Standing thus with light and uncertain tread upon both grounds, he is compelled to make the Bible give an uncertain sound and while professing to fix the sense with critical accuracy, he actually proposes to make it read, in both passages, with an ALIAS. After the word "baptize” (wash) in Mark vii. 4 (which he would read "immerse, or bathe"), he says, "The word hands may be considered as understood, or the word themselves may be understood." There is an "absence of clear satisfying proof" that they immersed themselves; and he is not certain that they simply immersed their hands. So he would split the difference by making the Bible read both ways, putting in an ALIAS. In the same manner, in Luke xi. 38, he proposes the introduction of the same double reading for one single word. “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner: that he had not first IMMERSED; that is, himself, or his hands.”

I have some fault to find with Professor Ripley's criticism, on the score of grammatical accuracy; for this, too, it appears to me, he has sacrificed on the altar of exclusive immersion.

Says Professor Ripley, "The verb (BaлTIσovTα) is in the middle voice; and as there is no object expressed after it, it would be lawful, in order to express the Greek, to employ, as Professor Stuart has, the word themselves as being contained in the verb itself." This is correct, save that instead of simply being lawful to do as Professor Stuart has done, it is indispensable to do so, unless you can translate it by an English word, which, like the Greek Middle voice of a transitive verb, has a reflexive sense, implying that the agent is himself both the subject and the object of the verb. Thus, if we

say, "Except they wash"-the meaning is except they wash themselves: or if we say, "Except they bathe”—the object of the bathing is still themselves. But in what follows, it appears to me that Professor Ripley is most palpably and indefensibly in the wrong. He says, "As the verb viporta (wash), in the former part of the passage, has, in the middle voice, an object (zɛigas-hands) after it, it is certainly justifiable to maintain, that the verb in the latter part of the passage (Partioviα) has the same word understood after it for its objeet."

Now the middle voice does indeed admit an object after it, as in the case of viyorταi. It would therefore have been justifiable for the writer to have placed an object after ẞantiσwvrai,-had his meaning allowed it. But when the writer omits the object in such a case, and the meaning of the word is still reflexive, the subject of the verb is its implied object. When the writer in such a case omits to express another object, we pervert his meaning, if we understand or supply an object other than the one implied in the very form of the verb,-which makes its object identical with its agent. Thus Professor Stuart has most grammatically read the word fantio@vtαi (Baptisontai)" they wash themselves." And it certainly is not "justifiable;"-it is a flagrant violation of the rules of grammar, to supply, as Professor Ripley has done, the word hands instead of themselves.

In Luke xi. 38, the word is in the passive voice. It not only has not the word "hands" after it, but does not admit the word to be supplied as its object.* The

* Transmontanus says on this," Mr. Hall makes a display of his ̈usual grammatical skill and accuracy. Had he consulted some grammar, he would have learned that there is a well-known Greek

grammatical rendering is," that he had not been baptized." The passage in Mark vii. 4 shows that, under such circumstances, people baptized themselves (they did it for themselves; they were not baptized by others). Hence, it is doing justice to the meaning, to say, without being tied down to grammatical nicety," that he had not first washed," or "that he had not first washed himself." This does not change the object concerning which the baptism is affirmed. But to supply the word hands, as Professor Ripley proposes, is to take an unwarrantable license. It does violence to the grammatical construction, and changes the object of the affirmation. It is quite as gross a violation of grammatical usage, as though the passage were made to read in English, "That he had not first been baptized his hands."* I will only add, that the word hands is not in this passage, or near it. The word construction, generally parsed as a case of synecdoche, in which the passive has an accusative after it." Mr. Hall certainly knew that very well; and, for that very reason, was careful to say that ⚫ it does not admit the word to be supplied as its object."

He knew very well, too, that where the accusative is put, by synecdoche, after the passive voice, it limits the action of the vert to the part expressed by that accusative. If the writer means so to limit his meaning, he always supplies the accusative; if he does not, he who adds that accusative alters the meaning of the writer. The license is altogether unwarrantable. In the present case, it is a flagrant alteration of, and addition to, the word of God.

* Mr. Carson himself, on grammatical grounds, rejects the gloss of those who would supply the word hands in this passage and in Mark vii. 4. He says, p. 68, “When no part is mentioned or excepted, the whole body is always meant." Transmontanus has several ill-natured flings, p. 101, &c., about "a new grammar of the Greek language." There is no necessity for a new grammar; ne only needs a little more careful study of some old one.

baptize used alone and simply, as it is here used by Luke, has no inherent quality by which it should be thought to be limited in the action which it expresses to the hands alone. The word "hands" is imported through the channel of commentary; and commentary elaborated, as I think I have shown, by a process of bad criticism.

BAPTIST MISSIONARY TRANSLATIONS.

Our Baptist brethren claim that " to them is committed the sole guardianship of pure and faithful translations of the oracles of God into the languages of the earth."* I should like to know how their foreign translations of these two passages, Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, read. Do they make the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse themselves as often as they come from the market? or do they make them simply dip their hands? Which of these two acts do our Baptist brethren-" the sole guardians of pure and faithful translations"-teach the heathen is the baptism which the Holy Ghost speaks of in Mark vii. 4? Do they teach the heathen to believe that the Pharisee marvelled that the Saviour had not immersed himself before dinner; or that he had not dipped his hands before dinner? Methinks the "guardians of pure and faithful translations" should agree in

* American and Foreign Bible Society Report, 1840, p. 79.

↑ Says Professor Eaton, in his speech before the Baptist Bible Society at their anniversary (Report of American and Foreign Bible Society, p. 79), " Never, sir, was there a chord struck that vibrated simultaneously through so many BAPTIST hearts, from one extremity of the land to the other, as when it was announced that the heathen world must look to THEM ALONE for an unveiled view of the glories of the gospel of Christ." "A deep conviction seized the minds of almost the whole body, that they were DIVINELV AND PECU

this matter.

Infallibility should not be divided; and where it is so, the division shows that neither party is infallible. The truth may lie on neither side.

With these coadjutors; Campbell and Woolsey on my right hand, and Carson and Judd on my left; I should like to go and knock at the door of the Baptist Foreign Missionary establishments, and inquire—Brethren, how do you translate the word of God? If they answer— We make the Bible say that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse themselves as often as they come from the market, then Campbell and Woolsey shall reply :— Brethren, this is not right, you make the word of God speak falsehood. If the missionaries answer, we make the Bible say that the Pharisees and all the Jews dip their hands simply, when they come from the market; then the brethren on my left shall reply, Carson and Judd shall make answer ;-" Brethren, the word of God says that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse themselves, before eating, as often as they come from the market;" and you have given no faithful translation. You have corrupted the word of God. You have "corrected and altered the diction of the Holy Ghost." From the sword of the brethren-either of those on my right hand or of those on my left, the missionary translators cannot escape. And now having proved the missionary translation unfaithful-the brethren on my right and the

LIARLY SET for the defence and dissemination of the gospel, as delivered to men by its Heavenly Author. A new zeal in their Master's cause, and unwonted kindlings of fraternal love glowed in their hearts; and an attracting and concentrating movement, reaching to the utmost extremity of the mass, began, and has been going on and increasing in power ever since."