3

themselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ; and thus believers' baptism like every other act of acceptable service, is the result of instruction, conviction, and faith, in the truth and importance of christianity, and is a reasonable service, which can only be performed by rational beings.

3. This view of the subject is equally calculated to mark the relative situation which baptism occupies in the christian scheme. If it be a putting on Christ as the means of professing christianity, or of engaging in the service of Christ, then the design of the institution places it at the commencement of a christian profession, being the appointed means of making such a profession and of the believer making a personal and visible surrender of himself as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

THOUGHTS ON COMMUNION.

THE gospel contains invitations addressed to men as sinners, whereby they are invited to come and believe in Jesus, for the salvation of the soul, moral precepts addressed to men as rational, and accountable creatures, which are universally binding upon all ranks of men and positive institutions which are established for believers, and can only be observed by them in a scriptural manner. Hence I apprehend that the Pado-baptist has no divine authority for separating faith from baptism, that the Open Communionist has no authority for separating baptism from the Lord's Supper; and that the Roman Catholic has no authority for separating the bread from the wine, at the table of the Lord, in commemorating the death of Jesus. The commission of Jesus to baptize believers only proves the first; the practice of the apostolic churches in receiving none but baptized believers, proves the next; and the institution of the Lord's Supper, by administering both bread and wine, proves the last. If the order of the Lord's supper, at its institution, does not prove that the bread and wine are both requisite, and that the bread is necessary to go before the wine, then the order of baptism in the communion does not prove that faith is requisite for baptism, and must go before it. But as all Pædo-baptists, when arguing with Catholics, maintain

that the order must be observed in the Lord's supper, so Baptists, when arguing with Pædo-baptists, maintain that the order must be oberved in the commission of baptism.

A person may be qualified to enter as a member into a particular society, but after all he may be refused for want of a proper title; as a man who is in the possession of health may be qualified to take up arms, to fight with her majesty's army for the defence of his country, but he is not entitled to do so until he puts on her uniform, and takes the oath of allegiance. Unbaptized believers may not be improper subjects to set at the Lord's table, but as they have not been "baptized into Christ," they have not properly "put on Christ," and their observance of the Lord's supper is in an unscriptural manner. Many of the ancient Israelites had "prepared their heart" to seek God, in order that they might "eat the passover" aright, but, as they neglected being "cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary," they had eaten the passover in an irregular manner, and Hezekiah prayed the Lord to pardon their sin, because they had eaten “otherwise than it was written;" consequently he could not intend that such a disorderly practice should be repeated again (2 Ch. xxx. 17, 18, 19.)

But may not the candidate judge of his own qualifications for church communion, instead of the church? This, indeed, is a question that is generally stated, but it appears to be contrary to the first principles of all society, whether civil or religious, to let the candidate be the exclusive judge of his own qualifications, and so long as the pædo-baptist and open communion churches claim the privilege and right of judging whether the candidate who offers himself for communion, is qualified to unite in church fellowship with them, it is strange that they should charge the Baptist with "judging his brother," seeing that he only does the same thing as themselves. When Pædo-baptists receive Christians into church fellowship, they always receive them to the ordinances as understood and practised by themselves, and we only do the same; they never alter the order of their churches to meet the wishes of any weak brother, whether he is an Episcopalian, Baptist, or any one else. I knew a young man who made an application to join an Independent church in Ireland, but he said that he felt persuaded believers baptism by immersion

VOL. I.-NO. III.

G

was right. In consequence of this, many of the members objected to his admission, saying that his assertion had nullified their baptism; it was then put to the vote whether he should be received or not, and he only had a small majority on his side. If the prejudices of a pious Roman Catholic would permit him to request an Independent church to receive him to the Lord's supper, they would, as we have been often told, receive him, but receive him to what? Would they provide him a wafer, and excuse him from drinking of the cup? No; they would say we are willing to receive you to the Lord's supper in the way that we understand and practice it ourselves; but we cannot divide and separate the bread from the wine, without dispensing with an essential part of the institution. Such, in substance, is our answer to a pious Pædo-baptist. We are willing to receive you to the ordinances of Jesus Christ, as we understand and practice them ourselves; but we cannot dispense with baptism without relinquishing an institution of Jesus Christ.-Fuller, vol. vi., page 310.

The subject of communion is not one of charity or forbearance, but of truth, and in all our inquiries we must "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." The question is not about what any man may think, but what Jesus Christ has commanded. The christians of old did not talk about utility or expedience, or even dispute about the institutions of Jesus, but obeyed them. The charity of some persons, however, is of so lax a nature in the present day, as to lead us to ask with Joshua, are you for us, or for our adversaries?

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Primitive Church Magazine. DEAR SIR.-Allow me to call the attention of your readers to an important object, one to which passing events seem to be conducting us,-I mean the effecting of a revised translation of the holy scriptures into our own language. We hear much nowa-days of the translation of the word of God into all the languages of the earth; and it is not an unfrequent thing, I believe, for our missionaries to produce new translations, which, being an improvement upon others in the same tongue, supersede them. Why, then, may we not have a new, or, as I should prefer denominating it, a revised English translation, freed from

those errors and obscurities which now be-cloud it, and, in many instances, prevent the bright shining of the Sun of Righteousness.

I am fully aware that the bare mention of such a thing will fill some minds with fear and consternation. But why should it? If there are obscurities and errors in the present authorized version, as it is termed, why should we preserve them with superstitious reverence, or tremble with a superstitious fear to remove them? Suppose there were but one case of obscurity or error in the whole Bible, I maintain that it would be our duty as christians to use our influence for its removal. The Bible is God's sacred deposit to his church and people, and they are bound to preserve it, pure and uncorrupt. If, therefore, in the progress of time, or in the process of translation, or otherwise, it has contracted ought of rust or impurity, it is the bounden duty of the church to clear it therefrom. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, yea, every word of God is pure, and I hold that the toleration of one mistranslated passage or word, would be acting unfaithfully as the conservators of God's truth. It is not my intention to say an unnecessary word against our present version, executed under the authority and direction of king James. It is, doubtless, a noble work, executed by many able hands, and built up with much learning, wisdom, and deliberation. Contemplated as a whole, it is a fine and faithful expression of the meaning and design of the original. But, whilst the full measure of praise is conceded, let it not be forgotten that, so far as the translation is concerned, it is a work of man, and that, like his very best doings, it is attended with imperfections. This is acknowledged by Thomas Hartwell Horne, after he has produced a large number of the highest testimonies in its favour. "Notwithstanding," says he, "these decisive testimonies to the superior excellency of our authorised version, it is readily admitted that it is not immaculate, and that a complete correction of it is an object of desire to the friends of religion," &c.* For instance, one of the rules king James prescribed for the translators was; rule III. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated congregation, &c., to which many other terms, as baptize, easter, bishop, &c. might be added. Some passages in the New Testament, and more in the Old, are plainly mis-translated. * Horne's Introduction, &c. Part I. c, viii, s. 3.

Some expressions are needlessly offensive to the taste and ear, and others are grown obsolete; thereby obscuring the sense of a verse, or of an entire paragraph. What sound reason can be given why these defects and errors should not be remedied in a revised translation of the scriptures into English?

It may be objected to this proceeding that it will tend to produce a variety of translations, and thus shake the faith of the weak christian, and cause the enemy to blaspheme. A little consideration, however, will shew this objection to be invalid. The causes of a various translation of the same passage may be two: 1. The various readings which are to be found in the original manuscripts and editions of the holy scriptures, from which the translations may be made; and, 2. The peculiar taste, predilections, and views of the translators themselves. With regard to the former, Dr. Bentley says: "The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them." Upon which Mr. Horne remarks: “It is, therefore, a very ungrounded fear, that the number of various readings, particularly of the New Testament, may diminish the certainty of the christian religion.”*

With regard to the second point, I hold that the word of God is his free boon to every man; and that human authority has no right to interfere in the matter, either of translating, printing, or propagating the scriptures. Suppose that any man, or any body of men, should put forth a corrupt and unfaithful translation, designed to extend party views, rather than to convey the mind of the Spirit. An appeal to the originals would soon overwhelm them with defeat and disgrace. It may be safely affirmed, that, in the present day, no translation would succeed with the public, which had not the essential qualities of competency and fidelity, and that were twenty to arise to-morrow, it might safely be left to the piety and wisdom of the church to choose that which possessed the greatest excellences.

In a word, I believe that those who are sincerely anxious for the advancement of “the truth,” have nothing to lose, and every thing to gain from a revised English translation of the scriptures. I am, dear Sir, your well-wisher, OMICRON. * Introduction. Part I. c. viii.