not with being sorry linguists or theologians ;-for this would be quite fair and scholar-like-but with being dishonest men, who know perfectly well in their consciences that they are tampering with the word of God, in writing baptism instead of immersion.

As for Mr. Hinton's critique on the word, our former correspondent (we know not who he was) laid no stress upon the meaning of that particle. He merely asked whether the Baptists "would change the word baptize, in every case, for immerse ;" and he gave as instances two passages where the English version reads, "With the Holy Ghost." Whether "with" is better than “in " was no part of his inquiry; he did not allude to the distinction; but, as Mr. Hinton remarks upon it, we take the liberty of saying that the employment of the word does not in the slightest degree indicate that immersion is intended. Euripides says, E› Beλe #λxyes, “ struck with (not in) a dart ;" and St. Matthew, who writes, chap. iii. 11, “I baptize you ε udati; (which our translators render "with water,") says also, vii. 6, " trample you with («») their feet ;" and ix. 33, "He casteth out devils through (or by, or by means of,,) the prince of the devils." Numerous other passages might be quoted; for has at least twenty shades of meaning.

66

Mr. Hinton hesitates to say whether the Baptists demand that the English authorized version shall be altered; but surely it ought to be, if, as they say, it is "sectarian" and "anti-baptist," or merely the Bible of " the sect of Pædo-baptists," as they affrontingly style the Church of Christ throughout the world, from the days of the Apostles to the present hour. More especially ought it to be altered, if the only reason for tolerating it is, as Mr. Hinton says, that the word "baptize" is so Anglicised, as to be sufficient for his purpose; for assuredly to the popular ear that word does not convey the idea of immersion. The Anabaptists are acting very unfairly and inconsistently, but very astutely, about their Oriental translations. Why do they not come forward at the Bible Society committee, and demand that the word baptize shall be expurged in all English Bibles circulated by the Society, and the word immerse inserted in its place? If they cannot in conscience use the untranslated word in India, why do they not attack it at home? But they wish to insert the sharp edge of their wedge; and to procure the admission of a principle, which they may afterwards apply in all other cases; for if the Bible Society, which reckons among its members Christians of every name, is to succumb to the Anabaptists in India, there is no reason why it should not do so everywhere else, as the Religious Tract Society does. By expelling infant baptism from the Tract Society's tracts, and inserting immersion in the Bible Society's bibles, they would wield a lever which might shake all Christendom. The Bible Society has wisely recommended the course of adopting the untranslated word in new versions; justly remarking, that this "leaves the matter without prejudice to any; while the adoption of a contrary course would, at least, wear the appearance of a disposition to favour the views of one body of Christians, at the expense of those of others." Mr. Hinton, however, cannot, he says, see how an unwillingness "to favour the views of one body of Christians at the expense of those of others," could have dictated a refusal to make a grant "for the purpose of providing a supply of Testaments for the members of Baptist churches." Mr. Hinton's optical powers must be very indifferent; for most other men would see this at a glance. Suppose that the "Unitarians' demanded a grant for their "Improved Version," solely "for the members of Unitarian churches; " would Mr. Hinton not think this a partial proceeding? The cases differ widely in all other respects--and we mean no offence by the illustration--but they agree in this, that the members of the Bible Society would

be patronising what they consider a partial version. Mr. Hinton just takes for granted what is the very question, that it is the right, and the only right, version; but unless the Bible Society are satisfied with it, they would do wrong to print it only and avowedly for the use of one sect. The fair-judging portion of the Baptists concur with the Bible Society as to the justice and propriety of this course; for which they are accused of "going over to the enemy's camp; "-we quote the words of the Baptist "Christian Herald," published in the United States, where the contest makes more noise than in England. Do then the "Baptists "account the Christian church throughout the world "an enemy's camp?

The translators of our authorized version are charged with suppressing the word of God to please "a half-reformed king at the head of a national church." The gross injustice of this accusation is manifested in their remarks in the preface to their translation, where they allude to this very word. "We have," say they, "on the one side, avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other; as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of church; as also, on the other, we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists in their azymes, tunic, rational, holocausts, &c." Surely this was a wise course; and as to the particular word baptism, there are many reasons, besides the disputed meaning of the original, why the nomenclature of the universal Church, the nomenclature of the ancient Fathers adopted from the original text, should be used in new versions. The language of the converts in countries where the Gospel is introduced in modern times, will naturally follow the version of the Holy Scriptures in their tongue; and would it not be more seemly that all should say, " We are going to the baptism," (whatever may be the mode of administration adopted in each particular church,) than that at one missionary station they should say, "We are going to the immersion; at another," to the washing;" at another," to the affusion," and so forth? The "Baptist" (so called) could have no reason to complain of this, but upon the bigoted notion that there is no valid baptism but according to his own narrow views of subject and mode; and we see not why all Christendom is to succumb to them.

LETTER FROM DR. J. P. SMITH;—WITH REMARKS
IN REPLY.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN the Christian Observer for the present month, page 838, are these words: "We have again and again, but in vain, asked Dr. Smith [and other persons mentioned,] to shew us why we are nationally to recognize the Christian's Sunday any more than the Jews' Saturday." I am ignorant of having, at any time, been honoured by your pro posing this question to me, either privately or publicly but I am willing to obey your call, if you will first assure me that my endeavour will not be thrown away. I would not be a captious complainer, nor do I desire to invade the rights of an Editor; but as a respectful letter of mine, upon the Solemnization of Marriage (whose object was to set forth matters of fact deeply touching moral character, and which had been grievously misapprehended by writers in the Observer,) was declined, some months ago, I trust that it is not unreasonable to ask this previous condition. I could not answer your impor

tant question in a few lines, and time is too precious to admit of a large portion of it being hazarded upon a precarious issue.

The Violation of the LORD'S-DAY I consider to be a crime against GOD and man; the sin of pre-eminent mischief, that which, above every other, is the fruitful hot-bed of immorality, profligacy, infidelity, and almost all forms of wickedness, personal and social.

To counteract that gigantic sin, all the means which reason and Scripture warrant, ought to be strenuously put into action. But, what those means are, and how they can be applied, so as to avoid the being involved in other serious evils, are, I acknowledge, problems, to solve which appears not very easy.

Homerton, December 7, 1838.

J. PYE SMITH.

We shall be happy to hear from Dr. Smith; only let us perfectly understand the question at issue, for it were superfluous to spend one single line upon what is acknowledged in common. We had been referring to the new Religious Equality Society, as it is absurdly called; and were lamenting the grievous impediments placed in the way of Christian legislation, by the dogmas so pertinaciously inculcated of late by Evangelical Dissenters, in common with infidels and others whose touch is pollution. We spoke of the apprehended opening of the London post-office on the Lord's-day, as a legitimate fruit of such dogmas ; and it is notorious, that while the members of the Church of England, and the Wesleyan Methodists, have been for several years endeavouring to render more efficient our old excellent laws for the public observance of the Sabbath, the Evangelical Dissenters have so puzzled the question in popular apprehension, with their agitationings about "civil and religious liberty and equality"—as if there were the slightest danger of their being infringed!—that it has come to be considered "persecution" to prevent a man's opening his shop on Sunday, unless solely as a civil regulation, without any regard to the day being the Sabbath of the Lord; on which ground the public observance is virtually given up; for if legislatures have nothing to do with religion in their corporate capacity, there is not-we repeat it-any reason, so far as principle, and not mere majority, is concerned, why they should not adopt the Jew's Sabbath instead of the Christian's, or the French revolutionary Decade instead of either. The evangelical Dissenters-though in general honourably distinguished as strict observers of the Lord's-day-desecrated it in the matter of the petitions against church-rates, with a view to overturn the National Establishment; even such pious, moderate, and amiable men as Dr. Burder, being so carried away with the torrent as to cause the parchments to lie outspread in their vestries on the Lord's-day for signature, and to have their worship interrupted by their clerks' making an announcement to that effect, followed up by discourses from the pulpit upon the voluntray principle, and the sin and evil of National Establishments; but where have been their shoals of petitions to the legislature for the honour of God's Sabbaths? and is it not notorious, that when they are asked to render aid in this holy cause, instead of promptly doing so, they say with Dr. Smith that it is a difficult problem; for that it is not easy to see where a legislature is to end, if once it begin to appeal to religious, as distinct from merely civil, considerations? The difficulty, we contend, is not only great, but insuperable, to those who are not prepared to acknowledge that a legislature professing to be Christian, is bound to promote the worship of God, and the spiritual instruction of the people. We do not refer to this or that particular measure; it is therefore no answer to say that Sir Andrew Agnew, or any body else, went too far. We speak only of the principle; the " means "is quite another matter.

The question was directly forced upon us, by the evidence before the House of Commons upon which the apprehended post-office desecration is founded. We will quote only one short specimen. Lord Ashburton is asked.

Conceiving your Lordship to be eminently qualified to give an opinion, as it affects the commercial interests as well as the social interests of the country, I beg to inquire of your Lordship what you think of the non-delivery of letters on Sundays in London, and their not being despatched from London on Sunday, whether this is productive of inconvenience or injury to the mercantile or other interest? Answer: Looking at it as a mere question of public commercial interest, the loss of one day out of seven is evidently a loss; there are higher considerations which would with me always weigh, higher religious and moral considerations, which would make me very reluctant to see business promoted by the sacrifice of the sanctity of the Sabbath; but if you set all religious and moral considerations out of the question, no doubt in every branch a shopkeeper would be glad to keep his shop open, and the manufacturer his manufactory going; if you put it upon the mere question of public interest, any reservation of the seventh day, and any abstraction from the business of life, is a loss; it must be defended upon higher considerations and for higher purposes undoubtedly."

Now his Lordship was quite wrong in supposing that even putting religious considerations out of the question, the Sunday delivery of letters would be a civil benefit. This part of his evidence has been amply confuted by the remonstrative memorials of the London bankers, the Stock Exchange, and numerous other secular bodies; and by the general outburst of alarm and indignation at the very mention of such a proposal. It were therefore quite superfluous for Dr. Smith to argue this question; or even the higher one, upon which there is no difference between pious Churchmen and Dissenters, that in keeping the commandments of Ged there is great reward. But Lord Ashburton's reply shews, that if the religious question be given up there is nothing solid to fall back upon; for there is always an opening for the argument that it would be a public benefit; and should this notion gain ground on the one hand, and the religious question, which Dissenters say nations are not to meddle with in their corporate capacity, be discarded from the public councils on the other, there remains nothing to prevent the desecration. If an infidel philosopher should propose in parliament to abolish all national recognition of the Lord's-day, as a mischievous interference with business and pleasure, what argument could Dr. Smith, speaking publicly as a legislator, bring forward in reply, which an infidel might not urge as much as the most godly senator?

In our remarks last month, to which Dr. Smith proposes to reply, we were referring back to a discussion in our volume for 1837, pages 852-854, in which we expressed our opinion, that upon the principles urged by Evangelical Dissenters, the Post-Office, and other public offices, as well as museums, and various other places of public resort, might be thrown open, if such measures should be considered civilly expedient; for though individuals ought to fear God, yet nations," in their corporate capacity," (Mr. Burnett of Camberwell's phrase) are to consider only men's rights as citizens; and that to make public provision for their spiritual wants is utterly unlawful. In reply to some remarks upon Sunday drilling, which had occurred in our review of Mr. Adam's life, an Evangelical Dissenter undertook to show upon what principles he and his brethren could consistently oppose that practice. Did he say that it could be nationally objected to as a violation of the laws of God? No; he admitted that a Dissenter could not legislatively urge such a consideration; but he said that it might be objected to upon civil considerations, for that legislatures ought "to prevent crime and maintain the order and well-being of society." But it might be replied, that Sunday drilling was civilly expedient; and if so (not that we admit it), the religious objection being given up, there would be nothing to forbid it. Yes,

replies the Dissenter, it would violate private conscience. The rejoinder is obvious; if it be only strongly recommended, and rewarded, not made compulsory, there is no force put upon private conscience; so that the legislature is justified in defying God and trampling upon his laws, if it think it civilly expedient to do so, provided it allow individuals to plead conscientious exemption, as Quakers are exempted from taking oaths; though after all, Dissenters are not prepared to allow this appeal to private conscience in all cases; for they would make the Quaker pay taxes, though he thus contributes to keep up an army and navy, which he abhors; and if the religious argument be abandoned, a legislature would have as good a right to tax the Dissenter towards the expense of Sunday drilling, as the Quaker towards maintaining fleets and troops. Nay, the Dissenters wish to tax the nation to set up Lancastrian schools throughout the land; though Churchmen object to them, as also do Roman Catholics, Socinians, Jews, and others. We want to know upon what principle the Jew or the Roman Catholic can be forced to pay his rates for Bibles for the proposed schools, which does not involve the essential elements of the question between Churchmen and Dissenters respecting a National Church? Let some of the Jews who have been lately admitted into our corporations, ask the Religious Equality Society by what principle of equality they would shut the Post-Office on Sunday, and keep it open on Saturday. Let Mr. O'Connell taunt them, as he has a good right to do, with their hypocrisy, or cowardice, in not demanding, upon the principle" of equality," the abolition of the Act of Settlement which provides that the Sovereign of England shall be a Protestant. Let the Quaker reproach them for their inconsistency in voting supplies for her Majesty's dock-yard, the payment of which violates his conscience, and thus, according to their argument, infringes his equality. Let the honest Radical show their selfishness in getting their Chapels exempted from rates, when theatres are taxed; and their ministers from paying turnpike on Sunday, when the farmer must pay; for if legislatures are to confine themselves to civil matters, and to have no opinion as to the character of theological teaching, the stage may deserve, in their view, as much favour as the pulpit. But it was with especial reference to the Post-Office that we referred to the discussion above alluded to. We shewed, that upon the principle which was urged by the Dissenter who addressed us, there is no effectual legislative check to the Post-Office, or any other office, being open on the Lord's day. It is true that many persons would concientiously object to working unnecessarily on the Lord's day; but then they are not bound to do so, any more than a Jew to accept an office under government which requires him to work on Friday evening, or Saturday morning; or a Quaker to command an'army; or a member of the Anticruelty Society to be Master of her Majesty's Stag-hounds. A Post-office clerk may give up his employment if he prefers starving to sinning; a government, we are told, is to appoint what it thinks civilly expedient; it is to take no account of the law of God; the Post-office clerk must settle this with his own conscience. We shall be glad to learn from Dr. Smith that he sees how this conclusion may be forefended upon the principle of shutting out all religious considerations from national legislation.

Dr. Smith's statement respecting his own veneration for the Lord's-day, and of the evils which result from its violation, scriptural and excellent as it is, is quite beside the present argument. This he will perceive if he would refer to our remarks above alluded to, where we said:

"A DISSENTER (who favours us privately with his name) seems to have misapprehended our remarks. Does he for one moment suppose that we doubted the personal piety, or sincerity, or zeal, or affection, of such men as those to whom we