without beginning to practise upon its tendencies, for some time afterwards. But since it has been fully preached and practised upon, it has proved itself to be all divine." This statement or confession, is deemed to be quite important in more respects than one, in relation to the present discussion, and the reader is requested so to notice it, that he may not only fully comprehend its bearing, but that it may without difficulty be referred to when occasion shall require. At present, it is only necessary farther to remark, that a comparison of the date of Mr. C.'s controversy with Mr. M'Calla, with that of the preface to his first edition of the new version, will establish what has been advanced concerning the coincidence of the adoption of the new-fangled doctrine nick-named "the ancient gospel," and the preparation of the patched version, evidently, as it would seem, with a view to support it.

But Mr. C. pleads the authority of two of his "Presbyterian Doctors," in justification of this alteration of the old version. "Drs. Campbell and M'Knight, have not only occasionally translated BAPTISMOS and BAPTISMA, by the word immersion, but have contended in their notes that such is its [their] meaning."*

What judgment will the reader form, not merely of the candor, but of the veracity of Mr. C., when he is informed, that after a careful examination of every passage in the epistles, (the books of the New Testament translated by Dr. M'Knight,) there is not found one instance of a translation of either of the Greek words contained in the foregoing quotation, by the word immersion, nor one instance in which the Greek verb BAPTIZO, or any of its variations, is translated by the word immerse.

The only ground which the Bishop seems to have had for the above assertion, so far as it relates to the translation by Dr. M'Knight, of the words BAPTISMOS and BAPTISMA, by the word immersion, is his commentary upon Cor. 15:29. Both the translation and commentary are

* See app. to the new version. No. 4.

here given, that the reader may see upon what slender grounds Mr. C. can make a round assertion, when it suits his purpose. The translation reads thus: "Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized (UPER TON NEKRON, Supply ANASTASEOS,) for the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? and why are they baptized (UPER TON NEKRON,) for the resurrection of the dead?" The commentary upon this verse is as follows: “I told you, ver. 22, That by Christ all shall be made alive and ver. 25,26, That he must reign till death, the last enemy, is destroyed by the resurrection, otherwise what shall they do to repair their loss, who are immersed in sufferings for testifying the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? And what inducement can they have to suffer death for believing the resurrection of the dead?" Further remarks upon this part of the Bishop's assertion, or plea in justification of his conduct, are deemed unnecessary. A discerning public cannot but see that here is a clear development of a part of that system of deception which he has, by means of his new version, practised upon the public. Nor is that part of his assertion, which relates to the translation of Dr. George Campbell, less calculated to deceive, than that which has already been considered, notwsthstanding it is literally true, that he has "in some instances," translated the Greek words above mentioned, by the word immersion. This part of the Bishop's assertion, is like the testimony of a witness who tells the truth, but not the whole truth. The deception practised by this part of the assertion consists in this, that it is evidently designed to make the impression upon the minds of the readers, that Dr. George C. has occasionally translated the words alluded to, by the word immersion, when they were used by the sacred writers, literally to denote the ordinance of baptism. Now such is not the fact-it is only when they are used figuratively, as where our Saviour declares, (Luke 12:50,) "I have a baptism to be baptized with," that Dr. George C. translates the Greek words BAPTISMOS OF BAPTISMA, by the word immersion, or the Greek

verb of a kindred meaning, by the English verb immerse. I wish it to be distinctly understood, that it is not intended here, or in any part of this work, to discuss the ques tion, what is the true or most scriptural mode of baptism? This is a family dispute between the evangelical pœdo baptists and anti-podo baptists, which I do not wish to agitate. The object at present, as before stated, is to expose the deception practised by him, in giving his own views in his new version, under the imposing authority of other names. And if in quoting from the dissertations of Dr. George Campbell, vol. 2, p. 23, he had not given in his App. (No. 4,) to the new version, a garbled extract, his readers must have discovered, that it is a wilful misrepresentation of the views of the author of the transla tion of the gospels, to plead him as an authority for translating the words BAPTISMOS and BAPTISMA, by the word immersion, in any instance where either of them is used by any of the sacred writers to denote literally the ordinance of baptism. In addition to, and immediately fol lowing that part of the dissertation quoted by the Bishop, it is added, "But we are not," that is, we are not now, at liberty to make a choice of the word immersion, in preference to baptism. "The latter term, (i. e. baptism, continues Dr. George C.,) has been introduced, and has obtained the universal suffrage; and though to us, not so expressive of the action, yet, as it contains nothing false, or unsuitable to the primitive idea, it has acquired a right by prescription, and consequently is entitled to the preference." This part of the dissertation, though intimately connected with the subject of which the Bishop was treating, he did not see proper to quote, although he could not but have seen that by withholding it from his readers, he was doing injustice to Dr. George C., and at the same time deceiving them with regard to what were his views in relation to the propriety of translating the Greek words before mentioned, by the word immersion, instead of the word baptism.

If any should inquire why Dr. George C. translates the Greek words alluded to, when used figuratively, by

66

the word immersion, they are referred to the reason assigned by himself, vol. 4, p. 128, and quoted by Mr. C., in his app. No. 4, already referred to. Whether his opinion be correct or incorrect, it is not intended now to inquire. The primitive signification, (says Dr. C.,) of BAPTISMA, is immersion; of BAPTIZEIN, to immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. The noun ought never to be rendered baptism, nor the verb to baptize, but when employed in relation to a religious ceremony." The only part then of the Bishop's assertion, relating to the authority of two of his Presbyterian Doctors, is that which alleges that they have contended that the meaning of the Greek words, so frequently alluded to, is immersion. Had he contented himself with making the most of their authority, in relation to the point of the true meaning of the original words, (as he certainly had a right to do,) he would certainly have had a better, or at least, a more plausible claim, to an honesty of purpose, than can by any ingenuity be urged under existing circumstances.

It cannot be expected that all the rottenness of the new version, should be exposed in a publication such as this, but there is one other part of the system of deception practised by its author, which must yet be noticed. What is here alluded to, is the fact that in very numerous instances, Mr. C. has foisted into the text, the translation by others, of many important passages, and to the manifest perversion of the truth of God, instead of the rendering of the three translators, from the result of whose labors, it purports to be a compilation. Although this was brought out fully to view, and distinctly prosented for the consideration of the Bishop, as well as the audience, upon the occasion of the debate, and notwithstanding it evidently made no slight impression upon the minds of a majority of the numerous assembly then present, his ingenuity did not seem to furnish him with any apology or justification, for this part of his procedure. Indeed, it would seem to have been impossible for him to have given any other explanation of the motives by which he was actuated, than that contained in the

obscure intimation which he gives his readers of the fact, in his preface. "All (says Mr. C.) that we can be praised or blamed for, is this one circumstance, that we have given the most conspicuous place, (i. e. in the text,) to that version which appeared to deserve it."* True And whilst this is no doubt the very thing, or at least one of the many things, for which the schismatics, heretics, Arians and freethinkers, of our country, laud the new version, it is, in the view, not only of all profess ing evangelical Christians, but also of the great mass of the population of our country who reverence divine truth, one of the things for which he deserves reprehension. Mr. C. indeed endeavors to shield himself, by adding to what has been quoted above, " But as the reader will have both (versions) we have not judged for him, but left him to judge for himself."

title

If so, why did he not give his readers the versions of others (if he thought there must needs be a collation of different translations) in his notes or appendices instead of foisting them into the text, to the falsification of his page and the deception of all that numerous class of his readers, who, he must have been well aware, would look no further than the text. Nor is this all. If he did not wish to judge for his readers, why did he not give them some information concerning these other translators, whose renderings of important passages he had introduced into the text. Of the "Presbyterian Doctors," he speaks much, but concerning the other translators, whose versions he frequently prefers, he is silent-as the grave. These remarks are made especially in allusion to one of his Extra translators, (Thompson,) of whose labors he has made the more frequent and liberal use. Whatever may have been his professed or private sentiments, or his supposed qualifications as a translator, it must be evident to every one that carefully examines interpolations from his renderings that are found in the new version, that Thompson's translation of the Bible is calculated, if not

See the preface to the new version, page 13.