ^^ The formation of this Society on the 24th of March, 1840, has imparted joy to our hearts, and vigor to our hopes concerning the speedy accom- plishment of that great object for which the American and Foreign Bible Society was con- stituted." The American and Foreign Bible Society fully approved of the action of the Board in ever}' laiMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 51 step tliey took in reference to this Society. At their anniversary, April 29th, 1841, the following resolution was unanimously passed : ^^ Resolved, That we rejoice in the recent forma- tion of the Bible Translation Society in Great Britain, and hail it as an institution kindred to the American and Foreign Bible Society, and a valuable coadjutor in the Bible translation.'^ (Fourth Annual Report, p. 60.) How could this Society be " kindred '^ to the American and Foreign Bible Society, ^^and a valuable coadjutor in the work of Bible transla- tion,^' if they did not agree in their position in regard to the translation of haptizo ? In the Fifth Annual Report, p. 8, Dr. Cone, adopting the language of the secretary of the British Translation Society, says : ^' Our only business is to uphold immersionist versions, and give them as large a circulation as we can; and this becomes our business, because all the rest of the Christian world have thrown them away. This single object is our rallying -point. In 52 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. these sentiments/' says Dr. Cone, ^^ we cordially unite.'' I fear I may weary tlie reader with the number of quotations. But there are so many ^^twhtings and turnings^' adopted in order to evade the true issue^ and blind the public mind, that there is required "line upon line, and precept upon precept." The course adopted by the advocates of this movement reminds me of the stratagem adopted by Cacus in stealing the cattle of Hercules, and conducting them to his cave. He led them by the tail instead of the Jiorns, so that, if pursued, the pursuer, if he followed the track, might be sure to go the wrong way, and arrive at the wrong place. All the sophistry they can invent is employed to keep the public in the dark as to what they are really about; and so "they wrap it up," to use one of their own favorite quotations. But they cannot impose upon the public where the facts are known. Neither can they restrain the indignation "that will come down upon them IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 5o witli tremendous power" when the facts shall generally go abroad. They " May as well forbid the mountain pines To "wag their high tops and make no noise When they are fretted -with the gusts of heaven." 5* 54 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. CHAPTER lY. THE MAIN DESIGN, CONTINUED. This will appear still more fully from addi- tional quotations from the publications of tlie American and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Union, etc. And let the reader bear in mind what we announced in a former chapter, that we shall quote from the jpuhlications of the friends and advocates of this movement to sustain our position. They cannot object to this testimony. It is their own. I first make additional quotations from the documents of the American and Foreign Bible Society. Bev. E. Kincaid, missionary to China, in a letter to the Society, says : '' It appears to me that the Baptists were driven out of the old societies unless they would pledge themselves to betray Christ — unless they would barter for IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 55 money tlie great initiatori/ ordinance of the rjo&pel. Why keep back from the nations any part of God's word ? Certainly there is no more doubt about the meaning of the word (Sanrti^o) than there is about dprog ; and to leave either untrans- lated, would be evidence of ignorance or dis- honesty/' (Quar. Pap., p. 77.) Kev. Mr. Cushman, in a speech before the Society, says: ''It (the English Bible) is not sufficiently defective, except in relation to baptism and church order, to be distrusted as a guide to truth and duty." (Second xinnual Report, Ap- pendix, p. 50.) Rev. Dr. Judson : ''I rejoice in the formation of the Bible Translation Society of England, and in the continued prosperity of the American and Foreign Bible Society. I verily believe that it was by the special providence of God that the old Bible societies were left to take the unjustifi- able course they did, in order that the peculiar truths which distinguish the Baptist denomina- tion might be brought forward in a manner un- 56 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE precedented, and ultimately triunipli.'^ (Fourth Annual Report, p. 67.) The Board of Managers use the following language : '' The evils which have accrued from the introduction of a single word imposed by foreign influence, and the bigotry of an earthly prince, no human mind can compute. Nearly all the European versions subsequently made have been conformed to the principles adopted by King James's translators ; and thus a word has been perpetuated from generation to generation, the precise meaning of which none but the learned could with certainty ascertain. And as these versions have, in most instances, been made by Pedobaptists, the error of sprinkling has ob- tained the blind and almost universal suffrage of what is called the Christian world. '^ The managers quote with approbation the following from Dr. Judson : " Had the Greek word haptizo, which denotes the principal action in this ordinance, heen translated in the English version of the New Testament, there would pro- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 57 bablj have been among English readers no dis- pute concerning its import. . . . But, un- happily, our translators have retained the original word, and contented themselves with merely changing its termination." (Quar. Pap., p. 5.) The President of the Society, Dr. Cone, says, in his address to the Society in 1846 : "In re- taining haptizOj they have done more injury to the cause of God and truth than if they had retained a dozen other old ecclesiastical words.'' The Board of Managers say : " It is well known that there was not one Baptist among the forty-seven translators appointed by King James, and that we have never acknowledged that their version of the Scriptures was in all respects faithful. In common with other Christians, we have been willing to receive it only because that hitherto we had supposed that the time had not come to attempt an improved and faithful version, well knowing that in such an undertaking we must stand alone, and could hope for no assist- ance from Pedobaptists, whose denominational existence depends upon the non-translation of 58 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. those words in the New Testament which relate to the ordinance of baptism. '^ (Second Annual Report, pp. 12, 13.) Rev. Dr. Dowling, in a speech before the American and Foreign Bible Society, says : '^ The principle on which the American and Foreign Bible Society is based is destined ultimately to batter down the last pillar of Popery — infant sprinkling. Protestantism says : Tell the people what God says : translate his book, that the people may know what he says: translate the whole of it, and translate it faithfully. Time will show how long the substitution of sprinkling for believers' baptism will stand before the burn- ing torch of truth and the light of God's word, when fully and faithfully translated." (Ibid, pp. 55, 56.) Dr. McClay, in his Saratoga address, says: ^' The difficulty which separated the Baptists and Pedobaptists in the Bible cause originated in the East Indies. The Pedobaptists, who came into the field long after our. Baptist brethren, experi- enced difficulties in making converts to sprink- IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 59 ling, and in retaining them after they were made, in consequence of the word haptizo being rendered by a word signifying immerse in all our versions of the Scriptures." Dr. McClay, in this same address, says : '' We had no hand in making our English version. It was made for us by Episcopalians ; and though we consider it in the main an excellent version, yet we believe that great injustice has been done to the truth of God by concealing the meaning of baptism from the unlearned, who are the mass of the community. But the day may come, and perhaps it is at no great distance, when the Bap- tist denomination shall deem it their duty to give a version of the Sacred Scriptures in the English language, in which the word haptizo shall be faithfully translated to immerse, and thus give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in reference to this subject, that the un- learned as well as the learned may know the will of God and their duty.'^ Hear Dr. Cone and Mr. Wyckoff, in a tract entitled ''The Bible Translated." '^Let a 60 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Bible Society, like tlie American and Foreign, dare to say tliat haptizo means to immerse, and stamp their conviction upon the English Testa- ment, and a stimulus would be given to the inquiry, and a sanction to the truth, which would multiply manifold the numbers of those immersed into the name of the Father, and the Son, and Holy Spirit.'' I might give ten times the amount of the above quotations from the publications of the American and Foreign Bible Society ; but these must suffice in this place. And what do they most satisfactorily establish ? Do they not show that, from the beginning, there has been but one main idea, and THAT the suhstitution of immerse for baptize? What is the grand objection urged against our translation ? It is not objected to so much for errors in general. The capital objection is, that (3a7:TL^G) was not translated immerse. Thus Dr. McClay : " Though we con- sider it in the main an excellent version, yet we believe that great injustice has been done to the truth of God by concealing the true meaning of IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 61 haj)fi'sm from tlie unlearned." That is, the commonly received version would do very well if it were only right on the subject of baptism. Their hope of the destruction of the errors of sprinkling and infant baptism, and all the cor- ruptions existing in Pedobaptist Churches, (and these are many, according to their notion,) and the conversion of the world in the triumph of immersionist principles, is suspended upon put- ting immerse in the New Testament in the place of haptize. I will now call the attention of the reader to a few additional quotations from the publications of the American Bible Union. This Society, the reader will bear in mind, is a secession from the American and Foreign Bible Society, (Baptist,) as that is a secession from the American Bible Society. And that while, in common with the American and Foreign Bible Society, it seeks to secure only immersionist versions of the Scrip- tures in forei2;n lano-uao-es, it at the same time aims to secure a version upon this principle in 6 62 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. English. The friends of this Society, however, deny that such is its object, or, at least, that this is its main design. If, however. Dr. Cone knew any thing of the main object of the movement, such is the character of the version they seek. Dr. Cone headed the secession from the American Bible Society, and was, till the secession from the American and Foreign Bible Society, in 1850, the President of that institution ; and he was the President of the American Bible Union from its organization, in 1850, till his death in 1855. No man, therefore, could enjoy better opportunity of knowing the main design of the movement than Dr. Cone did. We have already quoted from his speech at the first anniversary of the American Bible Union, in 1850, in which he addresses his brethren as '^ Brethren and friends of immersionist versions of the Holy Scriptures in all languages, but especially in the Englii>]i.^' Now here the terms in which he addresses his brethren show the main purpose of their organization. They arc addressed IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 63 as ^^ friends of immersionist versions of tlie Holy Scriptures — especially in English.' ' Did he not know whom lie was addressing ? Hear Dr. Cone again, in his speech at the second anniversary of the American Bible Union, October 2d, 1851: ^'Brethren and friends, the American Bible Union has a mission of grave responsibility. We are called in the providence of God to employ our best efforts to j^rocure, printj and circulate faithful versions of the Scriptures in all lands.'' And we learn what Dr. C. means by faithful versions a little further along in the same speech. Hear him : ^' He (Dr. C.) has dared to say from this pulpit again and again, that Christian hap- tism is immersion only ; and that if right to preach it, it is right to print it — to print it in THE Bible ; for if it is not in the Bible, we have no right to preach it or print it as apart of God's revealed will to man." '■^ One of the most specious arguments that has been advanced against the correction of the com- mon version is, that thereby we must forfeit the 64 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. name of Baptists. The words relating to the ordinance must of necessity be translated ; and because the common people will learn that it is the duty of believers to be immersed, therefore the term Baptist will cease to be the appellation of those who follow their Lord. This is not a necessary consequence. . . . The great thing is to follow Christ. ... To do this we must know what he commands. Does he command believers in Christ to be immersed in his name ? Where is the difference in criminality hQiy^e&Oi printing it and preaching it ? If the latter be right, the former cannot be wrong." " How strange, how inexplicable, that any who wear this name should be afraid or ashamed to print what they believe and preach ! " ^' Since the English word haptize, according to our standard lexicographers, means to sprinkle, pour, asperse, christen, etc., the American Bible Union must come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty; take oif the popish cover from his pure word ; disabuse the public mind, led astray by doctors and dictionaries ; and, IMMEKSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 66 among other revealed truths, show to all who understand our language that hapiism is immer- sion only." Here ^^the main design'^ is boldly avowed and defended. If they should lose their name by substituting immerse for haj^ti'ze, (though not '^ a necessary consequence/' as he thinks,) yet they must not be deterred. ''The great thing is to follow Christ." "If it is right to i^reacli it, {immersion,) it is right to print it." And inas- much as it is not in the Bible, ''it is right to PRINT IT IN THE BiBLE :" Otherwise "it is not right to preach it, or j^rint it." And, then, as the standard lexicographers are all wrong in the definitions they give to baptize, therefore "the American Bible Union .must come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty," and show to those speaking our language who " are led astray by doctors and dictionaries, that baptism is immersion onli/," 1 would suggest that they take into consideration the propriety of attempting a new version of the "Doctors and Dictionaries.'^ If they could get them reformed 6* 66 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. to tlieir notions, a great deal of trouble would be obviated in the prosecution of the enterprise in which they are engaged. The fact is, a new ver- sion of almost every thing will have to be secured before our immersionist friends can get along as they desire. Listen to Dr. Cone again, in his address before the Bible Union, October 6th, 1853 : '' In revis- ing the commonly received English version, the real point of controversy between us and the anti- revisionists is the question lohetlier haptizo shall he translated or 7iot. Settle that point on the side of the truth : allow the real meaning of the word to appear in all its plainness and simplicity, and then no one but a Roman Catholic will object to the whole Bible being brought as near the original as possible. ^^ Now, supposing Dr. Cone to have been posted in regard to the main design of the movement, this quotation settles the question. In order that I may show that the main design on account of which the movement was besuu has not been abandoned, I make a few extracts IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 67 from the Bible Union Reporter for January, 1854. This is one of the organs of the Union. I quote from pages 81, 82. In a speech deHvered before the American Bible Union, by the Rev. J. II. Chandler, a missionary to Siam, he gives an ac- count of a late translation of the Scriptures into the Siamese language, by a Mr. Jones. He says that in this version, "In speaking of John the forerunner of Christ, he is called ^ John the im- mej'ser ;' and in all those passages where haptize, haptized, baptism occur, immerse, immersed, immersion are used : so that the word Bap>t>'st is nowhere to be found in the book : no, not even on the English title-page." " However others may be liable to the charge of making Baptist Bibles and Testaments, I am sure it cannot be brought against Mr. Jones ; for you will see that there is nothing about Baptists in any part of his translation. The converts in Siam do not, so far as I am aware, know that there is such a body as the Bap)tist denomina- tion." ! ! ! He then 2;ives a few extracts from the Siamese 68 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. version — Matt. iii. 1 : " In those days came Jolin the immerser." Matt. iii. 11 : " I indeed im- merse you in water ; but He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit and fire." The editor of the Reporter adds : " By these extracts from our Siamese version, it will be seen that the principles for ivhich the Bible Union is contending J are the same which control Baptist missionaries in Asia." The priHc«^?es recognized by the Baptist missionary in Siam, controlled him to use a word for (3anTL^(0 which means immerse, and nothing else. And if this is the same prin- ciple for which the Bible Union is contending, then it will control them to put immerse in the place of baptize in their proposed new version of the English Scriptures. I quote again from a speech delivered by the Bev, John L. Waller, LL.D., before the Revision Association, at Nashville, Tenn., April 10th, 1854, as published in the Bible Union Reporter for May, 1854, pp. 152, 153 : '^ The word (bap- tism) has no modal signification. In this respect it means any thing and every thing, and therefore IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 69 notliing. It is a word of no mode at all. It is in vain for my Baptist brethren to tell me that immersion is plainly taught in the English ver- sion, I grant that it is. A child may read it there as if \rritten in lines of light. But it is not taught by the word baptize. That word bears no testimony on the subject. It is as silent as an Egyptian mummy. "It is in vain to reason with the individual who seriously insists that baptize means to im- merse ; or that it has any modal meaning what- ever, since the Elizabethan age. We might as well attempt to teach logic to an orang-outang as to impart the laws of language to the man who would gravely dispute a position so self-evident. Such an individual is surely delivered over to believe a lie." If the above be correct reasoning, what is the only alternative ? Why, according to the ^'prin- ciple^' which the American and Foreign Bible Society was organized " to vindicate,''^ and which the American Bible Union, as the successor of the American and Foreign Bible Society, as far iO IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. as tlie English Scriptures are concerned, are most solemnly pledged to vindicate, they must substi- tute immerse. And is not the Revision Associa- tion, before which this address of Dr. W. was delivered, coordinate with the American Bible Union ? Are not its friends cooperating with the Union in 'Hhe greatest enterprise of the age?" Have they ever disclaimed its great principle ? Nay, verily; but, on the contrary, they have affirmed it in the most conclusive manner. And yet, many of the advocates of the movement positively deny that the main design is to substi- tute immerse for haptize. How strange, that men professing honestij, let alone godliness, should be guilty of such shufiing I But listen to the following, from Tract No. 13, written by the Rev. Mr. Judd, and published by the American Bible Union : " Editors and their correspondents, and many other teachers in Israel, have taken much pains to make the people be- lieve that the great object of the American Bible Union, and of the whole revision enterprise, is to substitute the word immerse for baptize, in our IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 71 common version. . . . But tlie idea has no found- ation in fact. It lias been formed in direct oppo- sition to tlie public official documents and uniform action of the Union.'' And then, in order to sus- tain this disclaimer, he gives the rules by which the translators of the new version are bound : " 1. The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the time they were first written, must be translated by corresponding- words and phrases, so far as they can be found in the vernacular tongue of those for whom the ver- sion is designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness. " 2. The common English version must be made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with the established phraseology shall be avoided ; and only such alterations shall be made as the exact meaning of the inspired text and the existing state of the language may require." And then, after commenting on these rules, he says : "It must be seen, therefore, that the Bible 72 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Union have never joined issue with their oppo- nents on this point, as constituting any essential or determined part in the grand enterprise of revision.'^ Now, we consider the inference thus drawn from the rules as bj no means legitimate ; for, although they do not in so many words require the substitution of immerse for haptize, yet they do not prohibit it directly or indirectly; and the translators may therefore put wimerse in the place of baptize in perfect conformity with the rules. And that this will be done is inferred from a quotation from Dr. Kendrick, in this very tract, as authority for the revision movement : ^'It is thought that the English Scriptures are understood on the subject of baptism. This is a mistake. The few who are acquainted with Bap- tist principles understand them ; but the mass of the people do not. A translation of the word baptizo, and a general circulation of the Scrip- tures with such a translation, would do more than all other books to enlighten the masses on the subject.^ ^ IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 73 How does the positive denial above quoted and this quotation, setting forth one main object of the movement; agree together ? Let the candid reader determine. . Take another specimen of the game of Jesuit- ism they are trying to play in their effort to evade the main issue. Dr. Williams, of New York, one of the most eminent Baptist ministers in the world, wrote, in behalf of his church, a letter to the American Bible Union, in reply to a request sent the church by the Union '^ for prayer and aid." The letter is published in Tract No. 10, by the Union, in connection with their reply to it through Dr. Cone and others. Here is Dr. Wil- liams's opinion of ^'tlie main deslgnJ' " The alteration most sought by some esteemed brethren among you was in the word describing the first ordinance of the Christian Church. And by laying down, as your Society is said by its friends and ofl&cers to have laid it down, that the rendering of the Greek word for baj^tism by another one is no longer held ^an open ques 7 . 74 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. tion/ but that, in effect, immerse must take the place of hajitize, does not your enterprise incur the very censure which your advocates cast upon King James for his instructions to transktors? You limit the consciences and restrain the un- fettered judgment of your revisors." Here is the answer of the Bible Union to this^ with Dr. Cone's name to it as chairman of the committee who drew it up : "To say that we limit the consciences and restrain the unfettered judgment of our revisers, ... is to assert what you cannot prove, and to testify to what you have no reason to believe. . . . Your charge against the Bible Union on this point is as unfounded as it is unjust; and we cannot resist the convic- tion that the cause which arrays its ablest advo- cates, armed with bold assertions, against the plain documentary evidence of undeniable facts, must be at war with truth. '^ But, strange to say, in the same tract in which this language is used, they most clearly admit all that Dr. Williams has charged. Dr. Williams in his letter had quoted Dr. Carson against revision. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. iO They quote from Dr. Carson^ iu order to sliow that he was in favor of it, as follows : " Luke xi. 08. He says, 'The passage there ought to have been translated — " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he was not immersed before dinner/' ' Speaking of Mark vii. 4, where our version has, ' Except they wash they eat not,' Carson saj^s it ought to have been trans- lated, ' Except they dip themselves they eat not.' And what our version renders ^ ic ashing s,' he says ought to be translated ^ immersions.^ Speaking of those who understand only the English lan- guage, he says, ' They do not understand the original, and the adoption of the words baptize and baptism can teach them nothing. Trans- lators, by adopting the Greek word, have con- trived to hide the meaning from the unlearned.' " Here they adduce Carson as in favor of re- vision ; but how is Carson in favor of revision, if, as they say, the putting of immerse in the place of baptize constitutes no part of the revision enterprise? for all they quote from Carson relates, to that very thing. Out of their own 76 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. mouths, therefore, I prove that the disclaimer above quoted is utterly false. Again, in the same series of Tracts, No. G, en- titled, ''The Bible Union^s plan of Revision vindicated,^- by J. W. Lynd, D. D., the author shows the importance and necessity of revision by exhibiting the benefits which will flow from it. One among the number of these "henejits" (?) is, according to Dr. Lynd, that immerse will take the place of baptize. Hear him : " I will give another instance in the word ^ bap- tize.^ There can be no doubt that this word, in English religious literature, has become generic. It would be time lost, on this occasion, to argue this point with any one who may be bold enough to deny it. The word is currently used for sprink- ling by the largest part of the Christian world. It may be said that this is a wrong use of the word ; but that does not change the fact. Bap- tists use it to signify immersion only ; but Bap- tists cannot change the literature of English Christendom. I ought, perhaps, to except a few, who hold that bapti7:o has no representative in IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. / / the EngiisJi language, aud tliat it does not mean tx) purify, to sprinMe, to pour, or to immerse, but to baptize. With this exception, the Baptist op- ponents of revision, among all evangelical Chris- tians of this country, stand alone as to the defini- tiveness of the English word baptize. All the Pedobaptists, all revisionists, regard its present use a.s generic. And yet, most strange to say, they wish to retain baptize, and restore its original meaning, not perceiving their own full admission that its present use is generic. " If the Greek word baptizo mean immerse — if the authority of good scholarship is on this side, the English reader should have the benefit of such a rendering, and those who practice dif- ferently should have the privilege of sustaining their practice by their own opinion of the origi- nal word. '^Let such a revision, sustained by proper authority, go forth to the world, aud the design of the ordinance will be more clearly seen. As that is understood, it will sweep away the error of baptizing unconscious babes. ^Buried with 7* 78 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. him by immersiou into death/ will then express to the minds of men what before they could not conceive.'^ What does this extract show ? Certainly that baptize is to be turned out of the New Testament, Decause it is a generic word ; and imnicrse must be put in its place, because it is specific. Is it likely that Dr. Lynd is ignorant of the design of the movement ? It will be satisfactory to give quotations from eminent Baptist ministers who are opposed to this movement. And it is a remarkable fact that the large majority of the most learned and gifted ministers of the Baptist Church in this country, and perhaps in Europe, are most violently opposed to this movement. This fact of itself should have great influence with Baptists as regards the merits of the movement. In a pamphlet written by John Bowling, D.D., and entitled ^^The Old-fashioned Bihle,^' he uses the following language : " Various other correc- tions of the text have been recommended in the proposed 'New Version/ Believing, however. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 79 most firmly as I do, that these suggestions have been put in only as makeic eights ^ in order to ai(i the great object of the substitution of 'immerse' for ' baptize/ I shall not on the present occasion enter into any examination of the correctness of these criticisms/' — p. 10. '^ I shall now proceed, therefore, to state my reasons why we should oppose the publication, by this great denominational Society, [the American and Foreign Bible Society,] of a version of the English Scriptures, the distinguishing feature of which should be the substitution of immerse for haptize wherever it occurs in the Xew Testa- ment.^' — p. 13. • Dr. Dowling gives as the fourth reason why he is opposed to a new version with the word im- merse substituted for haptize, ''Because the word haptize is itself, to all intents and purposes, an English wordJ' — p. 20. " But turn the words haptize, and haptism, and Baptist out of the Bible, and what becomes of the authority for our name ? "We are Baptists no longer, for we repudiate the very word ; nor can so IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. we with the slightest show of consistency expel the word from our Bible, and then cling to it as the name of our denomination. " Once more, then, I repeat, if you expel this word from your Bible you must give up the name of your sect ; and if you refuse to do this, other denominations will do it for you. You must call yourselves Immersers; or if that, too, is rejected because it is a transferred word, then you must call yourselves Dippers." — pp. 32, 33. Rev. Dr. Fuller says : " The moment we resort to a new translation, we sacrifice the whole argu- ment, and virtually say, as the book now is we cannot make out our cause : we must, therefore, follow the Campbellites, and the Socinians, and others, and make a Bible to suit ourselves.'' Kev. Dr. Malcolm, as quoted by Dr. Dowling : ^^ Were I to utter all the objections which occur to me as to the proposed ^Version/ (I) I should want a week for it. When the world is allov/ed to say that lae needed, as Baptists, a New Version, to sustain ourselves, then is our right arm broken in the fight. I can add no more than to say, 1 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 81 shall spurn from me the proposed publicatioD, and the Society which gives it birth." Rev. Dr. Hague says : ^' If we should accom- plish the proposed purpose, and change the word hajptize into immerse, and should win the suf- frages of the world, in a few years we should have to do the same thing, and make new changes.'^ I might add many additional quotations from the most distinguished Baptist ministers in the world, in which they express their unqualified opposition to the movement ; and the prime reason of their opposition is declared to be that the design of the moverbent is to put immerse in the New Testament in the place of haiytize, and that this is the main design. The disclaimer of the main design contained in the extract we have made from Tract No. 10, containing Dr. Williams's letter against revision, and the reply of the Bible Union to that letter, was drawn up by Dr. Cone as chairman of the committee. The reader will have seen that Dr. Williams is substantially charged with false- 82 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. hood in saying that the main design of the move- ment is to put immerse in the place of hajptize. Now, in what light does this disclaimer place Dr. Cone and the Union ? This same Dr. Cone said, in 1842, " Our only business is to uphold immersionist versions. This single object is our rallying-point.'^ This same Doctor said, in 1849, *^Let a Bible Society like the American and Foreign dare to say that hajytizo means to immersey and stamp their conviction upon the New Testament,'' etc. The same gentleman, in 1850, before the American Bible Union : '^Brethren and friends of immersionist versions of the Scriptures in all languages, and esjjpecially in the English, the American and Foreign Bible Society was organ- ized to vindicate a principle: ... in ac- cordance with this principle, haptizo should be rendered by words signifying immerse, immei^- sion,'' etc. The same man, in 1851 : ^'The American Bible Union must come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty; . . . and show to all who IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 83 understand our language, that baptism is immer- sion ONLY. ... If it is right to preach it, it is right to print it — TO PRINT IT IN THE Bible/' The same person, in 1852 : " Having directed their missionaries among the heathen to transhite haptizo and its cognates by words signifying im- merse, immersion, etc., they cannot be so incon- sistent as to despise or reject immersion in their own vernacular tongue." Hear him in 1853 : " In revising the com- monly received version, the real point of contro- versy between us and the anti-revisionists is the question whether haptizo shall be translated or not.'' And yet, this same Dr. S. H. Cone assists in getting up a paper in reply to Dr. "Williams, and puts his name to it as chairman, and sends it abroad to the world, denying most absolutely what he has so often, and in so many different forms, declared most positively and unequivocally to be true ! And Dr. Cone is not peculiar among the ad- vocates of this, " the greatest enterprise of the 84 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. age/' for tliis ^'hloioing liot and cold out of the same mouth." It is a distinctive feature in the tactics of tlie movement. It affords a most im- pressive illustration of the recklessness into which even good men may be led in the advocacy of an ultra measure. A good cause does not need such expedients. It will always be prejudiced by their adoption. The cause which demands such aid must be a bad one. Truth suffers nothing by being fully and fairly exposed. On the contrary, it will always be the gainer by such exposure. Men who are satisfied of the goodness of their cause are naturally inclined to defend it on its own merits. They will not be afraid to do so. They will prefer such a course, as a matter of policy, if for nothing else. If these sentiments be cor- rect, we infer that the revision movement is a bad cause, and that its advocates have not full confi- dence in it. They do not expect to succeed by a fair and candid course. They consequently do not attempt it. In reading their publications, it is very evident IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 85 that, they were much more candid in announcing the main design in the outset of the movement than at present. Public sentiment came down upon them "with such tremendous power" that they became frightened ; and they have deemed it good policy to change the mode of operation, so as to keep the main design more in the back- ground; and the Jesuitical course now adopted is the result. " The old-fashioned Bible/' as we still have it, very justly declares that " He that doeth truth Cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in Grod.'^ But "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved/' The fact is, as is apparent to every one ac- quainted with the history of this movement, it is a last resort to sustain the sinking cause of im- mersion. The advocates of " dip and nothing but dip" have found that the commonly received version does not sustain them; and therefore they must either give up this strange dogma, and 86 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. others connected with it, or they must have a new version. They must have a Bible to suit themselves, as other fanatical ultraists have. They acknowledge that the Bible, the diction- aries, the commentaries, the doctors, and a ma- jority of the so-called Christian world, are against them; and they are constrained to do something; and the plan is to begin by reforming the Bible ; and then, perhaps, they will proceed to reform every thing else that does not accord with their peculiar notion of ^' dip, and nothing but dip." They have truly a Herculean task before them ; but then, what cannot men do with but one single idea to tax their powers ? IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 87 CHAPTER Y. THE TACTICS OP THE IMOVEMENT. An expedient adopted by the advocates of this movement is the representation that a large number of the learned men (?) engaged in the work of revision are Pedobaptists, The de- sign of this is to make the impression that the movement is catholic and not sectarian. A^d this statement is made so as to make the impres- sion upon those not posted up in the matter, not that individuals belonging to Pedobaptist Churches, upon their own individual responsi- bility, are in the employ of the American Bible Union as revisers, but that they are thus engaged by the countenance and even approval of the Churches to which they belong. And these statements are made not merely by the subordi- nate and inferior apologists of the movement, but 88 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. even by the leaders in the enterprise, and by the American Bible Union itself officially. I quote the following from a speech of the Kev. J. S. Backus, delivered before the American Bible Union at its fifth anniversary, 1855, (Bible Union Keporter, p. 91,) and of course endorsed and published by the Union : " I like the revision movement, because of its non-sectarian character. ^^All denominations of Christians would not unite to revise the Scriptures, and no one denomi- nation could have undertaken it alone, without exciting the jealousy of others, and having all their prejudices arrayed against the work as a sectarian thing, however faithfully done. But the Bible Union movement is not a denominational movement," etc. Now, let the reader recur to the mass of evi- dence already adduced, proving most conclusively the falsity of this statement, and he will have an exhibition of a case of as unscrupulous and glaring effrontery as was ever practiced in the whole history of Jesuitism. Sometimes they rMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 89 strive to make the impression that all denomina- tions of Christians are united in the movement ; and then none — not even their own — is engaged ill li; ; Listen to the following from the Union's '^Ad- dress for Prayer and Aid/' signed by Dr. Cone as President, and published in the Bible Union Re- porter for January, 1854 : '^ Distinguished scholars are employed by the American Bible Union in the revision of the common version, holding their ecclesiastical connections with eight deno- minations : Church of England; Old School Preshytericins ; Discij^les, or Reformers ; Asso- ciate Reformed Presbyterians; Seventh-Day Baptists; American Protestant Episcopalians ; Bap)tists ; German Reformed Church. "Written contracts have been made with more than twenty scholars; and many of these, in com- pliance with the stipulations, have made engage- ments with others to work with them, so that the number of scholars actually engaged in the ser- vice of the Union does not vary far from forty. " More than half the work already done has 90 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. been performed by scholars not connected with immersionist denominations; and we anticipate that this will hold true until the New Testament is finished. '^ Seven of the revisors under written contract reside in Great Britain, and three of these are connected with the Church of England.'' In the Reporter of April, 1855, I find the Methodist Church in the list of the Churches from which the translators are selected. • The design of the publication from which the above extract is taken, is to make the impression that the movement is not denominational or sec- tarian, but that all the evangelical denominations are engaged in it, as well as some that are not evangelical. There is no intimation that though individuals from nine denominations are engaged as trans- lators, yet only in the case of those from the Bap- tists, Disciples, and Seventh-Day Baptists, can any one of them represent the denomination to which he belongs. And the fact, therefore, that they have translators from these six Pedobaptist IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 91 denominations does not aiFect in the slightest degree the sectarian immersionist character of the movement. For who began the movement? Baptists and Campbellites. Who have been the officers of the xlmerican and Foreign Bible So- ciety, and of the American Bible Union, up to this time ? Why, none but Baptists and Camp- bellites. And, therefore, these Pedobaptist trans- lators are employed by Baptists and Campbellites to do their work. They "are employed under written contract '' They are getting well paid, perhaps, for the work they are doing. But let us see what Dr. Cone thought about getting Pedobaptist aid in 1839. Listen to him : "Well knowing that in such an undertaking we must stand alone, and could hope for no assist- ance from Pedobaptists, whose denominational existence depends upon the non-translation of those words in the New Testament which relate to the ordinance of baptism." According to the "Address for Prayer and Aid," Dr. Cone did not knoiv so well as he thou2;ht he did when he uttered this lancfuao-e. 92 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. He thought in 1839 that the immersion ists must stand alone. Now he finds men from six of the Pedobaptist denominations standing side by side with the Union ; yea, are actually employed under luritten contract in doing the great work of re- vision ! Indeed, they are destined to do the greater part of it ! Well, indeed, the state of things is much better than could have been expected. But how are we to account for this wonderful result? Have these worthy Pedo- baptist divines and scholars found that they can engage in this work without demolishing the de- nominational existence of the Churches to which they belong ? Have they become convinced that they can assist in making the immersionists a Bible to suit them, and yet compromise no prin- ciple — especially as they are getting good salaries for their learned and pious labor ? Or is it a fact, that their pecuniary necessities arc so pressing that they are reconciled to dispense with conscience and principle for a season, that they may make a little to save them from want ? Here is a dit- ficulty which the ethics we have learned from '' the IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 93 old-fashioned BihW will not enable us to solve favorably to tliese Pedobaptist translators, we fear, with the light we have in regard to their case. Butj seeing that Dr. Cone has been so egregi- ously mistaken in his calculations as to the rela- tion the Pedobaptists would sustain to this move- ment, let us see if another of the great leaders has not been equally so. Dr. Cone was the President of the American Bible Union. I quote from one of the Vice-Presidents, Mr. A. Campbell, in his address to the Bible Convention at Memphis, Tenn., as published in the Millennial Harbinger for June, 1852. Hear him : "I am fully of the opinion that those prac- ticing the immersion of believers are the only people that can make a really valuable and faith- ful translation of the New Testament. They have in Protestant Christendom the only com- manding and favorable stand-point for such a work. Their eyes are couched. They can see what no man looking through the leather spec- tacles of Pedobaptism and Pedo-rantism can see in the Christian institution. I speak experiment- 94 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ally as well as theoretically, having been on the top of Mount Sinai before I stood upon the top of Mount Zion. I know the horizon of both these time -honored summits. I therefore silence all cavil as to their incompetency, and strongly declare the conviction that they, and they only, can furnish a version worthy of the age." "Pcdohajjtists and Baptists will never agree to make a neio version. Not one Pedobaptist will touch the ark of our sanctuary, fearing he might be stricken dead. Why should he ? How could he ? It would be suicidal on his part to raise the tower that would certainly fall upon himself. If an angel in disguise should substitute immerse for haijti?:e, he would say he came not from the skies. He would not, true to his party, improve the volume in any thing that would crush him in every thing dear to him as a Pedobaptist. Such politicians form no such entangling alliances. While it is a show of generosity or catholicity on our part to invite him, he will, with all complai- sance, say, with one of olden time, ^ I pray you, sir, have me excused.' None but immersionists IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 9o can unite in this work, and none but they could do justice to the subject." Let the reader compare the above with the language of the ' 'Address for Praj-er and Aid/' and it will appear that Mr. Campbell has been as much mistaken in his calculations as the Presi- dent, Dr. Cone. And what makes the blunder of Mr. Campbell the more remarkable is, that it has been com- mitted very recently — only about two years ago. Mr. Campbell himself, it is believed, is one of the translators. And at the time this Ian2:ua2:e was uttered, some at least of these Icatlicr-spectaded men were in the employ of the Union as trans- lators. It is very strange that he should not have been aware that he had some of these Vlind gentlemen as his colleagues in making " a trans- lation worthy of the age J' "PedobajJtisfs and Baptists icill never agree to *nake a neiv version," says Mr. Campbell. But they have agreed to do so, according to the American Bible Union, through Dr. Cone and others of her advocates. " Not one Pedobaptist 96 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. will touch the ark of our sanctuary, fearing he might be stricken dead/' Yet not one but many^ reckless of the bolt that may strike them ^^ dead,^' are not only touching the Baptist ark, according to the advocates of the movement, but have hold of it with both hands, and are, indeed, chiefly concerned in securing for it a destination in the loater, which its friends so much desire. '' Why should he V asks Mr. Campbell. Why, in order to get the money, if for nothing else. ^^ How could he ?'' he asks again. Why, simply by spurning all the dictates of honor and princi- ple, and submitting to the dictates, not, it is true, of King James or the bishops, but of the Ame- rican Bible Union. ^^ It would be suicidal on his part to raise the tower that would certainly fall upon himself.'^ And yet Pedobaptists are not only assisting to raise the tower that shall elevate the immersionists, as they fondly hope, into the heaven of ecclesiastical exclusiveness, but they are chiefly concerned in the erection of the tower, though it may fall on them and break their ecclesiastical heads. ^^ If an angel in dis- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 97 guise should substitute immerse for haptize, he would say he came not from the skies/' But he is not going to stand off and await the contin- gency referred to. He is engaged in helping to put immerse for baptize. He is not going to wait for an angel to do it. " He would not, true to his party, improve the volume in any thing that would crush him in every thing dear to him as a Pedobaptist." Yet he has engaged in what is claimed to be an effort to improve the volume, at least to make it teach immersion for baptism, whether it " c7nisJi€s Jiim" in every thing dear to him as a Pedobaptist, or in any thing, or not. It is not likely that those Pedobaptists engaged in this work hold aji^ thing that they claim to believe or practice of such worth that they would not be willing to sell it for money. For some reason these Pedobaptists are willing to be crushed. " Such politicians form no such entan- gling alliances." And yet, according to the address, they have formed just such an alliance. "While it is a show of generosity or catholicity on our part to invite him, he will, with all com- 98 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. plaisance, say, with one of olden time, 'I pray you, sir, have me excused/ ^' But, according to the address of the Union, there are Pedobaptists who have not asked to be excused. For the sake of the money, they have entered into ^^ written contract'^ to ^^ come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty," in this enterprise. The h^'-pocritical '' shoiv of generouty or catlio- licity''^ spoken of by Mr. Campbell might have been spared. They might have invited Pedo- baptists candidly and sincerely^ had they known they could have been bought for money. These men, according to Mr, Campbell and the address, have turned traitors, for some con- sideration deemed by them of more value than the interests of their party ; and I suppose it must be the money they get. The love of money was so strong in Judas, that even for the small sum of '^ thirty pieces of silver" he sold his Master to his enemies. And as human nature, under similar circumstances, is the same in all ages, there are, no doubt, men in Pedobaptist Churches who would be willing to sell the interests of tbeir IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 99 painty for money. And it is no reflection upon Pedobaptist Churches to make this admission. Mr. Campbell makes the case still stronger. He says : ^' I am fully of the opinion that those practicing the immersion of believers are the only people that can make a really valuable transla- tion. They have . . . the only commanding stand-point for such a work. Their eyes are couched. They can see what no man looking through the leather spectacles of Pedobaptism and Pedo-rantism can see in the Christian institu- tion." They have no leather spectacles of any kind on. They can see well enough to do the work. Mr. Campbell speaks not merely from theory, but from experience. He is a man of experience. He knows what he says. He speaks what he does know, and testifies to what he has seen, i. e., since his eyes were ^^ couched. '^ He knows from experience the horizon of both the time-honored summits of Mount Sinai and Mount Zion. He was once on the summit of Mount Sinai, amidst its clouds and darkness, with those same ^'leather specfacJes^^ on. But, fortunately lOO IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. tor Mr. Campbell, lie long ago descended from ihat terrible summit, and passed the Jordan, and has now gotten to the summit of Mount Zion, leaving his old "Pedohajjtist and Pedo-rantist leather spectacles" either in the Jordan, or on the other side. And from his own experience he can testify that none but those who, like himself, have made this transition by passing through ^Hhe Jordan's yielding wave,'' and getting rid of their " leather spectacles,' could " do justice to the subject." None but such as stand with Mr. Campbell on the Mount Zion of Immersion are free from ignorance and prejudice. None but the immersionists are honest enough to make " a translation worthy of the age." None but they understand the languages in which the Scriptures were originally written sufficiently well. Well, the question is, how will they get along with these Pedos, with uncouched eyes, sitting away off yonder on the cold and dark " Mount Sinai in Arabia, which gendereth to bondage," "with their ^^ leather spectacles'" over their eyes, IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. lOl (if they have any,) and yet employed, under pay, to assist in doing " a great work V^ The friends of the movement must be, I think, hard put to it to have to pay such men to perform a work which they are not capable of performing. And is it not well known that one of the chief objections to King James's translation is, that it was made by Pedobaptists, and especially Episco- palian§ — that " there was not one Baptist among the translators V And now the boast is, that not only are there Pedobaptists among their trans- lators, but that the majority of them are Pedo- baptists, It is stated in the ' 'Address for Prayer and Aid," that '^ more than half the work already done has been performed by scholars not con- nected with immersiouist denominations; and we ^anticipate that this will hold true until the New Testament is finished." There must be a great scarcity of learned men among the advocates of the movement, that they have to take men so utterly unsuitable for the work, according to their own showing. There is a question of morals involved which demands 9* 102 IMMERSIONISTS AfiATNST THE BIBLE. some attentioD. If these Pedobaptist translators are really in favor of the main design of this movement, (and are helping it forward with all their might,) i. e., ultra-immersionists, and j^et, at the same time, are identified with Pedobaptist denominations, professing to believe in Pedobap- tist doctrines, and conforming to Pedobaptist usages, in what light do they appear in a moral point of view ? Professing to be Pedobaptists to the world, and yet secretly engaged in helping to make a translation of the Holy Scriptures, on immersionist and anti-Pedobaptist principles, which shall (as the advocates of the movement contend it will) overturn every principle which they profess to hold sacred, and which, in their vows of ordination, they have most solemnly pledged to vindicate and teach ! w But it is said that they are left unrestrained to make such a version as they believe to be legiti- mate. But, then, will not their work pass in _ review before a Committee of the Union, consti- tuted for this very purpose? Certainly this is the case, as will be shown in another place. And IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 103 if the work of these revisors does not come up to the standard of a faithful translation, as re- gards (iaTTTL^G), or any other word, will they not be bound to make it do so ? And so it will not be their work at all which shall be finally endorsed by the American Bible Union, unless they should do it to suit the Union. But it may be said again, that only those por- tions of the Scriptures which do not contain the words involving the issue will be assigned to these ^^leather-spectacled'^ men: that they will not be regarded as competent to translate any thing but Moses and the Prophets; and hardly them. This will not relieve them from moral difficulties. In this case they are chargeable with aiding and abetting a measure whose main design they pro- fess to condemn. In any view that can be taken of the case of these men, judging from what the advocates of revision have said of them, they are either un- principled men, willing to sell themselves and their principles for money; or if good men, in their intentions and purposes, they are very defec- 104 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. tive in their views of moral obligation, and have consequently been misled. In any view that we are able to take of their case, they are not the men to make a version of the Holy Scriptures, to be the rule of the faith and the practice of the Church and the world. Men whose views are so defective, or whose consciences are so elastic, are not the men to be trusted in a matter of so much importance. And, strange to say, the advocates of this movement trumpet this thing abroad with the highest degree of triumph, as a proof of the non- sectarian character of it, in order that they may gain proselytes, and get prayers offered in their behalf, and secure aid in money to help pay these very worthy and consistent gentlemen for the work they are performing ! But who are the translators ? The names of some of them have escaped from the profound secrecy which had enshrouded them ; but as to the majority of them, we know nothing. The policy, from the beginning, has been to observe the profoundest secrecy. But who are the tranS; IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 105 lators ? What are their names ? Where do they reside ? Of what congregations have they charge ? Or in what institutions of learning are they em- ployed ? Dr. Williams thus refers to this fact : "And in giving not the names of the transla- tors whom you employ^ is it regard to truth or expediency that dictates this remarkable and mysterious reserve? In the preparation of the received version, the names of the learned and orthodox men to be employed were published. The Jews, in their offerings to the Tabernacle, knew as skilful workmen the Bezaleel and Aho- liab, who were to form from their gifts the furni- ture of the sanctuary. When Solomon called from Tyre the highly endowed Hiram to build the temple, do we read that he introduced the architect to the tribes without a name, and wear- ing a mask ? Why repair the goodly edifice of our Scriptures in so covert a manner ? You in- form us that contracts have been made with some scholars, are about to be made with others, and you ask for funds in their aid and support. 106 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Should we not know the men whom we thus en- dorse and sustain? When Paul sent men to gather and bear the contributions of the churches, he presented them as well-known and trustworthy — ^ the messengers of the churches and the glory of Christ/ If funds in almsgiving need known and approved distributors, do not the funds asked for Scripture translation deserve also as much publicity and reliability in the case of men who are to be by these funds sustained in work for the churches ? Have we not a right to know whether the men who are to interpret for us God's word, dwell in the tents and speak the dialect of Ash- dod, or whether they belong to the tribes and speak the language of Zion? Surely Baptists have not been wont to ask this implicit confidence in the anonymous and unknown/' — (TractXo.lO, published by the American Bible Union.) And just listen to the answer they give to this, in the same tract: "Their names may not be published at present. Could their publication serve any useful or important purpose, without subjecting the persons themselves to the relent- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 107 less persecution with whicli all who were known to take any prominent part in the work of revision have been followed, there would be no objection, we presume, to such publicity. But they are engaged in a great work, and would not like to be annoyed by the opponents of revision in a guer- illa warfare which has been waged against every man's reputation whom mere rumor represented as having some connection with the Bible Union." The fear of persecution is given as the apology for this Jesuitical course. What ! men engaged in so noble a work as this is claimed to be, and not willing to be persecuted for the sake of it? Is not here a piece of the most consummate priestcraft that was ever attempted to be prac- ticed in a Protestant country? It almost oiU- jesuits Roman Jesuitism itself. They delibe- rately ask for ^'■prayer and aicV from Baptists and others, and, at the same time, with the ut- most sang-froid, refuse to let it be kuown whom they are to pray for, or to aid by their (ontri- butions ! 108 IMMERSIONISTS AGAIx\ST THE BIBLE. CHAPTER YI. THE TACTICS OF THE MOVEMENT, CONTINUED. In the last two chapters I have exhibited, in part, the tactics of the advocates of this move- ment, employed to divert the attention of the public from the main design. I have quoted from some of their publications a denial, not only that the main object is to substitute immerse for baptize, but a denial that such a substitution constitutes " any essential or determined part" iu the enterprise : that ''the Bible Union have never joined issue with their opponents on this point." And, as the reader will recollect, I quoted, from the very same documents, passages in which this very thing which they so positively deny is ad- mitted — at least, indirectl3^ I have aimed all the time to keep before the mind of the reader the main design of the movement, i. e., the put- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 109 ting of immerse in the New Testament in the place of hapttze. And I again repeat, that this is the main design, unless Drs. Cone and McClay have been totally misled on this subject from the heginning of the movement ; or, if they have not been misled, they have wilfully sought to mislead the public. We have noticed the Jesuitical ex- pedient of representing that a large proportion of the learned men engaged in the work of translat- ing: hold their ecclesiastical connections with Pedo- o baptist denominations, thereby endeavoring to mislead the public, as we conceive, by making the impression that the forthcoming version is not to be sectarian. "\Ye showed that if the American Bible Union have not abandoned their original purpose, and these Pedobaptist scholars are true to their eccle- siastical connections, they are not the men to be employed in this work : that, admitting that the principles upon which the enterprise was begun are retained, these Pedobaptist learned men are acting dishonestly. And, therefore, so far from the fact of these Pedobaptists being employed in 10 110 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. the work of revision being an argument in favor of it, it is really one of the strongest arguments that can be used against it. In this chapter I will notice another expedient to hide the main design a little longer. It is this : They have published, and are circulating abroad,, parts of the revision of the New Testament, in which neither the word [3a7TTL^G), nor any of its derivatives, occurs in the original ; and they are exhibiting these as proof that the version, when completed, will not be sectarian. One portion of the work com- mences with the Second Epistle of Peter, and embraces the book of Revelation ; the other por- tion contains the first and second chapters of Matthew. Now, a much more natural arrange- ment, as far as the first-named portion is con- cerned, would have been to have commenced with the Epistle of James, and then what are called the General Epistles would have been embraced. At least, it is very unnatural not to have eux- braced the First Ejnstle of Peter. Why was this left out in this first specimen of the new version ? Why, simply because haptisma occurs in this IMMERSI0NIST3 AGAINST THE BIBLE. Ill epistle in tlie original. And it would not have suited the Jesuitism of the movement to let the main design appear in so prominent a man- ner at this critical period in its history. They can now exhibit these fragments of the forth- coming version, and say, " See ! here is a part of the new version ; and you can examine it your- self, and we defy you to detect any thing sectarian in it." This they have done; and many, with- out reflecting, are misled. It is said that the first-named portion of the work was performed by one of the eminent Pedo- baptist scholars employed in the great work. This being the fact in the case, this worthy gentleman may have had some conscientious scru- ples about translating any portion of the New Testament involving the main issue. And, to suit the arrangement to the case of this worthy personage, this part of the work loas laid ojj for him. But it admirably suits the purposes of the advocates of the movement in the way I have de- scribed. Much capital is sought to be made with it. The dear ^^ common people,^' for whose bene- 112 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBliE. fit the wliole movement was professedly set on foot, are sought to be liumhugged ; so that when the whole of the New Testament comes out with immerse exalted into the place of haptize, they may receive it as the revelation of God. But when the history of the movement is understood, it requires but little acumen to see quite through this trick. In this specimen of the new version they could not come out on the main issue, simply because the word involviner meaning^^ that iS; '■'■ dip, and nothing hut di^)." The other version^ published ah-eady by the friends of the revision movement; is that pre- pared by Messrs. Cone and Wyckoff, and proposed to the American and Foreign Bible Society " for its adoption and circulation/' since the publica- tion of the one above named. This version has been scattered through the land in thousands of copies. The glossary expedient is abandoned in this version, and immerse and immersion are ^'printed — printed in the Bible/' as Dr. Cone (who was chiefly concerned in preparing it) con- tends it ought to be. Here is a step further in ^^the greatest enterprise of the age." Baptize and haptism are turned out of the Bible, and the darling idea of " dip, and nothing hut dip,'" which is to open the eyes of the world and make them immersionists, is put in its stead. But what becomes of the words that accompanied hap- tism and hapti?:e in the '"'' fiy-lcaf^ edition ? Why, ^' ihe proper meaning'^ of only three of them (^viz.j Charit}^, Bishop, and Easter) is given, and An- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 117 gel and Church are left as in our version. Hear Dr. A. Newton on this subject, in the True Bap- tist : '' How is this ? The same men, the Pre- sident and Secretary of the same Society, first give us a New Testament with " a glossary' in which the reader is warned against the improper and false renderings of certain words in the text, and ' the proper meaning' is given to secure him from being led astray by these false renderings ; and yet, when they come to make a version just as they would have it themselves, they do not give us '■ the proper meaning,' but still retain that which they had thus solemnly pronounced impro- per and false. How is this? Was it an over- sight ? ^' But as to haptize and baptism, they are by no means so forgetful. They make sure of these. These are uniformly given in their ^proper mean- ing.' Amidst ' several hundred emendations' which they say they have made in this edition, the angels and the churches are left to stand un- disturbed in their old places in the Bible. Bap- tism and baptize, however, are rigidly excluded, 118 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. and nowhere in this version are permitted to have place. In their stead, we have immersion, im- merse — modal terms, unsuited to express the in tent of the original, and directly in conflict with the act enjoined in Grod's word.'' I quote the following from the manifesto ac- companying the issue of this version : ^' In ad- dition to such specific cases of the direct perver- sion of the word of God in support of the dogmas and usages of the Church of England, it may be remarked that obscurity and indefiniteness are thrown over the ordinance of baptism, in order to shield from the condemnation of holy writ, the sprinkling and pouring substituted for im- mersion in the practices of that Church, The term haptizo and its cognates, which, if correctly translated, would enjoin immersion, are not, when referring to the ordinance, translated, but trans- ferred from the original Greek with Anglicised terminations." — ('' Bible Translated," in New York Chronicle, p. 49.) I will give a few specimens from this version, that the reader may see what improvement they have IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 119 made in favor of their peculiar dogma. Here they are : Matt. iii. 11 : ^^1 indeed immerse you in water unto repentance ; but he that oometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he will immerse you in the Holy Spirit and fire.'' John i. 25-28 : ^'xVnd they asked him, Why immersest thou then/' etc. '^ John answered them, saying, I immerse in water/' etc. '' These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was immersing. And I knew him not; but he that sent me to immerse in water," etc., ^Uhe same is he that immerseth in the Holy Spirit." Mark vii. 4: ^-And when they come from market, except they immerse, they eat not. And many other things there are which they have received to hold, as the immersing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches." Luke xi. 38 : " When the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first immersed before dinner." 120 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Mark x. 38, 39 : " Can ye drink of tlie cup tliat I drink of? and be immersed with the im- mersion that I am immersed with ? Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the immersion that I am immersed with ye shall be immersed.'^ Rom. vi. 3, 4 : " Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by immersion unto death/^ etc. Acts i. 5 : " For John indeed immersed in water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. ^' Acts xi. 15, 16 : "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John immersed in water, but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit." Now let the reader bear in mind that these two versions were published and have been circulated by the advocates of the revision move- ment. It is true they were published by the American and Foreign Bible Society; but it was IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 121 previously to their abandoning the idea of a new version in English. And note, that they were gotten up principally through the influence of Messrs. Cone and WyckoiF, who went off at the head of the secession in 1850. And the latter edition of the above two has been and is being diligently circulated by the agents of the Union. They have, therefore, fully endorsed it. And from these versions, does it not appear very clearly what they are after ? These versions were put forth and sent abroad as liarhingers or forerunners of the denominational version. They are intended to be the means, in part, of prepar- ing the way for it. I have quoted from the friends of the move- ment, showing what they thought sJiouId he the version which is sought. In these versions there appears what they have actually done, as demon- strating what kind of a version they are de- termined to make it. In the former of these preparatori/ versions they put immerse, etc., in the glossary/ on the ^'' fly-leaf J^ In the latter they exclude haptize, ' 11 122 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE EIBLE. etc., from the text^ and put immerse^ etc , in their place. They are, therefore, committed to this feature in the new version, beyond all possibility of getting out of it, unless, indeed, they give up the whole enterprise as a magnificent failure. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 123 CHAPTEK YII. DISPARAGEMENT OF THE COMMON VERSION. In this chapter I will notice some of the charges brought against King James and the translators of the common version, and especially against the version itself. These charges are made for the purpose, of course, of destroying confidence in the common version, so as to make way for their own one- sided, sectarian translation. I will only present a few of the many charges they have made, as an indication of the animus of the movement. The English Bible is spoken of as ^'Scriptures in the dress and mask an arbitrary monarch of Popish extraction, of Presbyterian education, but defebder of the faith of Episcopacy, chose to give them." 12-i IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. '^ "Was made to suit other denominations/^ That "it perpetuates ignorance by concealment, and error by misinterpretation, on the point at which we are at issue/' (t. e., of course, baptism.) Again : '' The fact is, instead of performing the work to the best of their knowledge and skill, they (the translators) were obliged to sub- mit themselves, as passive instruments, to the dic- tation of a monarch noted for passion, pedantry, and self-will." Again : " The evils which have accrued from the introduction of a single word imposed by foreign influence, and the bigotry of an earthly prince, no human mind can compute," Again : " One of the important ordinances of the gospel, described by the Holy Spirit as with a sunbeam, has been covered up and hid from the great mass of the people by the popiah artifice of transfer.^' " Under the class of old ecclesiastical words, baptize was included, and, therefore, the trans- lators did not feel themselves at liberty to trandate it, but merely gave it an Engliah termination.^^ IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. jl20 '^But the King, it should seem, did not wish the meaning of the word to be known : our trans- lators acquiesce, and so thej wrap it up.'^ ^' Baptists surely will not cleave to the fasci- nating Latin Vulgate Baptir.are, ' chipped,' as Stovel says, ' to suit the Saxon taste, as given by the word baptize, crawling like a lizard from a paj)al SIC amp.' " In a discussion of Revision, as reported in the New York Chronicle, the Rev. Mr. Grafton said -• '' I have heard that a remark was made here last night, which, had I been here, 'I should have feared God would have sent a flash of lightning to avenge. I heard that his holy word was com- pared to a hlind, dumb dog.'' Mr. S. AY. Cone: "I protest that it was not the case." Rev. Dr. Bowling : " I understood that you meant that we ministers had been all our lives palming a lame dog for a sheep." Mr. S. W. Cone : ^' I said that every Baptist minister had been attempting, through the whole course of his ministry, to prove that baptize 11^ 126 IM3IERSI0NISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. means to immerse; and I said that the word haptize was a lame dog^ Eev. Mr. Kingsford : ^^ I feel constrained to say that I did not understand the gentleman so." It will be observed that Mr. Cone does not make the case any better after all. Let the reader particularly notice the epithets applied to the English Bible, to King James, and the translators. And these extracts, perhaps, do not contain a fair specimen of the abuse they have used. They foil, perhaps, much below the spirit that has been manifested in this regard in some of the publications of the friends of the movement, and in addresses before the people. In a neio'hborino' villa2:e, not Ions: ao;o, the ablest advocate of revision, perhaps, in the West, in an address upon the subject, pointed to the common version with supreme contempt, and denounced it as containing falseliood. Another advocate of the movement, in an ad- joining county to this, most solemnly declared that if he were on his dying-bed, he could not call his child to his bedside and put the common IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. iZ i version ia his hand and tell him that it would safely guide him to heaven. What effect must such attacks upon the word of God have, made by men professing godliness I* * In the appeal of Messrs. Cone and Wyckoff, pub- lished in the New York Chronicle for 1850, pp. 55-75, the following language is used: "We hesitate not to say, that if any other book of the size, disfigured by half the number of faults of a similar description, were proposed as a reading-book in any district school in this State, (New York,) to form the taste of youth in the use of correct English, it would be rejected by the school committee with disdain." Says Dr. Williams, in his letter to the Amity Street Church, as contained in a pamphlet entitled, "The Common English Version," — "Against the received ver- sion in its present state have been alleged, in language of great directness and ruggedness, faults in grammar and style that would banish any other book from our common schools; and errors in translation, 'obvious errors,' that endanger 'every schoolboy,' 'as he becomes familiar with the Greek Testament;' so that -no care on the part of a teacher can prevent a germ of infidelitii from taking root in his breast, when he sees that Christians, while professing the most ardent love for the truth, prefer to circulate the most palpable falsehoods under the name of God's revealed word, rather than correct them when in their nower.' 128 IMMEUSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. One tiling, however, is very clear from the above quotations ', and that is, that if immerse had been put in the place of hajJtt'ze, King James and the translators would not have been regarded as so great sinners. That they did not do this, is the burden of the complaint. If "dtp, and nothing hut dip,'' had been where they think it ought to be, they would be content. Thus, Mr. Cushman, as already quoted : '' It (the English Bible) is not sufficiently defective, except in re- gard to baptl&m and Church order, to be dis- "The authors of the version are impeached as having used needlessly and unAvarrantably '■a most irreverent oath;' and as having 'put it into the apostle's mouth;' of having, with express design, clouded the sense of Scripture, ' iii order the more effectually to obscure the per- ceptions of an ordinary reader in regard to the true nature of the ordinance,' (baptism,) and to force upon the mind 'a certain erroneous conviction, almost uniforml}- mis- translated a certain preposition;' and, finally, with having used, and that often, to describe the third person in the adorable Trinity, 'a term of absurdity and im- propriety,' and even '■mamfcst blasphemy.'' ^^ In reading such abuse as the above, one almost ima- gines himself reading some of the lowest and most pro- fane of Yoltaire and Paine' s attacks on the Bible. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 129 trusted as a guide to truth and duty." The impression is sought to be made, as in the above extracts, that King James originated the idea of the common version ; that it was secured by his influence as the sovereign of Great Britain ; and that its adoption by the people of his realm was the result of the enforcement of the royal autho- rity. No account of the whole matter could be farther from the truth, as I will show from the most unquestionable authority. I have before me "Annals of the English Bible, by Christopher Anderson, of Edinburgh, abridged and continued by S. I. Prime." Mr. Anderson, I learn, is a member of the Baptist Church in Scotland, a gentleman evidently of learning, and who gives evidence in this work of very laborious and diligent research. His work is a standard, so far as the history of the English Scriptures is concerned, and his testimony ought not to be objected to by the advocates of the new version movement, as he is a Baptist of very high standing. The main object of Mr. Anderson in this work 130 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. is to show that, from Wycliffe's translation of the Holy Scriptures from the Latin Vulgate, and Tyndale's version from the Hebrew and Greek, into our language, to the present time, the work has been carried forward, not only icitlwut the aid or countenance of ecclesiastical or civil authority or power, but in despite of both. And no one can fail to see, who reads the work, that he has fully made out what he proposes. And what does Mr. Anderson say in regard to the part which King James had in the common version ? I quote from Book III., section iv., pp. 400-403. ^'Up to the present moment, (A. D. 1604,) the history of the English Bible had maintained a character peculiar to itself. Originating with no mere patron, whether royal or noble, the under- taking had never yet been promoted at the per- sonal expense of any such party. But now, in regard to that version of the sacred volume, which for two hundred and thirty years has been read with delight, from generation to generation, and proved the effectual means of knowledge, IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 131 holiness, and joj to millions, it may be imagined by some, as there was another and a final change, that our history must at last change, or, in other words, forfeit its character. If, however, the accounts frequently given of our present version have been involved in as much inaccuracy of statement as they have been with regard to all the preceding changes, there is the greater ne- cessity for the public mind being disabused ; and that, too, whether in Britain or America, or the British foreign dependencies. This is a subject which alike concerns them all, as they all read and prize the same version. ^' If because that a dedication to James the First of England has been prefixed to many copies, though not to many others; and if be- cause not only historians, at their desks, but lawyers at the bar, and even judges on the bench, have made most singular mistakes, it has there- fore been imagined by any, or many, that the present version of our Bible was either suggested by this monarch, or that he was at any personal 132 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. expense in the undertaking; or that he ever issued a single line of authority, by way of pro- clamation, with respect to it; it is more than time that the delusion should come to an end. The original and authentic documents of the time are so far explicit, that just in proportion as they are sifted, and the actual circumstances placed in view, precisely the same independence of royal bounty, and, on the part of the people at large, the same superiority to all royal dictation, which we have beheld all along, will become apparent. James himself, however vain, is certainly not so much to be blamed for any different impression, as some others who have misrepresented his Majesty. On the other hand, his character was such, that to many writers it has occasioned some exercise of patience even to refer to it. But since his name occurs in connection with this final revision of the English Bible, it is of the more importance to ascertain the exact amount of this connection. From the moment in which he was invited to the throne, and to be king of Great IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 133 Britain, his own favorite term, down to the year in which our present version was published, his 'roj-al progress' is forced upon our notice. ^'Elizabeth had expired on the 24th of March, 1603, when the King of Scothxnd succeeded as James the First, finally assuming the style of King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. Having left Edinburgh for England, on Tuesday ihe 5th of April, James proceeded, by the way of Berwick and Newcastle, through York to Lou- don, where he did not arrive till the 7th of May. Throughout this journey he had already furnished a strong contrast, in point of character, to his predecessor. With regard to rewards, whether in point of honor or emolument, Elizabeth had been so sparing that she had been charged with avarice. But James having once procured from London such supplies as might enable him to ad- vance in befitting style, actually hunted most of the way, scattering the honors of knighthood with such profusion along the road, that by the day he entered his capital the number of his knights was about one hundred and fifty ; and before 12 134 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. one fortnight had passed, or by the 20th of May, 'they were accounted at two hundred and thirty- seven, or better, since the time he entered Ber- wick/ on the 6th of April. The queen, with her children, having followed in June, the coronation took place in July; after which, his Majesty immediately returned, with great ardor, to his favorite sport of hunting. Though now entered into his thirty-ninth year, and having affairs to manage which had demanded all the talents of an Elizabeth, never was a boy let loose from school more bent upon his amusement. " Of the learnino- or talent to be found in En2:- land, where he had done little else than follow the hounds and the hares, James as yet could know next to nothing. Of Oxford and Cam- bridge he was equally ignorant. He had not called any circle of learned men around him, nor, indeed, ever did. Such also was the state of his finances, when necessity forced him to call a par- liament. ^It was,' sa3's Sir James Mcintosh, ' his last resource. He had exhausted his credit with the money-dealers, both in London and Hoi- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 135 land, to supply liis prodigalities, before lie issued his proclamatiou for the meeting of parliament, on the 19th of March/ ''It was in the midst of his sport at Wilton, and his preparations for the arraignment of Sir Walter Raleigh, that James issued a proclama- tion, dated the 24th day of October, 'Touchiug a meeting for the hearing and for the determining things pretended to be amiss in the Church.' This meeting, known ever since as 'the Conference at Hampton Court,' was held in the drawing- room there, on Saturday, Monday, and Wednes- day, the 14th, 16th, and 18th of January, 1604. '' The Conference, it will be understood, was not with any official hochj of men whatever; and it should also be remembered, that however exalted were the ideas of James himself, as to his pre- rogatives, or of his right and title to the throne, strictly speaking, or according to law, he was not yet king of England; nor could he be till the assembling of Parliament. That was the point to which, as we have seen, Lord Cecil was look- ing forward. This was a conference, therefore, 136 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. of the king by courtesy, for the time being, with only nine bishops, eight deans, an archdciicon, two professors of divinity from Oxford, two from Cambridge, to which one native of Scotland, Mr. I*atrick Gralloway, formerly of Perth, was also admitted. Nor were oven all these parties present on any one day. "The 16th of January was the time appointed for hearing of things '■ pretended to be amiss/ as the proclamation had phrased it ; and it was among them that the necessity for another revi- sion or translation of the Bible was first men- tioned. ''Dr. John Rainolds, a man of high and un- blemished character, then in his 55th year, was at that time nearly, if not altogether, the most eminent individual for learning and erudition in the kingdom. He was now the President of Cor- pus Christi College, and the chief speaker on this occasion "As presented by Rainolds was the following: ' That a translation bo made of the whole Bible, as. consonant as can he to the orir/inal Ilehreio and Greek, and this to be set out and printed, without any r}iarginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of Divine service/ Now by this version of the story the exclusion of all marginal notes originated with Rainolds, as well as the proposal of a new trans- lation. '' The first Parliament held by the King assem- bled on the 19th of March, 1604, and the Convo- cation on the following day. The Primate, Whit- gift, having expired on the 29th of February, Bancroft, the Bishop of Loudon, was appointed to preside. James had commenced these proceed- ings with a speech longer than many a sermon; but at last, not being in the best humor with his English Parliament, he dissolved it on the 7th of July, and the Convocation rose. "Among all the business of either house, not one word was spoken then respecting the Scrip- tures ; nor do we hear of any movement in con- sequence of what had passed at Hampton Court, till the end of June. Some time had been re- quired for the selection of suitable scholars, and 12* 138 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. before the end of that month a list was presented to James for his acceptance. They had been se- lected for him, and he of course approved." Now, in the light of the above, what becomes of the allegation that the common version was secured at the instance of James to subserve his purposes as an individual and a sovereign ? For it appears, 1, that at the time of the session of the Hampton Court Conference, James was not, ac- cording to law. King of England at all, nor was he till more than two months afterwards. Conse- quently, the Conference itself was vested with no civil or ecclesiastical authority. It was composed of '' no official body of men whatever.'' The King was present, and presided by courtesy, and not officially. It appears, 2, that the King was not the mover of the proposition to have a new ver- sion. Dr. Ptaiuolds made the motion. lie only consented or approved of the measure. It appears, 3, that the King did not even select the trans- lators. They were selected by another, and he only accepted the selection. We learn, 4, that James did not even contribute one cent toward IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. V69 defraying the expenses of the translation, nor of its publication, as we learn from the following ex- tract of a letter sent from the King to all the bishops, by Bancroft, acting as the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is found on page 404 of the "work above named : '' Right-trusty and well-beloved brother, we greet you well. Whereas we have appointed cer- tain learned men to the number of four-and-fifty, for the translating of the Bible, and that in this number diverse of them either have no ecclesi- astical preferment at all, or else so very small as the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts, and yet, we of OURSELF in any convenient time cannot well remedy it : Therefore, we do hereby require you, that presently you write, in our name, as well to the Bishop of York, as to the rest of the bishops of the province of Canterhury, sig- nifying unto them that we do will, and straitly charge every one of them, as also the other bishops of the province of York, as they tender our good favor toward them, that (all excuses set apart) when any prebend or parsonage, being rated in 140 IMMERSIONTSTS AGAINST THE PIBLE. our book of taxations^ the prebend to twenty pounds at least, and the parsonage to the like sum and upwards, sliall next upon any occasion hap- pen to be void, and to be either of their patron- age, or of the patronage and gift of any j)crs,on irliatever, they do make stay thereof, and admit none unto it, until certifying us of the avoidance of it, and of the name of the patron, if it be not of their own gift, that we may commend for the same some such of the learned men as we shall think fit to be preferred unto it; not doubting of the bishops' readiness to satisfy us herein, or that any of the laity, when we shall in time move them to so good and religious an act, will be unwilling to give us the like due contentment and satisfac- tion; we ourselves having taken the same order for such prebends and benefices as shall be void in our gift.' Mr. Anderson says, p. 410, ^' The first revision of the sacred text by the forty-seven occupied about four years ; the second examination by twelve, or two selected out of each company, nine months more, and the sheets passing through the IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 141 press other two years, when the Bible of 1611 was finished, and first issued." "\Ye have seen how the first revision was paid for. Let us see how the second, or that by the twelve, was paid for. The historian will tell us on the same page how it was likely done : " Twelve men paid at the rate of thirty shillings each was equal to £18 weekly, and for the thirty- nine weeks £702 must have been expended, which expense was probably borne by Barker, who had the patent for printing the Bible. "The honor of payment for the whole concern, so often ascribed to James the First, is by no means to be taken from him, if one shred of positive evidence can be produced ; but this, it is presumed, lies beyond the possibility of research. In this case, therefore, to speak correctly, we have come at last, not to an afi'air of government, not to a roj^al undertaking at his 3Iajest?/'s expense, according to the popular and very erroneous his- torical fiction, hut sm}p)li/ to a transaction in the course of business. If we inquire for any single royal grant, or look for any act of personal gene- 142 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. rosity, we searcli in vain." — We learn by an additional extract from this work, (pp. 410, 411,) that it was not by the authority of King James, or any power civil or ecclesiastical, that the com- mon version came to be received as the standard version in England, Scotland, and Ireland. " There is one other inquiry to be made, and this, to some minds, may be not the least important. It is this : By whose infiuencc or aiiiliority was it, that our version of the sacred volume came to be read, not in England alone, but in Scotland and Ireland ? This, too, is a question the more interesting to millions, as it is now the Bible of so many distant climes — read not only in America and Canada, but in all the widespread and daily extending British colonies. The reigning king had indeed signified his approbation of the undertaking, and when the Bible was published it bore on its title- page that the version had been '■ newly trans- lated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and re- vised, by his Majesty's special commandment.' In a separate line below, and by itself, we have IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 143 these words : ^Appointed to be read iu clmrclies.' Now, as tlie book never was submitted to Parlia- ment, never to any Convocation, nor, as far as is known, ever to the Privy Council, James, by this title-page, was simply following or made to follow in the train of certain previous editions. As for Elizabeth, his immediate predecessor, we have already seen that under her long reign there was another revision besides the bishops', and that the former enjoyed the decided preference in public favor: so, in the present instance, that there might be no mistake or misapprehension in regard to the influence of author it i/ by which our present Bible came to be universally re- ceived, a result somewhat similar took place. ''Thus, for seven or eight years after the present version was published, we find Barker, or Norton and Bill, still printing the Geneva Bible, in ten editions, besides four of the New Testament separately. The fact is, that the royal patentee went on to print both versions to the, year 1617, or 1618. After that the Geneva Bibles, so fre- quently printed in Holland, were imported and 144 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. sold, without the shadow of inhibitioii, during the entire reign of James the First, and longer still. As for Scotland, from whence the king had come, that Bible continued to be as much used there as the present version, for more than twenty years after James was in his grave. The influence or authority of James, therefore, cannot once be mentioned when accounting for the final result. "The Bible was, indeed, first published in 1611, and was still further corrected in 1613 ; but did James, as a king, take one step to enforce its perusal ? Not one : a fact so much the more notable when the overweening conceit of that monarch, and the high terms in which he so frequently expressed himself as to his preroga- tive, are remembered. "'We can assign,' says one of the best living authorities in the kingdom, ' we can assign no authority/ for using the present version of the Bible, except that of the Conference at Hampton Court.' But that Conference has been already described; and in the circumstances, it actually amounted to no authority at all in point of a law. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 145 James was not then King of England : tliough had it been otherwise, that Conference certainly had not the slightest influence in recommending the version to which it gave rise. However, immediately after his Majesty had been recog- nized by the Parliament, he had spoken once, aa we have heard ; and his solitary letter we have given at length. It was, in {)art, abortive; and after that, it seems, he must speak no more ) a circumstance the more worthy of notice, as James was notoriously so fond of speaking offi- cially, and especially by proclamations. In the first nine months of his reign he had issued at least a round dozen ; but here there was nothing of the kind. ^After this translation was pub- lished,^ says one writer, ^ the others all dropped off by degrees,^ that is, in about forty years, ^and this took the place of all, though I do not find that there was any canon, 'proclamation, or act of Parliament to enforce the use of it.' '' This shows the utter baselessness of the assumption, upon the part of advocates of the revision movement of our day, as to the part 13 146 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. wliicli was taken by King James in the procure- ment and circulation of the common version. Ignorance of the history of facts, or blindness caused by an overheated zeal to sustain the interests of a party reckless of the testimony of history, can alone account for the representations and charges which have been made in the pre- mises. I quote the following from the address of Mr. A. Campbell to the Bible Convention at Memphis, April, 1852, as fully agreeing with the facts above quoted : " But it [the English Bible] originated not with and proceeded not from them [King James and his party]. If was individual piety, learn- ing, zeal, enterprise, that gave to us our present English Bible." Bat admitting that King James exercised royal authority in procuring the version in common use, (and we have proved that he did not,) what ground is there for the charge that he left the translators no discretion in the work of translat- ing] that, instead of leaving them to do the work to the best of their knowledge and skill, IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 147 tliey " were obliged to yield themselves as pe^ssive instruments to tlie dictates of a monarch ?" etc. This, certainly, is a grave charge; and there ought to have been most satisfactory proof of the justness of it before it was made. But I think I will make it appear to every candid mind that it is an utterly gratuitous and reckless slander. It is very evident, if King James did exercise the arbitrary power ascribed to him, it will appear in the rules laid down for the direction of the translators. If it does not appear in these, it is evident that its source is in the imaginations of revisionists. I will quote, as relating to this subject, the 1st, 3d, and 14th rules : 1st. " The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be fol- lowed, and as little altered as the original will permit." 3d. ''The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word Church, not to be translated Con- gregation, etc." 14th. ''These translations to be used when 148 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. tliey agree better with the text than the Bishops* Bible, viz. : 1. Tyndale's; 2. Matthew's; 3. Cover- dale's; 4. Whitchurch's; (i. e., Cranmer's;) 5. The Geneva." Now, what ^^ dictation" is here to be objected to ? The Bishops' Bible is to be followed, and as little altered '-as the original ivill jycrmit^ (Rule 1st.) Therefore, the original is the ulti- mate standard recognized. And the translators are left to their free and unrestrained judgment in determining its meaning. "Was not this dis- cretion enough ? AYas this fettering the transla- tors ? In addition (Rule 14th) they are left free to follow any or all of five other versions, when they agree better with the text {%. e. the original) than the Bishops' Bible. The trans- lators, then, are allowed to make the original Hebrew and Grreek their standard : whatever respect they were to pay to the Bishops' Bible, or any other version, they were required, as a sine qua non, to conform to the import of the origi- nal. This was the ultimate and final standard. The only dictation which appears is, that the IMMERSIOMSTS AGAIXST TilE BIBLE. 149 original was made tlie standard of authority in traaslatiug. Is this objectionable ? The chief stress, however, is laid upon the third rule. It is charged that under this rule he meant to prohibit the translation of haptizo, and some other words, in order to make it " suit other denominations," especially the Episcopalians : that under the restraint of this rule ^^ ignorance is perpetuated by concealment, and error by mis- interpretation :" that haptize " was imposed by foreign influence and the bigotry of an earthly prince:" that ^^one of the ordinances of the gospel has been covered up by tlie popish artifice of transfer :^' that ^^ the king did not wish the meaning of the word to appear; the translators acquiesce, and so ^ they wrap it up :' " baptize being "included in the class of old ecclesiastical words, the translators did not feel themselves at liberty to translate it, but gave it a7i English terrtiinatloRy Now, how do these slanderers know that the translators did not feel themselves at liberty to translate haptizo, and on this account did not put 13* 150 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. immerse^ or a word of sucli import, in tlie place of it? But let us see if there is any ground for the charge that the third rule restrained and fettered the translators in regard to haptizo. 1. We most solemnly deny that the third rule prohibits the translation from the original of hap- tizo, or any other word. It only requires that the old ecclesiastical words be retained, or ^^hcpt.'" The word ^'CJnu-ch" is the only example gi^'en to illustrate the mcaninc' of the rule. But there o IS no prohibition of the translation of that. That is itself a translation of the original word, eccJesia. The original word was not forbidden to be trans- lated. The only thing prohibited is that " co?*- greffatioii" should be translated from the original, instead of '' CJmrch." That is all. There is, therefore, no prohibition of translation from the original in this rule at all. And it is only by a most astonishing perversion of its meaning that such a construction can be given to it. 2. But we will suppose, for the sake of argu- ment, that the rule does prohibit the translation IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 151 of "old ecclesiastical words" from the original; yet how is it made out that baptize is one of these, and, therefore, was retained by virtue of the authority of the rule ? Baptize is not once named in the rule; and yet revisionists speak as confidently upon this subject as if the word were positively named in the rule. It is not there. They ^^ foist it in." They pervert the meaning of the rule, and then apply it to this word. They say, ''The king did not wish the meaning of the word to appear.'^ How do they find this out? Not in the rules. They invent this assumption to serve "the greatest enterprise of the age." " The translators acquiesce, and so they wrap it up." Where is the authority for this dark slander'/ Not in the rules. The pur- pose is settled to turn haj^tize out of the Bible ; and the point is, to secure something as an apology for it, and they can imagine facts when they dc not exist. But, 3. A proof that the translators did not understand the third nile as prohibiting the translation of haptizo and its cognates, is found 152 IxMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ill the fjTct that tlicy did translate oaptizo. What, then, becomes of the construction given to the third rule, and of the charge, that the transhitors were mere ^^ passive instruments^' in a plan ^' to wrap up^' God's holy word ? , In Mark vii. 4. two of the derivatives of hap- tizo are found, viz., (3anrLG0)VTaL, haptisontai, and (3aTTTLajj,ovg, haptismous. In our translation the former is rendered ^' loasli," and the latter ^^ washing.'' In Heb. ix. 10, (SaTTTLOixdlg, hap)tisniois, is found. It is rendered by ^' washings." Now, if the translators were the sycophantic, unprincipled men they are represented as having been, and King James exercised the despotic dictation over them he is said to have done, how are we to account for the fact that the translators did, in three instances at least, translate haptizo by a word familiar to 'Uhe common people?'' This cannot be answered on the ground assumed, that the third rule was understood as prohibiting the translation of hapti?:o^ but as requiring its transfer. In these instances we find the translar- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 153 tors flying in tlie face of the king's authority; andj strange to say, we hear of no complaint upon his part, or from any other source. But, finally, I assume that the translators of the common version, in rendering haptizo by hap- tize, did really translate a Greek word by an English word. At the time our translation was made, haptlze was as really an English word as it is now. It is true it was taken from the Greek language ; but it had been a part and parcel of the English vocabulary for centuries. There was no such thing, then, as tranfer in the use of this word at the time our translation was made. Can the advocates of this movement be ignorant of the fact that words from foreign lan- guages make up a large proportion of the English vocabulary, and that they are just as really entitled to be regarded English words as any other ? To show that my position in regard to the history of baptize as an English word is correct, I will quote from eminent Baptist ministers, of learning and talents. Br. John Bowliuo", in a tract containing tea 154 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. reasoDS for his opposition to the new version movement^ gives as the fourth: "Because the word hcqjtizc is itself, to all intents and ^ur- 2^oses, an English icorcl.'' The Rev. Dr. Ide says : " I suppose that ha^p- tize is the only English word by which you can translate haptizo.^' " It is eight hundred years older, as a native English citizen, than immerse.^' The Rev. Dr. Williams says : " On the score of age, the word haptize is probably some six centuries older, as an English word, than the term immerse, proposed to replace it. Its rights in the English language are older than Magna Charta — older than the Norman conquest — coeval with the very birth of the language properly so called. And yet. it is proposed by some to repudiate and reject it as an alien in our dialect.'' "Now, where and what are the mighty objec- tions to these rules, [King James's rules to the translators,] which could be suggested to an intel- ligent and impartial reader ? Where are the manacles and fetters, the arhitrary dictation, and IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 155 the odious despotism ? Where are the maslting, mutilation, concealment, and disguise, and wrap- ping up in obscurity? Where is the evidence of '■ unhiwful iDterference/ ' infringing the liberty of conscience, and laying violent hands on the truth itself?^ Where is the proof that the trans- lators were compelled, by royal mandate, to adopt the popish artifice of transfer, and that ' that word which he (Christ) used in the great com- mission to denote his own initiatory ordinance, was, b}^ order of King James, transferred into our English Bibles?' Where is the evidence that the translators, ' instead of performing the work to the best of their knowledge and skill, were obliged to submit themselves as passive instru- ments to the dictation of a monarch noted for passion, pedantry, and self-will V " There is no evidence of any such thing. The charges are false, whether made through ' ignor- ance or dishonesty.' I fearlessly avow my con- viction of the wisdom, judiciousness, and general liberality of these rules." — (True Baptist, by Dr. A. Newton.) 156 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ^' With the views which the advocates of this measure entertaia of the moral character of the translators of our version, I cannot see how they can have any confidence in any part of it. To be consistent, they should throw it aside as an un- lioly thing. If, as they say, ^ the king did not wish the meaning of haptizo to appear/ that the translators acquiesce, and so ' they wrap it up,' what must be the inevitable effect of such an imputation upon those who have the slightest suspicion of the possibility of its truth ? There never was a mind formed, which, having taken this step, could avoid at once, and certainly, taking the next, and utterly surrendering all confidence in any portion of the translation. All philosophy teaches, universal observation proves, and our Saviour himself declares : ' He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much ; and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much.' If the king did not wish the meaning of one word to be known, and the translators ac- quiesced, and they wrapped it up in obscurity, in order to conceal its true meaning from the people. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIELi:. 157 no man wlio is not himself of a base and corrupt heart can have the least degree of respect for them, or for any part of their work, from the be- ginning of Genesis to the end of Kevelation. If I believed the tenth part of the imputations here made by 'the only people' against the forty-seven translators, I should scorn to have their work on my table. < " The charge against them is infinitely worse than the charge of theft, perjury, piracy, or murder. With such men I would scorn to shake hands in open daylight. I should fear to meet such men in the darkness. If I believed they had so little conscience as to conceal any one word in their translation, I should, if it were the last act of my life, consign to the flames every leaf of the Bibles about my house, and leave it solemnly in charge to my children to avoid them as they would the viper's poisonous fang. ''Do 'the only people' believe these charges which they make themselves ? I am amazed at their patience and forbearance. I marvel that, standing up before the world as the ministers of 14 158 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Iieaven to their dying fellow-men^ and professing to proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ, and the way of truth and holiness, as the way to hap- piness and heaven, they can pollute their clean hands by the touch of this foul, filthy thing, ^crawling like a lizard from a papal sicamp.' How can they excuse themselves for having held up this volume before their congregations for a hundred years, as a light to their feet, and a lamp to their pathway, from this dark world of sin, of sorrow, and of death, to the bright world of light, life, and glor}^ on high? Were they not afraid of iha fearful plagues written in this book ? If the translators slavishly submitted to the manacles and fetters of an arbitrary despot, and, recreant to their high and infinite obligations to God and his truth, sold their consciences for a mess of pottage, doled out to them by a wicked king; or, in base cowardice, and with corrupt purpose, ab- stracted a single scruple from God's perfect word, or added a pennyweight to its sacred teachings, they deserve the united and endless execrations of all mankind." — Ibid. TMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 159 CHAPTER yill. THE IMMERSIONISTS HAVE DONE AND ARE DO- ING WHAT THEY CHARGE KING JAMES WITH DOING. In the previous chapter, I think it has been satisfactorily shown that the charges against King James and the translators are utterly groundless : that the translators were left to as wide a discre- tion as could with reason be desired ; that the only absolute restriction laid upon them, as re- gards translation, was, that they should give the sense of the original Hebrew and Greek. And certainly this cannot be objected to. In this chapter I think I will make it appear to every candid reader that the sin which the advocates of this movement are charging upon King James, they are guilty of themselves. And it is in accordance with oreneral observation that IGO IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. those who are so reckless in their charges of wrong-doing on others, are likely to be guilty of the same sin, or something worse. Paul has reference to this when lie says, in ^' the old- fashioned Bible," ^^ Therefore tliou art inexcus- able, man, whosoever thou art, that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another thou coudemn- est thyself; for thou that judgest doest the s^ime things." That the American and Foreign Bible Society, the Bible Translation Society of Great Britain, and the American Bible Union, have in view, as a sine- qua non in the versions they are aiming to secure and circulate, that they shall contain words signifying immerse in the place of haptke, is fully established' by the history of the movement, ag already presented. Why did the Asiatic and European Baptists withdraw from the Calcutta and British and Foreign Bible Societies ? Why, simply because these Societies would not consent to give money, contributed mainly by Pedobaptists, to aid in tlie publication of immersionist versions of the Holy IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 161 Scriptures. And wlien they had seceded for the sake of this principle, is it likely they would abandon it afterwards ? Nay, verily ! Au'd ac- cordingly, as has been already shown, when the Bible Translation Society of Great Britain was organized, the second article of their constitution set forth the fact that they would patronize none but immcrsioniit versions of the Holy Scriptures. There can be no doubt, then, as to the position of the English Baptists. 'They leave their trans- lators no alternative in the translation of the words relating to the ordinance of baptism. They put the ''■ manacles" on in good earnest. If they should patronize any other kind of versions, they would violate their constitution. And will they do this ? "Why did the Baptists and other iramersiouists secede from the xlmerican Bible Society in 1835 ? Simply, as the reader will remember, because that Society would not appropriate its funds, in viola- tion of the great jDrinciple on which the Society was organized, to sustain immersionist yersiona of the Holy Scriptures. 14* 1G2 IMMERSTOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Would tlieyliave seceded from the Society had it not been for their devotion to immersion ? Do they compkiin of any thing else but that the Ame- rican Bible Society would not permit haptizo to be translated ? Would it not now be very strange and inconsistent for them, in view of these facts, to think of any thing short of immersionist ver- sions Dr. Cone, who was for many years President of the American and Foi^ign Bible Society, and also President of the American Bible Union from its organization to the time of his death, declares that the American and Foreign Bible Society was organized "to vindicate a princij)le ;" that, "in accordance with this princijjle, hajjtizo and its cognates should be translated by words signify- ing immerse,'" etc. If this be true, (and no one can doubt that Dr. Cone knew for what purpose the Society was or- ganized,) how can this Society be satisfied with any thing short of versions made upon this prin- ciple ? And we have the very highest authority to prove that they are carrying out this principle ■ IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 163 in their translations into foreign tongues. What was the character of Judson's version into the Burmese tongue, and of Pearse and Yates's into the Bengalee, and also of the version into the Siamese, from which we have given quotations in this work? What is the character of the Italian and Spanish versions, specimens of which are published by the American Bible Union ? Why, they are all immersionist versions. Dr. Cone, in a speech before the American Bible Union, in 1850, complaining of the American and Foreign Bible Society for deciding to be content with the common version in English, thus speaks : " Hav- ing directed their missionaries among the heathen to translate haptizo and its cognates by words sig- nifying immerse, immersion, etc., they cannot long contiaue to be so inconsistent as to despise or reject immersion in their own vernacular tongue." Dr. Cone says again: ^'Either fear that Hhe Pedobaptists will come down upon us with tre- mendous power/ as a distinguished brother said, or shame, or some other motive of which I know 164 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. nothing, deters many from bearing in English the same testimony for Christ's despised ordinance of immersion which they have made it the im- jperative duty of their missionaries to bear in all the languages of the heathen." Here it is declared by one as well posted up on this subject as any man on earth, that the Ameri- can and Foreign Bible Society "have directed their missionaries in foreign countries," and ^^ made it their imperative duty, to translate bap- Tizo and its cognates by words signifying /m- merse, immersion,'' etc. And the American Bible Union must have in- structed their missionaries to the same effect. For I see in specimens of the translations into the Siamese, the Italian, and the Spanish languages immerse is translated for hajitizo. Could " a wicked monarch'' have done more than this ? They have not merely required that the translat- ors should be true to the original, as King James did, but they have anticipated their independent and unrestrained decision, and have " manacled" and ^'fettered" them, to use their own classical IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 165 phraseology, so that they are constrained to put words for haptizo which signify immerse. And from the specimens referred to above, it seems that " instead of performing the work ac- cordino- to the best of their knowledire and skill," they have been '' obliged to submit themselves as passive instruments in the hands," not of a mon- arch but of associations " noted for passion, pe- dantry, and self-will;" and also for bigotry and exclusiveness, and the most unmitigated slander of good men and their work, in order to carry their point. On account of the instructions those trans- lators have received from their masters and dic- tators, " they do not feel at liberty" to translate haptizo by any word that does not signify im- merse. These societies do not, it seems, wish the mean- ing of the word haptizo to be known : their translators acquiesce ; '^ and so," if they do not " wrap it up,'' they reject it, and substitute an- other meaning in the place of it. The American Bible Union was organized be- 16G IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. cause the American and Foreign Bible Society would not go far enough in carrying out the great ^^ principle'^ upon which it was organized, viz., " that baptizo and its cognates should be ren- dered by words signifying immerse," etc. And yet they say this is not the main object of the movement at all. All they are aiming at is to secure ^^ faithful versions.^' The American Bible Union " must come to the help of the Lord against the mighty," '' and show to all who understand our language that hap- tism is immersion only J' And yet they say this is not the thing they are aiming to do at all. Dr. Cone says if it is right to preach immer- sion, ^'■it is 'right to print it — TO PRINT IT IN THE Bible ; for if it is not in the Bible, it is not right to preach it nor print it." And yet they say they do not know how the matter will turn out. They presume the translators will do justice to the meaning of the original. Their translators of the Scriptures into foreign tongues are putting words which signify immerse only in the place of haptizo, and they are publishing in their organ. IMMEPvSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 167 the Bible Union Reporter, specimens with this peculiarity. And yet they dischiim the sectra-iau character of the movement. As regards the transhition of the Scriptures into English, as carried forward by the American Bible Union, it is a matter of no importance whom they have employed or may employ as translators — whether Baptists or Pedobaptists — their version must be an imincrsionist version. They may have committed the translation of those portions containing hajJtirjo and its cognates to those translators who are immersionists in prin- ciple and theory. And the Pedobaptist trans- lators may have had committed to them no portion of the Scriptures involving the real issue. If this be the case, the translation will be a sectarian version, though Pedobaptists, as individuals on their own responsibility, may, " under written contract" for the sake of the pay, be employed. But let this be as it may, the version must be immersionist in its character. They say : "All the revisors are distinguished scholars^ and men of eminent ability;" " and this 1G8 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. is asserted and reiterated, I suppose to give con- fidence that the work will be done in a workman- like manner. But all this is just no guaranty at all. For the work is to be just what the Board of Managers, Messrs. Cone, Wyckoff, and Co., would have it, or it will not be at all. They must approve it finally before it goes forth to the world; so that they will be, in fact, the only responsible authors of it, at last. Let the reader mark the following language of the Fifth Annual Report of the American Bible Union : ^ Every book of the New Testament has been revised by scholars, and the manuscripts are in the possession of the Board. Of a considerable portion we have also duplicate revisions. Still, the work is by no means done. Your Board have directed their committee on versions to examine carefully each manuscript, and to recommend none for the press, unless they are satisfied that the revision possesses such a de- gree of merit that its publication will do honor to the Union. Otherwise it merely serves as aid to other revisors, who will do the work more thoroughly.' IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 169 '' Here we have it, and in language that admits of no mistake. Every book of the New Testa- ment has been already revised by scholars — and the manuscripts are in the possession of the Board. The scholars have done their part. But 'still the work is by no means done.' The Board have yet to revise the revision, and pass their judgment upon it. The committee on versions must care- fully examine each manuscript, and are directed not even to print any portion, unless in their judgment it is faithful. Tlicij are to judge of ^thc degree of merit' which any and every portion of the work may possess ; and none are to see the light unless they are satisjfied ! And who are '-they?* Mingled emotions of indignation, con- tempt, and pity, must fill the bosom of the en- lightened friend of Kevelation on reading such pretensions from such a source. They boast of the eminent ability of the '• distinguished scholars' 'under written contract to do their work,' and make a great ' show of generosity and catholicity' in confiding the work to men holding their eccle- siastical connections with eight \i\\v.e now] deno- 15 170 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ruinations : and jet very carefully reserve to tliem- selves tlie privilege of supervising each manu- script, and of judging of its merits, and throwing it aside ' if tliey are not satisfied.' " — (Dr. A. New- ton, in the True Baptist.) I would here make this inquiry, as of primary importance : Are there any Pedobaptists belong- ing to this committee on revision ? Or are there any in the Board of Managers ? What though there should be Pedobaptists in the company of translators, this committee have the prerogative of determining what the version shall be in all its parts. They complain of the arbitrary power exercised in giving character to the common version. But did King James assume the prerogative of revis- ing the work of his translators? Or did he ap- point a committee to do it ? Here is, under the circumstances, a most re- markable feature in '^the greatest enterprise of the age," conducted by '' the only people who can do justice to the subject," and •'make a transla- tion worthy of the age." IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 171 The J have great confidence in their revisors;, truly, that they must revise their revision, and not let it see the light unless it suits them ! And if they make it to suit tliem, the reader sees very clearly what kind of a one it will be. If any proposition can be proved, we think this is proved : That, whoever the translators are, or may be, whether Baptists or Pedobaptists, the purpose is settled to substitute immerse for haj)- th:c. To prove this, we have relied mainly on the friends of the new version movement. And yet the very men whose testimony we Lave quoted to prove this have disclaimed it, but in some instances, in the very same connection, they have admitted it again. They '■'■IjIow liot and cold out of the same mouth" all the time. And no wonder. The nature of their position con- strains them to do so. They have two parties in their own ecclesiastical ranks to conciliate — the ultra immersiouists on the one hand, and the mo- derate on tbe other. They must assert the main design clearly enough, to please the former 3 and 172 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. they must disclaim it enough to avoid, as fur as possible, offending the latter. They remind one of the fable of the farmer and the fox. Reynard, pursued by the huntsmen, and finding that he was in danger of being taken, passing by a farmer's premises, requested that he might have refuge in his barn ; and that when the huntsmen should pass, and inquire if he had seen him, he should reply that he knew nothing of him. He consented, and agreed not to tell where he was. Ile3^nard had scarcely secured his retreat, when on came the huntsmen, and in- quired of the farmer if he had seen any thing of a fox passing that way. The farmer, true to his promise, told them that he had not, but at the same time he 2^oinfed very significantly toward the barn. The huntsmen catching the idea, made search, and took poor Reynard. Thus the advocates of this movement disclaim most lustily that the design is to put immerse in the place of haptize. But, at the same time, the}^ keep pointing most significantly in this very IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 173 direction. If they are determined, like the Papists, Socinians, Universalists, Swedenborgians, Destructionists, etc., to have a version conformed to their views of biblical interpretation, let them candidly acknowledge it, and let them defend it upon its real merits. Let the public know where to find them. 15* 174 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. CHAPTER IX. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT OF THE REVISIONISTS. In tliis chapter I resume and continue a notice of the expedients wl * h are adopted for the pur- pose of securing favor for this movement. How natural for men to seek to justify them- selves by endeavoring to show that 'Others have done or are doing, as they have done or are doing I This fact is very prominent in the defence which is made for the new version movement. Its friends seek to make the impression that the American Bible Society, in which all the ortho- dox Pedobaptist denominations are represented, have recently made a new version of the Bible • and, therefore, they argue that Pedobaptists can- not, with any consistency, complain that they are striving to secure one. NoWj if it could be established that the Ame- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 175 rican Bible Society have really made a new version of the Holy Scriptures, this could not of itself justify immersionists in making one ; espe- cially, such a one as we have proved they are seeking to secure. But to the allegation. From a tract, written by Rev. Dr. Lynd, and published by the American Bible Union, I make the following quotations : ^' Let all revision men throughout Christendom reject the new edition by the American Bible So- ciety; . . . so that it lever can become 'the com- monly received version.' Let us use the old editions until a pure version can be obtained." "What authority has the American Bible So- ciety to impose their revision upon the Churches of Christ V "Let their [the Baptists'] motto be, 'Xo revi- sion, or a perspicuous and faithful version.' " "Ah ! it is enough to make the heart sick to hear of opposition to a revised English Bible, by the very persons who intend to use and circulate hereafter the revised editions of the American Bible Society." 176 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. » 1 quote again from a speech of the Rev. Mr. EackuSj before the American Bible Union, as pub- lished in the Bible Union Reporter for January, 1S55 : ^' We are doing just what the best of men have done before us — trjdng to make perfect our version of the Holy Scriptures ; anrl whoever condemns us for so doing, must be prepared to condemn with us WyclifFe and Tyndale — those men of God to whom we are so largely indebted for our already excellent version of the Scriptures. Yes, and Coverdale, and Cranmer, and Parker, with the bishops and King James's revisers, and the managers of the American Bible Society, must all fall under the same censure, for these have all, at one time or another, been guilty of the same thing." The design of this language is, I fear, to make a false impression. It is true, Dr. L. calls the edition of the Holy Scriptures lately published by the Ame- rican Bible Society a "revision ;'^ and he admits that the friends of the Bible Union are seeking a " version." But this care in the use of terms is ob- served only in order that they may not be involved IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 177 in difficulties, or may have a chance of exphiiuing out ; while the evident tendency is to make the impression that the American Bible Society have made a neiu translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Rev. Mr. Backus is much more cautious in the use of language. He contends that the friends of this new version movement are only seeking to improve the common version : that they have precedent for this : that even the American Bible Society have set them a precedent. Now, here is an effort to keep out of view a main point; and that is, that the improvement (?) mainly sought in this movement is the substitu- tion of immerse and its cognates, in the Bible, for baptize; and thus make the Bible sectarian in its teachings. But have the American Bible So- ciety done this? Have they made a sectarian version ? Have they made any vei'sion at all ? The following quotation from the Report of the American Bible Society for 1852, page 33, will show what was contemplated in the incipiency of the measure: "In one of the late reports, the managers lib I.MMERSIONTSTS AGAINST THE B./LE. Stated that, "witli all the pains taken to keep the text of the English Bible correct, it was found that minor differences existed in different copies issued by the Society, and also among those pub- lished by the several presses in England. Al- though these different readings did not affect the sense, as they pertained mostly to ortliograi^Jiy, italic words, capital letters, and p>unctuat ion, yet it seemed highly important that there should be, if possible, uniformity in these particulars. They were specially desirous that the copies issued by the Society should be correct, and in harmony with one another. The committee on versions^ composed of several different denominations — some of the members familiar with investigations of this kind — were instructed to take measures for a careful collation of the Society's Bibles, and those issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society.'' I have before me the Report of the Committee on Aversions, adopted May 1, 1851, after the work of collation had been completed. From this report we learn that, in accordance IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 179 with the above instructions, the Committee on Versions, after various meetings, fixed upon the following rules, which should serve for guidance in the work of collation ; and it will be observed that in these rules the instructions of the Board to the Committee are fully recognized, and are not transcended : "1. The royal octavo edition of the Englisli Bible, issued by the Society, be adopted as the basis for corrections, '' 2. That the said American copy be compared with recent copies of the four leading British editions, viz., those of Loudon, Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, and also with the original edition of 1611. ^* 3. That the comparison include the ortlio- graplii/, the capital letters, icorcls in italic, punc- tuation, contents of the cliap>ters, and running heads of the columns. '^4. That so far as the four English copies are uniform, the American copy be conformed to them, unless otherwise specially ordered by the Committee. 180 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. '^5. That the collator be instructed^ in his further labors, [this rule was adopted after the work was begun,] to apply the principles and cases previously adopted and decided by this Com- mittee, and that, therefore, he lay before the Committee only such cases as have not before been acted upon, or such as may seem to need further consideration. '' 6. That in respect to the indefinite article, the form an to be used before all vowels and diph- thongs not pronounced as consonants, and also before li silent or unaccented ; and that the form a be employed in all other cases. ''7. That in cases where the four recent British copies, and also the original edition and our own copy, vary in punctuation, the uniform usage of any three of the copies shall be followed. " 8. That, when the London, the Oxford, and Cambridge editions agree in the use or omis- sion of the hyphen in compound words, the same usage to be adopted. "9. That when the term scripture or scrips tures refers to the whole volume of inspired IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 181 truth, it begin with a capital letter; but when the reference is to some particular portioU; it be- gin with a small letter." It is proper to state that the Rev. J. W. Mc- Lane was employed as collator; and, for the greater convenience, the Committee appointed a sub-committee, consisting of Drs. Robinson and Yermilye, ''to inspect the alterations suggested by the collator, and see that they are made ac- cording to the rules prescribed ; and if cases of pieculiar importance arise, to consult the entire Committee/' These rules show what the Committee were en- gaged to do — not to make or secure a new trans- lation or version, but to make a collation for the purpose of correcting errors that had crept into the commonly received version. This will appear more distinctly in the lan- guage of the Committee : "It will be apparent, from an inspection of the rules above given, that the great and leading object of the Committee has everywhere been uniformity. It is only when the British copies 16 182 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. differ that any question has been raised^ except in a few instances, to be noted in the seqneL It has been the wish and endeavor of the Committee to see the English version restored, so far as pos- sible, to its original purity, saving the necessary changes of orthograplii/, and other like variations, which would assuredly be acceptablorto the trans- lators themselves, were they living at the present day. The Committee have had no authority and no desire to go behind the translators, nor in any respect to touch the original version of the text, unless in evident cases of inadvertence or incon- sistency, open and manifest to all." I will now cite a few specimens of variations secured by the Committee, to show that the de- sign of the measure, as thus expressed, was fully maintained. I will notice each class of variations, as laid down in the report, and will select one or more specimens from each. ''1. Words. — In Ruth iii. 15, all the present copies read : 'And »lie went into the city ;' but the Hebrew and translators have it : 'And lie went into the city.' Again, in Cant. ii. 1, all the pre- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 183 sent copies read : ' Nor awake my love till Jie please ;' but the Hebrew and the translators, ' till she please.' In Isaiali i. 16, the present copies read, ' Wash yow/ where the translators put, 'Wash 1/e.' This is according to the Hebrew, and has been restored. Another change occurs in Josh. xix. 2, where the recent copies read : ^ and Sheba;' but the translators have, ' o?- She- ba.' Here the Hebrew may, itself, be taken either way; but the number of thirteen cities specified in verse 6 requires or. "2. Orthography.— The Committee enter- tain a reverence for the antique forms of words and orthography in the Bible, where they do not conflict with the clear understanding of the sense. Indeed, it is such forms, in a measure, which im- part an air of dignity and venerableness to our version. For this reason, phrases like, ' hoised up the mainsail,' (x\cts xxvii. 40,) also words like 'graff' and 'graffed,' (Rom. xi. 17, 19, 23, 24,) have not been altered. But when these forms have become obsolete and unintelligible ; or have already been changed in some places, and 184 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE, not ill others; or when ia themselves they are of DO importance, there seems to be no valid rea- son for longer retaining them. By far the greater portion of the readers of the English Bible are unlearned persons and children ; and it is essen- tial to remove every thing in the mere form, which may become to any a stumbling-block in the way of the right and prompt understanding of God's holy word. ''The following examples still occur in the Eng- lish editions; but have mostly already been changed in the Edinburgh and American copies. Many of them are variations from the edition of 1611: ENGLISH COPIES. COBKECTED. Gen. Yiii. 1, asswaged. assuaged. " xi. 3, morter. mortar. (( 11 it throughly. thoroughly, (tr. Cam.) " XXX. 35, ringstraked. rmgstreaked. " " 37, strakes. streaks. " xxxi. 10, gi'isled. grizzled. Ex. vi. 21, Zithri. (prob. error Zichri ^tr. Edin ) of press.) *• xxxii. 20, strowed. strewed. Lev. xiv. 42, plaister plaster. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 185 EIsGLTSH COPIES. CORRECTED. Num. X. 25, rereward. rearward. " XX. U, travel. travail. Deut. xiv. 15, cuckow. cuckoo. " XV. 17, aul. awl. Judges V. 22, pran sings. prancings. Ruth i. 18, stedfastlj. steadfastly. 2 Sam. XV. 12, counseller. (tr. Lond. Cam.) counsellor. 1 Kings vi. 15, cieling. (tr. sieling^ 1 ceiling. 2 Cbron. ii. 16, , fiotes. floats. Neb. ix. 1, sackclotbes. sackcloth, (as in Joel i. 13.) Isa. xli. 2, sodering. soldering. Jer. ii. 22, sope. soap. Ezra xl. 31, utter court. outer court. Zecb. xi. 13, pris-ed. prized. Matt, xxvii. 48, spunge. sponge. Acts vii. 28, diddest. didst. Epb. v. 8, sometimes. sometime, (i. e., once, formerly.) 1 Tim. ii. 9, broidered. (tr. broided.) braided. Rev. xiv. 20, horse bridles. horses' bridles, (so the Greek.) "A variation likewise occurs in the mode of writing tlie imperfect and participle of many verbs; all of wliich have been corrected to the present standard. The following are examples : 16* 186 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Gen. viii. 11, 'pluckt/ but 'plucked/ Deut. xxviii. 63. Gen. xviii. 7, 'fetcht/ but in verse 4, ' fetched.' Gen. xxi. 7, ' have born/ in recent copies; the translators^ correctly, 'have borne.' Deut. ii. 37, 'forbad,' in recent copies; the translators, correctly, 'forbade.' Ezra ix. 3, 'astonied;' and so in all the copies: Job xviii. 20; Ezra iv. 17; Dan. iii. 24, etc. In some passages this has been already changed to ' aston- ished,' as in Job xvii. 8. " In expressing the plurals of such Hebrew words as are not rendered in the text, the trans- lators adopted the plural form of the Hebrew in im, but with the superfluous addition of s; as cherubims, sercqjhims, Nefhimims, Anakims, etc. This is strictly wrong, and is not in accordance with present usage. The s has therefore every- where been dropped in such words : as Gen. iii. 24, Isa. vi. 2, 6, etc. "In respect to ih.e i-) articles of exclamation j and Oh, it appears, on examination, that the for- mer (0) is everywhere used before a vocative case ; while before an optative we find both : ' O IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE B[BLE. 187 that,' Deut xxxii. 29, Ps. Iv. 6; and ^ Oh that,' Job vi. 2, Jer. ix. 1. In order to maintain the proper distinction, the form Oh has everywhere been retained with the optative, leaving as the sign of the vocative. ^' The forms of the indefinite article a or an have been adjusted throughout according to the sixth rule above given. In order to show the necessity of the rule, the following examples of inconsist- ency in all the copies, from first to last, are here selected : '^Gen. XXV. 25, ^an hairy;' Gen. xxvii. 11, 'a hairy.' Judges iv. 21, ^an hammer/ Jer. xxiii. 29, 'a hammer.' Isa. xi. 16, ^ an highway;' Is. xix. 23, ' a highway.' Matt. x. 12, ^ an house ;' Mark iii. 25, 'a house.' Ruth i. 12, 'an hus- band;' Ruth i. 12, 'a husband.' '' 2. Proper Names. — There exists in the Oia Testament a very considerable diversity in the mode of writing Hebrew proper names in Eng- lish. Thus, the names of the first seven patri- archs of the world, as they appear in Gen., chap, iv., and as they are now usually written, are: 188 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, . Enoch. But in 1 Chron. i, 1, sq., tlie same are recorded as : Adam, Shetli, Enosh, Kenan, Ma- halaleel, Jered, Henoch; the Hebrew forms being in both places precisely the same. This is but a single specimen, and shows at least an in- advertence on the part of the translators. In some instances, also, there is a slight difference even in the Hebrew forms themselves, in differ- ent books. In cases like the preceding, involv- ing, as they do, a difference of pronunciation, the Committee have not felt themselves author- ized to make any change, regarding the great principle of uniformity in the copies as of higher importance. " In the New Testament the case is somewhat different. Here it is to be regrettedj that in re- spect to persons already known in the Old Testa- ment, the translators did not retain their names in the form in which they had thus become fami- liar. Instead of this, they have introduced the personages of ancient Jewish history under names modified, and sometimes disguised, by transmission IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 189 tlirough the Greek tongue. Thus, in Acts vii. 45j and Heb. iv. 8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written. In the same way the name Core in Jude 11 is unintelligible to most readers; for comparatively few would ever suspect its identity with Korah of the Old Testament. So, too, the translators have sometimes taken the form of the Greek genitive Juda, Jona, to represent the He- brew names JudaJi, Jonah, " The principle adopted in such cases has been the following : When such names occur singly in the narrative, and there would arise no marked difference in the pronunciation, the form in the Old Testament has been restored. The name Jesus, as above cited, is explained in the margin by the translators themselves. The following are examples : FORMER READING. CORRECTED. "Matt. ii. 6, Juda. Judali. " X. 15, Gomorrha. Gomorrah 190 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. FORMER READING. CORRECTED. Matt. xxi. 5, Sion. Zion. " xxiv. 37, Noe. Noah. Acts vii. 11, Chanaan. Cauaan. ■ " vii. 30, Sina. Sinai. Heb. xi. 11, Sara. Sarah. Rev. ii. 14, Balac. Balak. ^'3. Compound Words. — The eiglitli rule pre- scribes that the usage of the English copies be followed in respect to the insertion or omission of the hyphen in compound words. It was found that the Edinburgh and American copies employ the hyphen in very many instances where, by the operation of the rule, it has been dropped. In such cases, generally, the words have afterwards been written as one word, or as tico words, accord- ing as the accent in pronunciation is placed upon the first word, or otherwise. Thus, hedchamher, handmaid ; but meat offering, hurnt sacrifice This accords for the most part with the English copies. ^^4. Capital Letters. — The ninth rule pro- vides for the manner of writing the term scrip- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 191 ture and scriptures, with or witliout a capital letter. A similar rule lias been followed in prac- tice in respect to tlie word "Sjn'ri'f," which every- where is made to begin with a capital when it re- fers to the Spirit of God as a Divine Agent ; but not when it denotes other spiritual beings, or the spirit of man. The following is a specimen of the changes which have been made : ENGLISH COPIES. CORRECTED. Gen. vi. 3, My spirit. My Spirit. (So too Gen. xli, 38 : Num. xxiv. 2.) Ps. xxi. 7, most High. Most High. Tsa. Ixiii. 10, holy Spirit. Holy Spirit. Rev. iv. 5, seven Spirits of seven spirits of God. God. "5. Words in Italics. — These were inserted by the translators to fill out the English idiom, in cases where the Hebrew and Greek usage omits the copula or other connecting or dependent words. These insertions were carefully revised and compared with the original by Dr. Blaney; but notwithstanding his diligence, quite a num- ber of errors have been detected, some of which 192 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. belong to the translators. The following are ex- amples : ^^Ex. viii. 21, 22, 24, 29, 31. Here the re- cent copies all read, 'swarms of flies f while in Ps. Ixxviii. 45, and cv. 31, the same Hebrew word is rendered, ' divers sorts of flies,' withoul italics. In all these passages the edition of 1611 has no italics. '' Judges ix. 53. The edition of 1611 and all others read: 'And all to break his skull.' This has been often misunderstood, and has been some- times printed : 'And all to brake.' But ' all to' is an antique form, signifying 'altogether,' and was last so used by Milton. It here gives an emphasis to 'brake' which is not in Hebrew. The Committee have therefore put all-to in italics, with a hyphen, and have inserted a note of ex- planation in the margin. "Luke i. 35 : 'Which shall be born of thee.' So in all the copies first and last; but the words of tliee should be in italic ; there being nothing- corresponding in the Greek. "John X. 28, 29: 'Any man .... no man.' IMMER3I0NISTS AGAINST THE BICLE. 19o So in the edition of 1611. The Oxford copy rightly reads, 'Any man .... no man f the Edinburgh and American have, ' any . . . none/ corrected^ like the Oxford, ' any man .... no man.' ^'6. Punctuation. — It was found that the three English copies have a general uniformity in respect to punctuation, especially in the frequent use of the colon; while the Edinburgh and Ame- rican often prefer the semicolon, and are in gen- eral more conformed to the edition of 1611. The seventh rule prescribes that Hhe uniform usage of any three of the copies shall be followed.' In the great majority of instances, the operation of the rule has produced conformity with the Eng- lish copies. In cases where the rule was not ap- plicable, the Committee have endeavored to decide each according to its merits. *' The following five changes made in the punc- tuation, are all, it is believed, which affect the sense : *' Rom. iv. 1 : ' That Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found.' Here, ac- 17 194 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. cording to the order of the Greek, it should read : ' hath found as pertaining to the flesh.' The true pointing, therefore^ is a comma after Abraham, and another after father. This is found in no edition hitherto. ^' 1 Cor. xvi. 22 : ^ Let him be Anathema Mar- an-atha.' There should be a period after Ana- thema, which no edition inserts. The two words ^maran atha' are simply an Aramean formula, signifying ' The Lord cometh.' Compare Phil, iv. 5. "2 Cor. X. 8-11. All the copies now have a colon after verse 8, and a period after verse 9, con- necting the two verses in sense. The true point- ing, however, is a period after verse 8, and then a colon after verse 9, and also verse 10 ; thus con- necting verse 9 as protasis with verse 11 as apo- dasis. So Chrysostom, and so the Syriac and Latin versions ; and this is required by the logi- cal sequence. " Ilcb. xiii. 7. Here should be a period at the end of the verse after conversation.' So the trans- lators, the Oxford and other copies. The Edin- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 195 burgli aud American have sometimes a colon, and sometimes a comma. "Rev. xiii. 8. Here a comma is inserted after ^ slain;' since the qualification 'from the foun- dation of the world' refers not to ^ slain/ but to 'written;' as is shown by the parallel verse, Rev. xvii. 8 : the translators wrongly insert a comma after ' Lamb ;' others put no stop at all. "7. Parentheses. — Our collation has shown that very many parentheses have been introduced into the text since the edition of 1611. Some of these are fit and proper ; but in general they only mar the beauty of the page, without adding any thing to perspicuity. In some instances, too, they have the force of commentary. For these reasons, those not inserted by the translators have been in great part omitted : as in Rom. v. 13-17 ; xi. 8 : 2 Cor. xii. 2 : Gal. i. 1 : Rev. ii. 9, etc. '' 8. Brackets. — These are found but once — 1 John ii. 2-3, enclosing the last clause of the verse, which the translators put in italics. This was done because that clause was not then contained in the received text of the Greek New Testament; 196 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. although the sense requires it^ and it was read in the best manuscripts and in the versions. The clause is now inserted in all critical editions of the Greek Testament; and, as there is no ques- tion of its genuineness, both the brackets and the italics have been dropped.'^ These examples are sufficient to show the na- ture of the work which the American Bible So- ciety have secured. I might have given speci- mens of the changes made in the contents of the chapters, the running heads of the columns, the marginal readings and references, and chronology; but as these do not affect the text, it is not neces- sary to do so. The Committee use the following language in closing their report : '^ Such is the account which the Committee have to render to the Board of Managers, of their stewardship in this work ; al- though this account, and the few specimens above presented, can of course afford no adequate idea of the time, the attention, and the labor bestowed on the work by the sub-committee and the col- lator during the period of three years. And now, IMMERSI0NIST3 AGAINST THE BIBLE. 197 invoking the continued blessing of the Most High, and with a deep sense of their own imperfections, the Committee would commend the result of their labors to the favorable consideration of the Board, as also of the Society, and of the Christian pub- lic. They claim no special freedom from error : they may, very possibly, not always have fully carried out their own rules : they may have com- mitted oversights. But they shrink from no re- sponsibility ; and they have no desire to cover up, either what they have done, or what they have left undone. The thing has not been done in a corner. "As illustrating the necessity of the present col- lation, and the remarks already made upon the exposure to variation and error in the printing of so many millions of "copies, it may suffice here to mention that the number of variations recorded by the collator, solely in the text and punctuation of the six copies compared, falls but little short of ticentij-four tJwusand. Yet of all this great number, there is not one which mars the integrity of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible. 17* 11)8 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. ^^lu thus closing their labors^ the Committee de- sire, with grateful praise to God, difitinclly and formally to state, that no decUion icliatevcr has been made, and nothing ivhatever has heen donCj except with entire unanimity on the ixirt of the Committee arid those acting with them." It is proper to give the reader the names of the eminent men composing the Committee on Versions, and which are appended to the report from which we have made the above quotations. They are as follows : Grardiner Spring, Thomas Cock, Samuel H. Turner, Edward Robinson, Thomas E. Vermilye, John McClintock, Richard S. Storrs. I will conclude on this point with a few remarks : 1. The work accomplished under the auspices of the American Bible Society is not a version or translation at all, but a collation. Let this be noted by the reader. Collation, as used in this case, means comparison of some six editions of the English Bible, embracing the edition of 1611 as the standard, for the purpose of correcting IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 199 errors wliich had accidentally crept into the Scriptures. There was no translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, but a mere correc- tion of errors that had gotten into a translation already made and acknowledged as the standard. The object of the Committee simply, to use their own language, " was to restore the English ver- sion to its original purity." They affirm that they " had no authority and no desire to go be- hind the translators, nor in any respect to touch the original version of the text." Except in orthography and inadvertencies open and manifest to all, they have not touched the original version. This is fully and strikingly illustrated in the foregoing specimens of the varia- tions they have made. In this respect, what the American Bible Society have done is entirely different from what the American Bible Union are engaged in doing. They have denounced the common version as unfaithful to the original; and are seeking a new version, which, as they claim, will be a more faithful exhibition of the original Scriptures. 200 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 2. The work accomplished by the American Bible Society is not sectarian in its character. The learned men employed in the collation belong to and represented the denominations who patronize the Society. And we learn from their reports that every thing they did was agreed upon ^'with ENTIRE unanimity/' and then finally approved and adopted by the Board of Managers and the whole Society, But is the translation sought by the American Bible Union to be non-sectarian in its character ? If any pro- position can be proved, we have already proved, by an amount and character of evidence perfectly overwhelming to the unprejudiced mind, that this new version movement was conceived in a desire to put immerse and its cognates in the place of haptize and its cognates; and that it has been prosecuted up to this time mainly for the accomplishment of this object. Let the enemies of the common version show one instance in which a change has been nnide in the common version that favors any sectarian view or usage. They cannot do this. And yet IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 201 they are endeavoring to make use of the fact of the collation of the Scriptures by the American Bible Society as excuse for them in what thej^ arc doing. They are very much concerned to get a cloak to cover their misdoing. They cannot get the American Bible Society to help bear the fear- ful responsibility they have incurred. They will be constrained to meet it unaided. The old adage that "a drowning man will catch at a, straw/' is very forcibly illustrated in the manner in which this movement is advocated. Its friends seem to doubt its intrinsic merits, and, therefore, the fallacious use of the arginnentum ad homi- nem. A specimen of this sophism has already been noticed in this chapter. Before we close it, we will notice another specimen. It is stated that all the principal Pedobaptist denominations have had their denomiuatioual versions of the Holy Scriptures : that Doddridge, Macknight, and George Campbell, have made translations for the Presbyterians : that Wesley has made a translation for the Methodists, etc. Now, we admit that Poddridge, Macknight. 202 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE EIBLE. Wesley, and other learned men, have made trans- lations of the Holy Scriptures. But did they design that they should be recognized as the standards of the denominations to which they belonged ? Did they ever intimate any such thing at any time ? Did the denominations to which these men belonged think of receiving their versions in the place of the common version ? These men made their translations as indivi- duals. In making them, they were not considered by themselves, nor their denominations, nor the world, as doing their work, however praiseworthy it might be in itself, at the bidding or request of the Churches to which they belonged. Where is there in Mr. Wesley's translation, for instance, any thing indicating that he expected or desired that it should displace the common version ? At what time and at what place did the Methodists, in any form or manner, intimate that they desired to displace the translation of King James with Mr. Wesley's ? It is true that both the preachers and people IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 203 liave read Mr. AYesley's traDsIation of tlie Xew Testament, as they have read his Xotes, Sermons, etc., simply as the production of a learned and good man. But they have never recognized him, nor do they recognize him as a standard transla- tor. The same remarks are applicable to the translations of other learned Pedobaptist authors. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that these versions are the standards of the denomina- tions with which their authors were identified, they were not designed merely to subserve the interests of their denominational theories and practice. As far as the versions of Doddridge and Macknight are concerned, they are, in some respects, decidedly unfavorable to Presbyterian practice. In Wesley's version, in what single instance is there a variation from the common version favor- ing the peculiar theory and usages of the author and his sect ? But we have proved that a distinctive feature in the version the immersionists are seeking, is the substitution of immerse for baptize, so that 204 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. their peculiar usage may have the authority of Scripture, though it may be Baptist Scripture after all. If these revisionists had adduced the case of the Papists, Swedenborgians, Unitarians, Uni- versalists, Destructionists, etc., as having secured versions to sustain their peculiar theories, the cases would have been much more apposite. The Bible of the Papists has penance instead of repentance ; and so of the others. The Baptist Bible will have no baptism in it, but immerse instead of it. Our new version friends have ^^ precedent'' truly for revision. In this age of improvement, when a fanatical sect cannot prove their ultraisms from the common version, they at once put it on the rack, and constrain it to testify in their favor. The Baptists and Campbellites are endeavoring to keep up with the times. They will not be fully up, however, till they get a new Bible entire from heaven, or some other source, like the Mormons. Conybeare and Howson, in their late learned IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 205 and able work, " The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," have been quoted as translators in favor of revision. But to show the utter recklessness of the ad- vocates of this movement, I quote from vol. i., p. 18, Introd. They give in the introduction the reasons of their making a translation of Paul's epistles. It was not on account of any low opinion of the common version. For they say, as if they had in mind the temerity of our revision- ists in publishing their version, as they are doing, alonorside the common version : It is "a rash ex- o periment to provoke such a contrast between the matchless style of the authorized version and that of the modern translator^ thus placed side by side." They justify their translation solely on the ground that they had a special object in view, which could only be accomplished by a para- phrase ; and it is evident that they rest much of the ralue of their work upon their paraphrastic skill, which is, they admit, rather the merit of the commentator than of the translator. They 18 206 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. evidently intend to convey the idea that the authorized version is to be held in estimation for its great faithfulness to the original as it is^ and not as sectarians would suppose it should be. Hence they sa^^, '' If the text admit of two interpretations, our version (the common) endea- vors, if possible, to preserve the same ambiguity, and effects this often with admirable skill. ^' This they characterize as '^a merit in an authorized version." The design of the authorized version is, they say, to make " a standard of authority, and ulti- mate appeal in controversy." This they give as the reason of its great faithfulness to the original. This fidelity, they admit, is the occasion of diffi- culties; but they add, "Had any other course been adopted, every sect would have had its own Bible : as it is, this one translation has been all but unanimously received for three centuries :" (two and a half they should have said.) The general conclusion of these learned men, in their apology for a new version of Paul's epistles, is, that the authorized version is iuimi- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 207 table and unapproachable as a standard, and that new versions or translations should only have in view a special purpose, which, of course, is to be jTrdged of by circumstances : should always be avowed unambiguously ; and should be permitted to pass the ordeal of public opinion. They avow the purpose of their work to be " to give a living picture of the Apostle Paul himself, and the cir- cumstances by which he was surrounded." The work is a biography of the apostle. 3Iuch that is peculiar to him is contained in his epistles. A new version is resorted to for the purpose of catching what the versionist supposes to be the spirit of the apostle. 208 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. CHAPTER X. CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE COMMON VERSION. I HAVE already demonstrated that tlie maiu de- sign of tliis movement is to substitute immerse for baptize ; yet as a great many changes have been proposed, though merely to gain favor for the substitution of immerse, it may be proper to notice some of them. Let it be borne in mind that we have never denied that the common ver- sion has defects. This has all along been ad- mitted. And this is true of all the versions that have ever been made ; and it will be true of any that may yet be made. In the ninguage of the Rev. Mr. Hodge, a Baptist minister of Brooklyn, N. Y., "A man who could remove every fault, and produce a perfect translation, would be able to kindle a comet and send it blazing through the heavens.'^ And were the position assumed nnd IMMERSIONISTS AGAI.aST THE BIBLE. 200 acted upon, tliat no translation that is not perfect, and especially that all evangelical Christians would regard as perfect, should be patronized, we should be constrained to let the revelation of God remain in the original tongues, or cease the work of Bible distribution altogether. Says Dr. Yfil- liams, who, though a Baptist, is opposed to this movement : '^ No man will claim for the English Scriptures perfection. A perfect version is a nonentity, and we believe an impossibility, whilst imperfect and uninspired translators' are the only agents to furnish it, and a living language, ever changing from the very fact of its life, remains the only material on which such translators are to work. No sober man can expect to attain, no modest nor thorough scholar would venture to promise, a version that approached immaculate perfection. '' That the translation sought by the advocates of this movement will not be '' immaculate,'^ will appear as very likely from a slight examination of some of the changes from the common version which have been proposed. It will appear very IS* 210 IMMEIISIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. evident that these pious Bible-menders are sadly under the deluding influence of a spirit of extra- vagant hypercriticism. Much stress is laid on what they call ohsolete terms. ^^ Let,'^ as used in Kom. i. 13, and 2 Thess. ii. 7, etc., it is said ^^ contradicts the sense. ^' But no intelligent reader will be in danger of mis- understanding the term. No one, not even a Sab- bath-school scholar of ten years of age, will be in any dangar of construing it as meaning " permit" or " allow.'' The very connection determines the sense. Who misunderstands the familiar phrase, '^without let or hindrance?" '^And the time will never arrive when the reader of God's word will not have occasion to exercise his discrimina- tion ] or when its language will not need to be illustrated and explained." The phrase '' bid him Grod speed," 2 John 10, is pronounced ^^ pro- fane'' hy these holi/ critics. But who but they can see any profanity in the use of the phrase, as a benediction on one supposed to be in a right course of action ? The phrase " God forbid," as a form of empha- IRITHERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 211 tic denial, is pronounced "an irreverent oath." And they suggest the translation of Gal. vi. 14, as follows : ^^May it not he that I should glory,"' etc. Dr. Williams, of New York, who, perhaps, has no superior in this country in his knowledge of English literature, shows most conclusively that there is no ground for this harsh criticism. He shows that the phrase itself is preserved in the original Hebrew, in the case of the good Naboth refusing to sell the inheritance of his fathers to Ahab, (1 Kings, xxi. 3,) and on three other oc- casions, as used by David, when that magnani- mous saint forbore to take the life of Saul, and once when he poured out, as a drink offering, the water that had been procured at the well of Beth- lehem at the risk of his warriors' lives. (1 Sam. xxiv. 6, xxvi. 11; and 1 Chrou. xi. 19.) It is argued that the original Greek phrase, \ir\ yevoLTO, one genoito, "has not in it the idea of God ;" and that " by no means," or " be it not," would be preferable to the introduction of the name of God " without an}^ authority from Scrip- ture." But in the sacred text itself, acco:dino; 212 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. to Dr. Williams^ the word for the Divine Being occurs in the four passages in the Hebrew to which we have referred. And so, consequently, we have ''scriptural authority'^ for this form of expres- sion as translated in the common version. The phrases suggested are utterly too tame to express "the strong and indignant disclaimer and the impetuous dislike the original phrase conveys." Our word "never" would better express ''its pas- sionate and impulsive negative." But this im- plies rather a reliance on our own strength to avert an impending evil ; while the Greek phrase is rather an appeal to a higher and overruling might to avert the danger or the sin. Tholuck, on the Piomans, calls it " the strongest form of negation," and gives the Hebrew term " clialilali' as its equivalent. The phrases proposed to be substi- tuted for "God forbid" all necessarily refer the mind to a superior power, as well as this phrase. If they are not thus construed, they have no sense nor force in them ; and they are conse- quently subject to the same objection. And if they do not refer to the true God, as the Supreme IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 213 in authority and power, to wliom do they refer ? Do the advocates of the new version intend to establish the recognition of any other god as supreme? I think this will be equally as '■^ir- reverent'' as the assumed use of God's name " without any scriptural authority." The phrase " Holy Ghost/' as an appellation of the third person of the Holy Trinity, is ob- jected to, as expressing only the idea of an appa- rition, and as being ^^ manifest hlasphemy." Dr. Williams shows, in reply to this charge, "that the parent Anglo-Saxon had the term not only in the sense of phantom, but also in the general, reverent idea of ' sjjirif.' The German, with which our people and literature are daily growing of closer kin and fuller acquaintance, has essentially the same word, in the large and innocuous sense. And the classics of the lan- guage — not to be extruded by our sweeping criticisms from the libraries and schools of the English race — Dryden, whose prose Fox took as the very standard of pure English, and Shak- speare, and the great Hooker, and the English 214 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Common Prayer, all have the word ^ghostly' in the signification of spiritual and religious. To divide the appellation from the terra ' Holy/ indissolubly employed with it, in our hymns and prayers and best religious writers, is neither fair criticism, nor duly reverent to the theme and Being. And would the brethren who adopt this line of argviment, receive it, if their fellow-dis- ciples, who see and feel no such unhappy associa- tions with this term that is sacred to their hearts from their earliest and holiest recollections of it, should ask the brethren to carry out the same principle in its bearings on the other Name which the translators use for the Paraclete ? Every one at all conversant with the familiar and lighter literature of our tongue, knows that, from the first Quakers down to our own time, superficial and reckless writers have delighted to confound the dread name of the third person in the God- head with the liquid and disguised death that brims the wine-cup and enriches the dram-seller. The lighter literature of England absolutely reeks with irreverent allusions of this kind, re- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 215 calling tlie blasphemy which the enemies of the apostles employed on the clay of Pentecost, when they attributed the influences of the descended ^Spirit' to 'new icine.' "Would not the bre- thren .... be generally and justly wounded, if, because of those irreverent expressions, we should strive to denounce the expression itself, and employ of it strong expressions parallel to those used .... against the other Name — ex- pressions only serving to nail on the writhing me- mory of the pious, profane associations with holy things — associations they would deplore and de- test, and strive earnestly and prayerfully to forget for ever ? We know well the brethren . . . vrould shrink from laying a hand like Uzzah's, rash even in its honest endeavors to stay the ark, upon the cause they love.'' Webster defines the phrase " Holy Ghost '^ — ''The third person in the adorable Trinity." But is not the phrase " Holy Spirit" obnoxious to the ver}" same objection which they urge against " Holy Ghost ?" Is not the term "sjn'ri//' with which they propose translating TTVEvua. 216 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 2Dneuma,Vised to sigaify an apparition — -a ghost? So says Webster; and "upon their own principle, the use of the term '' sjjirit," as an appellative of the third person in the Trinity, " is manifest blasphemy." It is a matter of some interest to know what term they will secure. The substitution of " Teacher'' for " Master" is urged as "demanded" by fidelity to the truth, in John xiii. 13, 14: Matt. xvii. 24, ix. 11, x. 24 : Luke vi. 40, etc. But the slightest examination of the subject will convince any one that the full force of the original AiSdoicaXog, Vidaskalos, is not contained in the word "teacher;" for the word implies not only one who communicates knowledge, but, in its application to Christ, it implies also author- ity as a teacher. Webster, in defining " teacher," does not give one acceptation as involving the idea of author ity or government; but in defining "master," he not only gives it as containing the idea of governing, but also as involving the idea of instructing. This, then, is the term which ought TMMERSIONISTS AGAIXST THE BIBLE. 217 to be used, in order to express the full intent of the original word. And just let the reader test the proposed change, by substituting the word "Teacher'^ for '^Master/' in the passages above referred to, and he will see that the import is perfectly tame and insufficient. ^'Make to stumble," for "offend," is proposed as a translation of aKavdaXt^cj, shandalizo. If the rendering of the common version be obscure, as alleged, how much less obscure is this ? Let the reader test it by reading a few passages with this change, viz. : " Doth this make you stumhle?''' instead of, " Doth this offend you ?'' "All ye shall he made to stumble this night," instead of, "All ye shall be offended," etc. "If thy right hand inake thee stumble/' etc., instead of, " If thy right hand offend thee,"' etc. It will be observed that this proposed change is perfectly reckless of th^ fact that the original word in these instances, as in the common version, is "not used in a literal, but in 2i figurative sense; and, therefore, by giving a literal sense in the translation, they pervert the meaning of the 19 218 IMilERSIONISTS AGAINST tHE BIBLE. Saviour and tlie apostles, and make them speak nonsense. In Acts xvii. 22, ^' very religious" is proposed to be substituted for '^ too superstitious;" and the passage would then read : '' I perceive that in all things ye are very religious." The term in the original is a very different one from that used in James i. 26. In James, it is '&prjaiiog, threskos. In this passage it is dELOLSaLfiojv, deisidaimon. In James, the term threskos means religious, devout, pious. In this passage, the term deisidaimon is a compound of deidoj, deido, to fear, and 6alfio)v, daimon, which in the New Testament usually signifies the Devil or an evil spirit; and in 1 Cor. x. 20, 21, it designates the heathen divinities — invisible ob- jects of idolatrous worship. We are constrained to conclude, therefore, that the translation proposed is unjustifiable. If the apostle had intended to express the idea of the Athenians being very religious in a good sense* it is strange he should not have used the same word which James uses, or one of the same import. IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 219 But wlio can think that the inspired apostle of the Gentiles should have adopted the expedient of bestowing a compliment on the idolatrous Athenians, for the purpose of avoiding the ex- citement of their prejudices against his mission ? The translation of the common version is then a good one, and the one proposed is a false one, if we are to be guided by the scriptural usage of the original term. It is proposed to substitute ^^ sound of the voice" for "voice," in Acts ix. 7. The passage would then read : " The men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing ^7ie sound o/ the voice." In reference to this change, I quote from a pamphlet containing a very able review of the New Version movetnent, by a committee appointed by a meeting of Baptists of the city of New York, opposed to the movement. This able document is signed by Drs. Welch, Dowling, and three others. They use the following. language, (pp. 30, 31 :) " The oTound on which this alteration is defended 220 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. is the use of the genitive case, instead of the ac- cusative, in the original text. It cannot, how- ever, have escaped the notice of an attentive reader of the G-reek Testament, that, as respects the usage of the sacred loiHters, (to extend the investigation no farther,) there is not the slightest indication of any diflFerence in the force of the two forms of expression. They are, throughout the Neiv Testament, used interchangeahly , and in all respects in such manner as to place it beyond all doubt that they were regarded as being entirely synonymous. " The apostle, in the statement, recorded Acts xxii. 7, and xxvi. 14, ^'And I heard a voice say- ing unto me, Saul, Saui, why persecutest thou me?" uses in one case the genitive, and in the other the accusative. • "Again, the Apostle John, in the phrase, ^And I heard a great voice saying,' occurring Rev. i. 10, xvi. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 3, employs in two in- stances the genitive ; in the other two, the accu- sative. Again, in E,ev. x. 4, and xiv. 13, 'And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,' the IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 221 genitive is used in tlie former passage ; the accu- sative in the latter. And as in all these instances the very words which were spoken are recorded as having been heard and understood, it would be folly to say that the reference in the one case is simply and specifically to the sound of the voice, and in the other to the voice itself. To these may be added the passage, Heb. iii. 15 : ' To- day if ye will hear his voice, (genitive,) harden not your hearts;' as also John xviii. 87 : ' Every one that is of the truth htarcth my voice ;' lan- guage which, so far from being adapted to ex- press or even to suggest any idea such as our brethren seek to attach to it, most obviously re- fers iQ the ^ voice,' not simply as understood, but oheyed. See also John v. 25, x. 16, 27 : 2 Tim. i. 13 : Rev. iii. 20, etc. ^' These facts must suffice to satisfy every mind that the distinction which our brethren imagine they perceive in the phraseology under consider- ation has not the slightest foundation in the usage of the Xew Testament writers. And we cannot but regard the introduction of the words, 'the 19* 222 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. sound of/ into Acts ix. 7, as being, in the view of this usage, not an ' amendment,' or improve- ment in the translation, but an unwarranted ^ addition' to the sacred text. No one, however respectable may be his attainments in classic Greek, can be justified in undertaking the work of translating the New Testament, without first becoming thoroughly acquainted with the scrip- tural usage; and the usage, too, which in each case may serve to illustrate the import of the par- ticular passage to be translated. Far less are the sweeping denunciations of the received transla- tion, as being ' j)alpably' erroneous, in which our brethren have so freely indulged, to be excused, when, as in the present case, a little examination is sufficient to place it beyond all dispute, that the 'erroneousness' in reality and manifestly per- tains to what is ofi"ered as a ' correction ' or ^ amendment.' " With regard to the import of Acts ix. 7, we see no occasion for setting aside the idea naturally suggested to the mind by the received translation ; especially when it is considered that there is IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 223 nothing in the passage to indicate that the men in company with Saul understood the import of what was uttered, (comp. chap. xvi. 14,) or to icliom, or hy loliom it was spoken. '' "In prison/' is proposed for "in hold" — Acts iv. 3 ; and the passage would then read : "And they laid hands on them and put them in prison unto the next day." The original word, r'jpTjOig, teresis, (from rrjpeo), tereo, to have an eye to, to watch, to keep, to guard,) is defined by Robinson as to its use in the New Testament : 1. A watch- ing, keeping — 3. guard, watch; in New Testa- ment, meton., place of icard, prison : Greenfield, a keeping, custody, i. e., hy meton., a place where one is confined, prison, hold, ward. It will be observed, then, that whenever this term is used to signify prison, or place of cus- tody, it is so used by metonymy. Its proper meaning is safe keeping, custody ; and this sense is certainly very suitable for Acts iv. 3. No im- provement can be realized by substituting the figurative for the primary, literal sense of the 224 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. term. And the perspicuity of the passage does not require it. "Faithless" is proposed to be substituted "for believe not/' in 2 Tim. ii. 13: "If we helieve not, yet he abideth faithful : he cannot deny him- self;" which, when improved, will read : " If we he faithless, he abideth faithful/' etc. On this, Messrs. Welch, Dowling, etc., re- mark : " The idea expressed by the passage, as it stands in our present version, is one of peculiar interest and force, to wit : our unbelief or incre- dulity respecting the Divine declarations cannot do away with the certainty of their fulfilment. His revealed purposes, whether reg'arded or dis- regarded, will, without the possibility of a failure, be executed: to distrust his word, although it may awaken a temporary feeling of security, will be unavailing in the end, inasmuch as he is faith- ful to his word : he cannot deny himself. The substitution of the word faithless, however, in the sense yir^se to one's trust and j^t'ofession — the sense evidently intended, as furnishing the only IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 225 grouDcl on which a change in the translation could be supposed to be necessary — entirely changes the import and bearing of the passage, and leaves us with a sense which will, we believe, b€f gene- rally regarded as being, 'in comparison with the one which we have indicated, tame and frigid. Indeed, it is not a little difficult to perceive what relation our unfaithfulness sustains to the faitli- fulness of God. What, then, is the ground on which the substitution is made ? "It will doubtless excite the surprise of those not acquainted with the original text, to learn that the sense presented in this so-called ^ amend- ment,' which is at variance with what seems to be required by the scope and design of the passage, so far from being ^demanded,' or even suggested by the established import of the original term, is secured only by the actual rejection of its uniform meaning, as occurring in other passages in the New Testament. The compound word ajnsteo is always used by the sacred writers in the sense 'believe not;' as, for example, in Acts xxviii. 24 : 'And some believed the thinos which 226 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. were spoken, and some helieved not.' Mark xvi. 16 : ' He that helievetli not sliall be damned.' Luke xxiv. 41 : 'While thej helieved not for joy.' Kom, iii. 3 : ' "What if some did not helieve,' etc. The noun apistia is likewise generally used in the same characteristic import; as in Rom. iv. 20: 'He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief. ^ See also Mark vi. 6 : Matt, xiii. 58, xvii. 20 : Rom. xi. 20, etc. And even the adjective form, aj)istos, is usually employed in the New Testament, not in the sense faith- less or unfaithful, as contrasted with ftiithful, but as meaning unbelieving, luithout faith. See 1 Cor. vii. 14: 'The unbelieving husband;' X. 27 ; xiv. 22, 23, etc. And yet, in opposition to the evidence afforded by these facts, as well as in opposition to what tve regard as the exigencies of the passage itself, the sense ' believe not ' is expunged from 2 Tim. ii. 13, and one which is favored by no parallel passage in the New Testa- ment is introduced in its stead ; and all this, we are left to infer, as the correction of a 'gross' and 'palpable' error." IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 227 Errors in grammar, of fearful enormity, have been charged upon the common version. The first class of these sins against Priscian in- cludes the use of "be" for "are." Says Dr. "Williams : " Now, to put this ancient form of ex- pression, common to some of the best of the elder classics of the language, under the caption of ^ grammatical errors,' argues great heedlessness or temerity." He then quotes Lord Bacon as usiag it, as follows : " Certainly there he that delight in giddiness." A second class of sins against the laws of grammar, includes the use of ''which" for "who." But Lord Bacon is again cited. He uses the following, as quoted by Dr. Williams : ''The apostles and disciples ichich saw our Sa- viour in the flesh." The use of the preposition " for," before the infinitive, is charged as "erroneous and clumsy;" but Webster says that " the use is correct, though now obsolete." These are but specimens of the changes pro- posed ; but they are sufficient to show that the 228 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. advocates of this movement are pressed for an apology to justify them in making an immersion- ist Bible. And, indeed, men who can make the charges they have made against the common version, prove that they are utterly incompetent to act in the capacity of critics. They are simply mad upon this subject; and no one need wonder if they should finally trample the holy oracles under their feet, like the Mormons and others; and, abandoning even the expedient of translating, to secure proof of their peculiar dogma, should seek for proof from some other source more likely to furnish it. Their case reminds me of the advice of a Quaker to his son, when he first set out in the world to make a living. '^ Son," said he, '^ make money — honestly, if thee can — but make money." At all hazards they are determined to make capital for ^^dip, and nothing hut dip ; immerse^ and nothing hut immerse." IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 229 CHAPTER XI. THE PORTION OF THE REVISION PUBLISHED. In a former chapter I have referred to the portions of the new version that have been pub- lished and sent abroad. The only portions I have had an opportunity of seeing are the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Book of Revelation in- clusive, and the first two chapters of Matthew. The design of publishing these portions first in order is, doubtless, as I have already suggested, to avoid as long as possible coming before the world with their cherished idea of dijp or immerse in the place of haptize. Consequently, they go no farther with Matthew than the second chapter. If they had embraced the third chapter of Matthew, or the First Epistle of Peter, the main design of the movement would have appeared at 20 230 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. once. Immerse would have been ''j)rinted — PRINTED IN THE Bible/' where they intend to have it ultimately. But they are anxious to keep off the evil day as long as they can. But we think it will be proper to call attention to what they have done in the work of translation, in order to see if they have acted upon the principles which they have so often announced as destined to govern them in the work. 1. The reader will recollect that one chief com- plaint against the common version is, that it is obscure on account of " the Pojpisli artifice of transfer." That by this means the translators have ^'■wrapped up'' and concealed the true meaning of God's word " from the mass of the unlearned,^' '^the common people/' who consti- tute the majority. And the professed object of this movement was to '^ take off the Popish cover- ing from his pure word/' and " disabuse the public mind, led astray by doctors and diction- aries," etc. The reader, no doubt, would think it strange indeed if it should appear after all that " the IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 231 Popish artifice'' has been adopted by these ultra- honest men, who have had such a sympathy for " the mass of the unlearned,' ' " the common peopled' I will take one specimen of the per- spicuousness of this renowned new version, from the Book of Revelation, vi. 6. The common version reads thus : ''And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and sec thou hurt not the oil and the wine." The new version has it : "And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a denarius." There, now ! is not that plain ? " The com- mon people," "the mass of the unlearned," know what ^^ denarius" is! yes! they can find out what it means by consulting Webster. And those of them who cannot afford to buy "Webster, and cannot have access to it, must take for granted that the faithful, and honest, and 232 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. learned translator knew, and that it is right, whether they know what it means or not ! But '^cJioenixF' "choe?iix !'' what will they do with that? Could the unlearned always have access to Webster, he could not help them at all to a knowledge of its meaning. Webster is confined to a definition of terms already in use in the Englisli language. But this '^ clioenix^' is an un- naturalized foreigner. Its meaning can only be known by reference to a Greek Lexicon. The word in the. Greek is ;\;o2vi|^, " choinix.'^ All this learned translator has done is to substitute e in English for iota in Greek. Is this a trans- lation or a transfer? Is this making the word of God plain to ^^ the common people f^ How much more do the people know about ^^ denarius" than '■^ penny ^^ or about '■^ clioenvx" than ^'•measure?" And if the translators de- signed to make the thing so plain as to obviate the necessity of referring to commentaries or dic- tionaries, as they promised to do, why did they not substitute '■Hlie eighth of a pech, or one quart," in the place of '■'' choenix" and ^^ seven IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 233 pence three farthings, or fourteen cents,'' in tlie place of " cZe?m;-i«s .^" They have spoken of haptize as " a lizard craAvliug from a papal swamp/' Well, what is " choenix ?" It must be a crocodile or an cdli- gator. But let us have another specimen of perspicu- ity — of taking the Popish covering from God's pure word. It is found in Matthew ii. 1-7, 16. In all these verses, " magians" is put in the place of " ivise men." Here we have another instance of " the Popish artifice of transfer." The Greek is [idyoi, " magoi." A slight variation of the origiual term is all that is done for the benefit of the illiterate "common people,'^ the mass of the un- learned. This is translation, is it ? Plain ! per- spicuous ! If some of the common people knew who these learned translators are, and where they live, they might write, or, if they should be too illiterate to do this, they might get one to write for them, and ask them to state what '' choenix," ^'denarius" 20* 234 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. and '' magians/' mean. But " their names may not come abroad.'' It would "subject them to relentless persecution/' and seriously annoy them in their great and learned work. So they must be content, and wait for the oracle at New York (the Board of Managers of the American Bible Union) to speak out again. In a further notice of the new version that has appeared, I will call the attention of the reader to one of the rules which was to govern the translators in their work, and see if in the portion of it already done this rule has b(ien observed. Here is the rule : " 2. The common English version must' be made the basis of revision ; and all unnecessary interference with the established phraseology shall be avoided; and only such alterations shall be made as the exact meaning of the inspired text and the existing state of the language may require." I think it will appear that the translator of the two chapters of Matthew especially has not kept this rule. He discards the old and solemn IMMERSIOXISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 235 style of tlie common version, by writing appcarsj instead of appearefh. In this lie not only vio- lates the above rule, and all good taste and judg- ment, but he disagrees with the learned trandator of Peter, Jude, John's epistles, and the Revela- tion. He uniformly uses the termination th, as loveth, knoweth, hath, op)p)eareth. This translator also discards unto, and seeks to impart a modern air to his work by substituting to in its stead. I quote a part of what he says to justify this literary vandalism. '' Tlie pre- position ^ unto,^ as found in the common version, is not used by good speakers and writers of the present day. Noah Webster says it is ^ of no use in language : it is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete.' In a thorough revision, therefore, this word, and all others that are in the same condition, must be rejected, un- less the Book of God is to be kept throughout all ages as the repository of obsolete words and antiquated forms, and made to the common mind a dead letter, etc." I refer as specimens of this change to 3Iat- 236 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. tliew i. 20, etc. But the author of the re- vision of the epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and the Revelation, has retained ^' unto,^' and says in reference to it, " It would have been easy to im- part a much more modern air to the whole by such expedients; for example, as exchanging unto for to, etc. Eut it is scarcely worth while to attempt an explanation of the reasons why the translator has refrained from doing this." Now this revision will certainly be beautifully harmonious in its style ! one portion retaining the ^^unto,'^ and another rejecting it ! And in what kind of a position do the x\merican Bible Union stand? They have endorsed both these speci- mens, and sent them out. The translator of the specimen from Matthew says that " a thorough revision" requires the rejection of ^^ iinto,^^ and thus condemns the translator of Peter, John, etc., who does not reject " untoj'^ and thinks the reasons for not so doing are so clear that it is not necessary to name them. How will this thing be adjusted? The reader will recollect that the Board of Managers, through their Com- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 237 mittee on Revision, have original jurisdiction of the whole matter, and of course they will de- termine it according to their own taste. According to the principle adopted in rejecting th or etli, and unto, they should discard also tJiou, tliine, thy, and thee. And, indeed, the translator of Matthew says: '^In a thorough .... this word, \_^' unto,''~\ and all others that are in the same condition, must be rejected." Well, tliou, thine, etc., are in the same condition, and, therefore, they ought to be rejected also; and then we should have : " Come to me, all you that labor, and you shall find rest to your souls. Every one that LOVES, is born of God. Every one that asks, receives; and he that seeks, finds; whosoever has, to him shall be given." And when we pray we must say, according to modernizing doctrine, ^^ Our Father, who are in heaven, hallowed be your name : your kingdom come, YOUR will be done . ... for yours is the kingdom," etc. Secretly is put iov privily, Matthew i. 19. The common version reads: ''Was minded to put her 238 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. away privily." The new version : ^' Resolved to divorce her secretly." In a note the translator says : " The common version does not correspond with the original. The G-reek for ^privately' occurs elsewhere, but not here. The exact meaning of this adverb is ' secretly.' But let any man look at Webster's Dictionary, and see if there is any ground for the distinction between the words primly and secretly, let the original word mean what it may. .The question IS as to which of these words ought to be used to express the meaning of the original. Webster defines these words thus : Privily, Privately; secretly. Secretly, Privately; privily. Privily, according to Webster, has as many rights as secretly to have the place it occupies in the common version. And, therefore, if it is not a translation of the original, neither is secretly. In Matthew ii. 16, '^ angry" is put in the place of "wroth." IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 289 In his note the translator says : ^' The adjec- tive 'wroth' is falling into disuse among good speakers and writers of the English language, and is not, therefore, the best term for a correct translation/' But what does Webster say ? '' Wroth, very angry; much exasperated. An excellent word, and not obsolete." I quote the following from the New York Ob- server, as referring to a portion of the new ver- sion which I have not seen : " The first time that the new version of the Bible has been brought into the pulpit to use, was at the funeral-services of the late Rev. Dr. Cone. As he was one of its fathers, it was meet that his obsequies should be signalized by the inauguration of his favorite work. The Eev. Dr. McClay read selections from the book of Job, according to the new version, in the midst of which occurred the following passage : 'And Satan went out from the presence of Jeho- vah, and smote Job with grievous ulcers, from the sole of his fo'4 to his orown. And ho took 240 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. a potsherd to scrape himself therewith, as he sat amoDg the ashes. Then said his wife to him, Dost thou still hold fast thy integrity? Bless God and die ! But Job said to her, Thou speak- est as one of the foolish women speaks. The good shall we receive from God, and shall we not receive the evil V " If these astute and professedly learned critics have found any sufficient reason for substituting ' grievous ulcers' for ' sore boils,' we will not quar- rel with them for the liberty they have taken. Sore boils are grievous ulcers, if not vice versa, and we are always glad to let them pass. The least said the better about boils. But not so the new phase they give to the language and senti- ment of Job's wife. ^' Our translation reads : ^ Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity ? Curse God and die.' The new translators ren- der it, ' Bless God and die.' Is there any thing to favor this change ? We are aware that modern critics (as Dr. Mason Goode) have given it : ^Dost thou still retain thine integrity, hlcssing IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 2-41 God and dying f And this reading preserves the wife's idea, for she complains of Job for still trusting in God even in his extremity. And then we see the force of his reply : ' Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. AVhat ! shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil V '' But if we make Job's wife to advise her hus- band to BLESS God and die, as there was every reason to suppose he was about to die, his reply to her is inhuman and wicked ; and it could not be affirmed of him, as it is affirmed, '■ In all this did not Job sin with his lips.' " ' The response of Job,' says Barnes, ' shows that he understood her as exciting him to reject, renounce, or curse God. The sense is, that she regarded him as unworthy of confidence.' " It requires no great knowledge of the ancient Scriptures to expose the glaring absurdity and positive wrong of this Baptist version's alteration of God's holy word. ''We know that the word rendered curse may also be translated hlcss, as its more precise mean- 21 Z4:Z IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. iDg is to invoke, ^. e., either good or evil, to be determined by the context. The same word in the Hebrew is used in 1 Kings xxi. 10-13, where the sons of Belial are hardly to be suspected of charging Naboth with blessing God and the king. In the case of Job and his wife, the whole con- versation proceeds on the presumption that she exhorts the patient and submissive patriarch to curse God, and not bless him, as he had done (chapter i. 21) with all the fervor of his soul, in words that are even to this day the language only of a heart perfectly resigned to God's will. Such, too, has been the uniform sentiment of the Church in all ages and climes. Job's wife has been remembered for her wicked assault upon her husband in this calamit}^, as truly as Lot's wife for looking back when she and her husband were fleeing from Sodom. We have called atten- tion to this obvious alteration of the sacred text, to expose not only the incompetency, but the recklessness of these new version tinkers. ^'If they will thus mar the beauty and destroy the meaning of God's word in portions of the IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 243 Holy Scriptures where there is no difference of opinion among Christians, what will they not do when the powerful motive of sectarian preju- dice urges them to tamper with the sacred text ? " It is evident that they have no claim whatever to consideration on the score of learning or ability ; and we predict that their new Bible will react upon the cause they are hoping to serve by getting it up.'' I might add many authorities to justify the common version of Job ii. 9, such as Orton, Henry, Scott, etc. But I will content my- self with giving a quotation from the late Dr. John Kitto, of England, one of the most pro- foundly learned biblical critics and scholars of this or any other age. I am more inclined to give his authority, as the advocates of the new version movement put so much stress upon the progress of biblical criticism since our com- mon version was made, as a reason for a new one. Well, Dr. Kitto is as modern a critic as can be desired, and one thoroughly versed in biblical learnino;. , 244 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. I quote from his " Daily Bible Illustrations" of the Book of Job, p. 93 : " Therefore, when she saw that her husband's faith was not shaken even by this sore distress, she cried, ' Dost thou still retain thine integrity ? Curse Grod and die/ Surely words so dreadful never before nor since came from a woman's lips." Again he says : " Job's answer to this sugges- tion — in which we fail not to trace Satan's hand — is worthy of his faith and patience : ' Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What ! shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and not evil ?' " Again, on p. 95, after giving various opin- ions in regard to the import of the words of Job's wife under consideration, he refers to the view of their meaning adopted by the translator of the Book of Job for the American Bible Union, as follows : " There is, however, another explanation, which, acknowledging the force of this consideration, gives a bad sense to the advice of Job's wife, while retaining the seysc of bless- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 245 ing instead of cursing God. This is accomplislied by making her words ironical, as if she had said, 'Ay, do go on still, relying upon thine integ- rity, and blessing God, and yet dying; for he will not save thee.' But surely of all things irony would be most misplaced here. Consider that she herself was a most afflicted woman, and that the wickedness of rebellious thoughts and language under extreme sorrow is far more natural than irony. '' There are other explanations of the words, both as taken in the sense of ' bless' and ^ curse ;' but the reader has had a sufficient variety. Upon the whole, the interpretation we have given seems best to meet all the circumstances." 21* 246 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. CHAPTER XII. CONCLUSION. In this chapter I will present a synopsis of the leading arguments, and some little additional matter upon a few points. The reader will bear in mind the real issue in- volved in the discussion — not that there are errors in the commonly received version ; nor that there ought to be a new version ; but this is the ques- tion : whether there ought to be such a version as the American Bible Union is seeking, i. e., a strictly sectarian one — immerse and its cognates being substituted for baptize and its cognates. This is the question. As the advocates of the movement try to deny that such is intended to be the character of their version, I have been constrained, for the present, to decline the discussion of the main question IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 247 upon its merits, and to proceed to prove that the design, and the main design, is the substitution of immerse for baptize. I. This I have satisfactorily done — 1. From the history of the movement in India, in this country, and in Great Britain. We have seen that Dr. Judson and four others consulted Professor Stuart as to whether they should transfer haptizo, or translate it by words signifying immerse. And notwithstanding Professor Stuart advised them to transfer, as had been done in the Latin, French, and English, yet Dr. Judson proceeded to make his Burmese version upon immersionist principles. In the meantime, other Baptist missionaries, Pearce- and Yates, were making the same kind of a version into the Bengalee tongue; and learn- ing that this was the character of it, the Calcutta Bible Society refused any longer to patronize it. The British and Foreign Bible Society had as- sumed the same ground in reference to such ver- sions. Not being able to secure aid from any other society, and learning that the American Bible Society were aiding Dr. Judson's version, which 2-48 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. they knew to be of the same character with their own, they wrote to the Society requesting aid. The Society learning in this way, for the first time, the character of Judson's version, net only refused to grant aid to Pearce and Yates, but withdrew their support from Judson's. They were constrained to do this in accordance with the very principles upon which the Society was originall}'- organized. And I have most satis- factorily shown, from the best authority, that there is no just ground of complaint against the Society. I have shown that, in India, Great Britain, and in this country, the Baptists seceded from the Bible societies in these three quarters of the globe, because those societies would not appropriate money, contributed by all denominations, to aid in publishing sectarian versions of the narrowest kind. And why was the Baptist Bible Society (the ^'American and Foreign") formed? Simply on account of the devotion of the Baptists to im- mersion. Why was the British Translation So- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 249 ciety organized under the auspices of the Ame- rican and Foreign Bible Society, through their agent, Dr. McClay? Why, in order to secure immersionist versions of the Scriptures, as is demonstrated by one article of their constitution, which requires that, in all translations they will patronize, the words relating to the ordinance of baptism must be translated by words signify- ing immerse. And finally, why, in 1850, did Dr. Cone and others secede from the American and Foreign Bible Society, and form the American Bible Union ? Why, simply and exclusively because the American and Foreign Bible Society decided, by an overwhelming majority, to recede from the purpose they at one time entertained, of carrying out the same principle in reference to the Eng- lish Scriptures which they had been from the beginning carrying out in reference to all their translations into foreign tongues, and which they are still maintaining : that is, to have an English translation of the Holy Scriptures on imme^'sion- ist principles. To secure such a version is the 250 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. leading and controlling purpose of the American Bible Union. This is the thing which distin- guishes this institution from the American and Foreign Bible Society. 2. I have adduced quotations from the reports of the American and Foreign Bible Society, the Bible Translation Society of Great Britain, and of the American Bible Union, and also from the speeches and addresses and other publications of the leading advocates of the new version move- ment, in this country, Asia and Europe, in which there is sore complaint against the Bible societies of Europe, Asia, and America, for not giving the heathen immerse as the translation of ha^tizo, in the versions into foreign languages, and in the English language — that thus the heathen are 'Meft to perish in their ignorance and idolatry," without having a knowledge of baptism — that in the common version in English the ordinance ^^is covered up and hid" from the mass of the people by ''the Popish artifice of trans- fer" — that '■^ it is wrapped up in ohscurifj/," and can only be known by "the learned" — that IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 251 the great principle " to vindicate '^ which the American and Foreign Bible Society was organ- ized is, that in translations into all languages, " hajptizo and its cor/nates should he rendered hi/ words signifying immerse, immersion,^ ^ etc. ; and that this Society receding from the great purpose of its original organization, as far as the English Scriptures are concerned, the American Bible Union assumes its place, and proposes to accom- plish this ^' great work" — that the aim of the Union is to have ^'immerse -printed — printed in THE Bible." I have quoted from the speeches of several dis- tinguished advocates of the movement, in which the admission is distinctly and unequivocally made, that the English word haptize is a word of generic import, having lost what they contend was its specific import, to immerse, which they say it had in the days of Elizabeth, and when our translation was made ; and they propose, as baptize has become a lying old sinner, to turn it out of the Bible, and out of the Church, and bring in immerse into its place. 252 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 3. Having tlius adduced in part wliat the leaders in this enterprise have said, as to the main design, I have proceeded to show what they have actually done, as settling the question beyond the possibility of cavil. I have quoted from the edition of the New Tes- tament published by the American and Foreign Bible Society, with the meaning of haptize and haj)tism given on '^a fly-leaf/' in a glossary, as immerse and immersion. I have also quoted from the edition of Cone and WyckoiF, with immerse, immersion, and their cognates, incorporated into the text in the place of baptize, haptism, etc. These editions were published by the American and Foreign Bible Society long before they gave up their purpose of having an immersionist ver- sion of the English Scriptures, and they were sent out among the Baptists in order to prepare them for that which was to follow in due course. I have presented a specimen of the translation into the Siamese tongue, in which haptizo, etc., are translated by words signifying immerse, immer- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 253 sio7i, etc. And the editor of the Bible Union Ke- porter approves of this translation, as in accordance with the great principle governing the movement. I have referred to the Spanish and Italian ver- sions. I will here give a specimen from the former, as published in the Bible Union Reporter for October, 1853. Here it is in the Spanish language : ^^ Mateo, cap. hi. '•11. Yo, si, sumerjo en agua en [profesion de] arrepentimiento ; pero el que viene en pos de mi, mas fuerte es que yo, cujo calzado no soi digno de Ileverale : el os sumergira, en Espiritu Santo, i en fuego.^^ Now, here, as the reader will observe, the word ^^ sumerjo, '' in Spanish, is given as the rendering of haptizo. And this word, indicating by its very form its origin from the Latin, means nothing but immerse or plunge. I repeat again, we have in these translations what the Union have actually done, as demonstrating what kind of a version we are to expect in English. It is true, as I have shown, they in so many 22 - 254 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. words deny that the design is to substitute im- merse for haptize^ and adduce the rules as merely requiring that the original be ^^ faithfully trans- lated." But we know very well what they mean by "faithful translations.'' They are such as^ at least, have immerse in the place of baptize, and this can be secured without violating the rules, as I have shown. And that it can be done in accordance with the rules in the estimation of the Union itself, is positively demonstrated by the fact that they have had such versions made, and have approved of them as in accordance with the great principle governing the Union in the work of translation; and they have published them and sent them abroad as ^^ specimens.'' II. I have next noticed some of the dishonor- able, and, as I think, unchristian, expedients which are adopted to hoodwink the public as to the main design of the movement. I will here recur to the principal of these expedients, be- fore noticed, as showing up the kind of tac- tics adopted to carry forward what its advocates style " the greatest enterprise of the age.'' IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 25o 1. I have noticed the effort to make a false impression upon the public mind by representing that all the denominations of Protestant Chris- tians are engaged in it — both in Europe and America. And I see in a late number of the ^^ Western Recorder/^ published at Louisville, Ky., that they are claiming the Roman Catholics as in favor of it. They might just as well go on and say that the whole world, ecclesiastical, political, and literary, are in favor of it — Jews, Mohammedans, and Heathens. Having loosed their moorings from the haven of honesty and candor, they might as well keep out at sea, and say any thing at all that will serve their purpose. I have shown that the Pedobaptists engaged in this enterprise, either as members of the Union or as translators, are not in any sense the representatives of the Churches to which they be- long. If they are, where and when were they appointed as such, and where is the record of it ? And if the Pedobaptist Churches are represented, why do none of them appear as officers of the 256 IMMERSION ISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. Union ? Why do not some of them appear as its advocates at their anniversaries ? Why do no Pedobaptist journals advocate the great principle of the Union ? Why are none of the Pedobap- tists employed as agents to travel through the country and advocate revision ? Let these ques- tions be answered before this statement is made any more. As to the Pedobaptists engaged as translators, (and they say a majority of their translators are of this clasSj) they admit in their own publica- tions that they are employed ^^ under written con- tract." They are only doing a literary job for the Union. They have sold themselves to the Bible Union for the time, for ^^ a 7ness of pottage," which, I have no doubt, the poor fellows needed very much. But it matters not who are the translators. Their work has to be scanned by the committee on versions of the Bible Union before it can see the light. This committee, and another, called an " ultimate committee" must be pleased with its merits in all respects. And of whom are these IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 257 committees composed ? Why, immersionists, and none but immersionists. 2. Another feature in the tactics of this ^^ greatest enterprise,'^ is the publication of cer- tain portions of the new version, which do not contain the real issue ; and they have sent these abroad as ^'specimens'' of the forthcoming com- pleted version. The portions, as the reader will recollect I have stated, do not contain bap>tizo, nor any of its derivatives, in the original; and, therefore, the translators could not come out with the main design in these portions. Why did they not, L have inquired, publish the third chapter of Matthew and the second epistle of Peter ? Why, simply, because this would have opened the eyes of the public to the main design, which they aim to avoid. They have, by this unfair course, had these '^ sp)ecimens" piiffed, and have published the commendations of a large num- ber of learned men in England and America as favorable to the enterprise as such, I will here, however, present one '^ specimen'' 22* 258 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. of the manner^ doubtless^ in wliicli many, if not all, of these c'ommendations have been secured. I quote from the New York Observer for January 3, 1856, as follows: ''The use which has been made of the names of gentlemen iu other Christian denominations, to give currency to the new version, is, in our view, worthy of specific censure, inasmuch as it lacks that Chris- tian fairness and candor which should peculiarly characterize the movement of all religious asso- ciations. As an example of the use which has been made of distinguished names, we copy the following correspondence between the Rev. E. B. Raffensperger and Dr. J. A. Alexander: "Bellefontaine, 0., Nov. 27, 1855. "Dear Sir : — To-day I dined with one of the families of my Church, in company with a cer- tain Baptist minister, who is in the employ of the 'Bible Union.' He stated, in the presence of the company, that you had given your ^ unquali- Jied api^roval of the operations of that Society.' In reply to my question, he also stated that he IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 259 is in the habit of using the influence of your name from the pulpit on the Sabbath^ while urg- ing the claims of the 'Bible Union/ Will you be kind enough to state whether this man has really any authority for making such use of the venerated name of one of my Princeton in- structors ? "Yours, respectfully, "E. B. Raffensperger. "Rev. J. A. Alexander, B.DJ' "Princeton, N. J., Dec. 5, 1855. " My dear Sir : — I have again and again contradicted the absurd and false report that I approve of the new Baptist Bible. It has grown out of a friendly expression of opinion as to the literary merit of that part of the revision executed by a minister of our own Church, the Rev. John Lillie, of New York. That opinion has no more to do with the question of a new version to re- place the common one, than my own translation of Isaiah and the Psalms, which I would not, if I could, put into the place of the authorized ver- 260 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. sion. While I look upon new translations as an important part of interpretation, I think the scheme of a new Bible to replace the old one as inexpedient and impracticable in itself, as the use of my name by its advocates, after my repeated public contradiction, is dishonest and uncliristian. For confirmation of these state- ments, I refer to the Rev. John Lillie, at the office of the ' Bible Union' itself. " Yours, very truly, " J. A. Alexander, "Rev. E. B. Baffensperger.'' And in the Observer of the 17th of the same month there is published the following from the Bev. Mr. Lillie, to whom Dr. Alexander refers in the above letter. "American Bible Union Rooms, .Jan. 8, 1856, '^ Messrs. Editors : — In your last number I observed a letter from the Rev. Dr. J. A. Alex- ander, of Princeton, in which, after briefly ex- plaining what it was that has led some, it would appear, to represent him as favorable to an enter- IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 261 prise of which he disapproves, to wit, that of the American Bible Union, he refers his correspond- ent for fuller inforraation to myself. Let this be my apology for troubling you with the following statement. " Some three years ago I printed a work of mine on the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of John and Jude. And it was in rela- tion to this that I received from Dr. Alexander, toward the close of 1852, a written expression of his opinion. In the summer of 1854, the same work was reprinted, in greatly enlarged form, and with the addition of the Book of Revelation, the whole making a volume of five times the size of its predecessor. When, there- fore, I returned from Europe in the fall of the year last mentioned, and, on the day of my landing, found in the printed abstract of the Annual Report, prepared for the annual meeting of the Society then in session, a few commenda- tory words extracted from that private letter, and which now also might be taken as an endorse- ment of the latter publication, I was, indeed, not a little chagrined. It was nearly two years since L 262 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST TPIE BIBLE. had consented that a communication, in which the brethren of the Bible Union naturally felt them- selves interested, should be copied at their rooms, but with an express understanding, as I did most assuredly suppose, that nothing of it what- ever should be published without the writer's consent first asked and obtained : though it must be confessed, on the other hand, that, in my in- quiries on the subject, the Secretary disclaims all recollection of any such restriction. However, I wrote immediately to Dr. Alexander, expressing my deep regret at what had occurred, and offer- ing to make whatever public amends was still in my power. In very kind terms he relieved me of that necessity ; and the Secretary himself then proposed, as I also informed Dr. Alexander, that in the Annual Report, which had not yet appeared, the reference of the extract to the first specimen of revision should be distinctly defined, or, if Dr. Alexander preferred, the extract should be suppressed altogether. The former alterna- tive was the one finally adopted. " I am, etc., "John Lillie." IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 263 Now, I would ask, in view of the light afforded in the above correspondence as to the manner in which Dr. Alexander's commendation of the new version was secured, what confidence can be reposed in the legitimacy of any of the numer- ous commendations they have published, and which are read and commented on by the agents of the Union throughout the length and breadth of the land, in order, if possible, to swindle the people out of their money ? Who knows but that the whole of them have been secured in the same fraudulent and dis- honest way ? 3. I have referred to the manner in which King James and the translators of the common version, and the version itself, have been abused by the friends of this movement, as a means of making way for their own one-sided, sectarian production. But I have proved from the highest authority, and Baptist authority at that, 1. That James was not legally acknowledged as king of England at the time the translation was determined upon. 2. That the motion for a new translation did not 264 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. originate witli James, nor the Episcopal party, but was made by Dr. Rainolds, a Puritan, or Presby- terian. 3. That James did not select the trans- lators : he only approved of the selection made. 4. That neither James nor the government of England ever recognized the enterprise, or ever paid one penny to defray the expenses of it. 5. That the common version did not gain the ascendency over other versions then and for many years after published, as the result of any interference of royal or governmental authorit}^, but as the result of its own intrinsic merits. As to the rules prescribed for the direction of the translators, of which there has been so much complaint, as fettering them, I have shown, 1. That the rules do not prohibit translation from the original at all, in any sense. 2. That the word baptize is not once named in the rules as one of the words to be retained. 3. That the only absolute restriction which the rules lay upon the translators is, that they shall be faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek. 4. That the translators certainly did not understand the rules IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 265 as prohibiting the translation of haptizo ; for they have positively translated it, at least in three instances : one in Heb. ix. 10; and twice in Mark vii. 4. But I have proved that the very thing which they have charged King James with doing, with- out the slightest foundation, the American Bible Union have done themselves. They have left to their translators 7io independent discretion at all. In addition to what I have adduced from their own publications to demonstrate this astounding fact, I will furnish the reader with an additional quotation from the Semi-annual Keport of the American Bible Union for 1855, as published in the Bible Union Keporter for June, 1855, which lies before me. Listen to what the Board of Managers say : "When a scholar is engaged by the Board, instructions are introduced into the contract, requiring the exact meaning of the original; and he is requested and urged to make the most thorough and faithful version possible. No ex- pense is spared to furnish him with needed books, 23 266 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. and other requisite facilities. When his loor/c is finished, the manuscript is submitted to the Board, and referred to the committee 07i versions. This committee is required to give it a careful examination, and not to recommend its printing unless its merits will justify such an expend/iturc. If this is not the case, another scholar or other scholars are employed on the same part. Some- times the work has to go through the hands of a third or fourth party before the committee feel justified in printing it. On some parts we have manuscripts from five different hands. All of these are of more or less service in the prosecution of the work ^ and ultimately will greatly aid the ultimate committee that must prepare the whole book for the press.'' Did King James or any other despot ever insti- tute such a system of surveillance over a set of translators before ? And in view of the account above given by the Union itself, what independent discretion, I ask again, do these notable and ^'■learned'' trans- lators enjoy ? IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 267 4. Another expedient which I have noticed, is the representation that other denominations have had their denominational translations, and that, consequently, there should be no complaint of the immersionists for having one. If they had appealed to the example of the Papists, the Swedenborgians, the Universalists, the Unitari- ans, and the sect of the Destructionists, to justify their measure, there would have been some appropriateness in it. For all these have versions, or rather perversions of the Holy Scriptures conforming to their faith and usages. But where is any sectarianism, for instance, in Wesley's translation of the New Testament? Where is there any in Doddridge's or Mac- knight's, unless it be in opposition to the pre- vailing opinion and practice of their own sect in regard to baptism ? And again : Did any of these learned men intimate that his version was designed to supersede the common version ? Or have any of these denominations intimated a desire that such should be the case ? or has any such thing been attempted ? Conybeare has been quoted as favorable to this 268 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. movement; because he has given, in his late trans- lation of Paul's epistles, variations from the com- mon version, though, perhaps, he never heard of the Bible Union. But we have quoted the lan- guage of him and Mr. Howson speaking of the common version as '^ unrivalled.'^ The same claim is made in reference to every learned man who has taken any exceptions to the manner in which any passage in the common version is translated. All he says is construed and published as so much said in favor of this movement, though he may have expressed in the most unequivocal manner his admiration of the common version as a whole. This remark applies to Dr. Adam Clarke, and many others. Nothing these men have said can be legiti- mately construed in favor of this movement, unless it can be shown that they have expressed themselves in favor of the main design — that is," the substitution of immerse for baptize in the common version. Have they done this ? As to what the American Bible Society have recently done, I have shown that they have made no translation at all, but merely a '• collation,'' IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. 269 fipr the purpose, mainly, of restoring our copy of tlie Bible to the edition of 1611. They havp 'made some correction of errors in orthography, punctuation, capital letters, etc. And then, again, we have asked, even if the American Bible Society have made a translation, (and they have not,) is there any change which they have made favorable to the doctrines or practice of any sect, or any class of sects ? III. I have brie% examined some of the changes proposed in the common version, and have shown, I think, very conclusively, that none of them are demanded by fidelity to the original, while many of them are an outrage upon good taste and sound biblical criticism. IV. I have finally offered a brief criticism on the portions of the new version that I have been able to secure, and have shown that whatever may be the merit of some of the changes they have made, they have violated their own prin- ciples of translation, so loudly and repeatedly announced, and have done violence to the rules of good taste and sound scholarship. 23* 270 IMMERSIONISTS AGAINST THE BIBLE. And I think tlie reflecting among the devotees of this movement will be constrained, after a while, to feel the force of the prophet's language, if the '^ specimens'' already published indicate the character of their version : " Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods ? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit ?'' Many a good, pious Baptist, (and there are such,) if this new version should prevail, will feel like Mary did when she said, " They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him/' No person deeply imbued with piety, not to say sound learning or good judgment, can ever finally give up ^^The Old- fashioned Bible'' for any such a mutilated and sjpiritless thing, apart from its narrow sectarian character. "No man, having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new ; for he saith the old is better." THE END. PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E. CHURCH. SOUTH. BIBLE READINGS FOR EVERY DAY IN THE YEAR. Specially designed for Children. 6 vols., 196 pp. eacli. Price $2.50 for the entire set. These readings go all through the Bible. The language is re- markable for its beautiful simplicity. The volumes are illustratec? by a dozen fine engravings. The set is a capital present to a child. THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL TEACHER ; or, the Catechetical Office. By Thomas 0. Summers, D.D. 18mo., pp. 144. Price 30 cts. This work discusses the most interesting questions connected with the Catechetical System — the Teacher's Qualifications, Diffl culties, and Encouragements. It exhibits the obligations of pastors and teachers to the children of the Church, and shows how the) may be discharged. HOME TRUTHS. By the Rev. J. C. Ryle, B. A. 18mo. pp. 324. Price 40 cts. This book is full of plain, pointed observations, strikingly adapted to elicit serious thought, and to induce holy living. LONDON IN THE OLDEN TIME; or, Sketches of the English Metropolis, from its Origin to the End of the Sixteenth Century. Price 30 cts. LONDON IN MODERN TIMES; or. Sketches of the great Metropolis during the last two Centuries. Price 30 cts. These are life-like "Sketches" — a couple of sterling volumes The engravings of the Crystal Palace and London Bridge are elegant FIFTY BEAUTIFUL BALLADS. Price 35 cts. FIFTY FINE POEMS. Price 85 cts. A couple of elegant volumes, containing some of the cream ol English poetry. They are adorned with numerous embellishmentd CEREMONIES OF MODERN JUDAISM. By Herman Baer. With an Introduction hy Thomas 0. Summers Price 40 cts. The author — an educated Israelite, though now a Christian — u tamiliarly acquainted with the ceremonies of modern Judaism : ho has described them with accuracy. Some elegant engravings em- bellish the interesting volume. THE CHRISTIAN FATHER'S PRESENT TO HIS CHIL- DREN. By J. A. James. Price 50 cts. This work is written in a graceful style, and is full of excellent suggestions, cautions, and counsels. A few editorial notes and cor- rections have been made wliere the author's theological views ajv peared to be defective, and inconsistent with the general strain of the volume, PLANTS AND TREES OF SCRIPTURE. Price 40 cts. In revising this work, the editor has arranged the subjects in alphabetical order, and illustrated the letter-press by a great many elegant engravings, executed expressly for this edition. GLIMPSES OF THE DARK AGES. Price 35 cts. THE WORLD OF WATERS. By Fanny Osborne. With illustrations. Two vols. 18mo., pp. 186, 224. Price 70 cts. A couple of fascinating and instructive volumes. The tales and narratives beguile, like sailors' yarns, the voyage over the world of waters. The descriptions and anecdotes blend the charm of romance with the credibility of truth. The illustrations are superb. MEMOIR OF JOHN HTJSS. Price 25 cts. ANCIENT BRITISH CHURCH. Price 30 cts. FAMILY GOVERNMENT. By Bishop Andrew. Price 30 cts. BEREAVED PARENTS CONSOLED. By the Rev. John Thornton. Carefully revised : with an Introduction and Selection of Lyrics for the Bereaved. By T. 0. Summers, D.D. 18mo., pp. 144. Price, full gilt, 40 cts. ; in extra binding, 75 cts. ; gilt backs, 30 cts.- 24mo., pp. 144. Price, in muslin, 25 cts. This is an elegant volume. Its contents are adapted to administer comfort to the Jacobs and Kachels who weep for their children because they are not. They will scarcely " refuse to be comforted" by th? consolatory topics so judiciously presented in this excellent work. THE STEAM ENGINE. Edited by Thomas 0. Summers, D. D. 18mo., pp. 188. Price 30 cts. A capital companion in a steamboat or car.