clergymen should be occasionally present.

5. If any member shall violate this Constitution and shall not give satisfaction to the Society, after a first and second admonition, he shall be formally voted out of the Society, at their annual meeting. If any member shall, at any stated meeting, express his wish to withdraw, it shall be the duty of the Society to vote his dismission, provided said member has been charged with no misdemeanor.

Officers.

Hon. Ammi R. Mitchel, President. Deacon Asa Chase, Secretary.

Mr. David Prince Treasurer-and they with the following persons, form the Board of Trustees-Gen. Alford Richardson, Jacob Mitchell, Esq. Doctor Gad Hitchcock, Deacon Jacob Hayes, Deacon Jeremiah Blanchard, Mr. Calvin Stockbridge, Mr. Moses Stubbs, Deacon William Hamilton, Deacon John Hayes, Mr John Cutter, Col. Samuel Baker, and Jonathan Moulton.

Mr.

PLAIN SCRIPTURE READINGS.

No. III.

Ar the close of my last number,† I observed, that the liberal party in Boston and the vicinity have exerted themselves to obtain a circulation for the Improved Version, as it is called, of the New Testament. They have thus become the patrons of its presumptuous errors. Further; a writer of that party evidently assumes, that the two first chapters of Matthew are not genuine, when he states, that CHRIST is a name of office, and JESUS a proper name. If he had believed Matt. i, 21, to be genuine, he would have allowed Jesus as well as Christ to be a name of office. They are both proper names however.

It is curious to observe how differently this party conduct, in different circumstances. They reject the two first chapters of Matthew and of Luke, or at least patronize a work which rejects these chapters, totally without ev idence. Yet the English language is hardly copious enough to furnish words expressive of their contempt for those who continue to quote 1 John v, 7, as Scripture. In what consists the crime of quot ing this last passage? The want of evidence to support it, as they allege. Now I do not admit for a moment, that the evidence in favor of 1 John v, 7, is so small, as to be compared with the total want of evidence against the chapters in question. But on the supposition, that the evidence 2gainst 1 John v, 7, is as conclusive and uncontradicted, as is the evidence in favor of these chapters,what will become of the con. sistency of the liberal party? In one breath, they bitterly reproach

others for retainng a single verse against the authority, as they allege, of manuscripts and ver sions; in the next, these very sticklers for manuscripts and versions countenance the rejection of nearly four chapters, confessedly against the unanimous consent of all manuscripts and versions. But is it not as criminal to reject without authority, as to retain without authority? What says the inspired apostle, when closing the canon of reve lation? For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. Rev. xxii, 18, 19. If no "honest and well instructed theologian"t ought to quote Acts xx, 28, and 1 Tim. iii, 16, as proof passages, because some critics are of opinion that the weight of authority is against these texts in their present form, while others decide in their favor, and the passages thus, in the opinion of many, become doubtful; what sort of a theologian must he be, who rejects whole chapters, concerning the authenticity of which there is no rational doubt, and which are supported by all the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, by the unanimous voice of antiquity-by the uninterrupted testimony of the whole Christian church,-by every intrinsicmarkof genuineness? What

+See Anthology for Feb. 1811, p. 110, and Panoplist for April, 1811, p. 507.

V. 8. For fruits meet read fruit meet.

V. 10. 1. p. word in the verse.

And the first

V. 11. 1. p. and with fire.

V. 12. 1. p. his before wheat. The passage will then be translated the wheat instead of his wheat.

The two last corrections proposed by Griesbach, in this chapter, are the only ones which affect the sense in the slightest manner; and these do not affect any doctrine, as will be sufficiently obvious to every attentive reader. Whether John declared that our Savior would baptize his deciples with fire, or not, he did thus visibly baptize them on the day of Pentecost after his ascension; and he has, in every age, purified their hearts, in a manner well described by the effect of fire.

Whether the Baptist said, that Christ would gather his wheat, or the wheat into the garner, it is evident from the expressions whose fan and his floor, that the wheat was his property.

Proposed emendations of our Ver

sion.

Ver. 1. Cometh appears preferable to came, especially as the same verb, in the same tense, is rendered cometh in the 13th

verse.

V. 2. There are few words in the New Testament, perhaps not one, which it is more important to understand correctly, than the word here translated, repent ye, and its derivatives. Dr. Campbell prefers the word reform, and has favored the world with a very able disquisition upon the original word, though, as it seems to me, he has left untouched a most interesting part of its meaning, and has been quite unfortunate in his translation. Let us examine the worlds repent, reform, and the Greek word of which these are offered as translations.

Johnson says, that to repent, in its first signification, means to think on any thing past with sorrow; and that repentance is sorrow for any thing past. The great lexicographer has, however, most evidently and egregiously erred here. A man thinks of the death of his wife, or the burning of his house, with sorrow; but he does not repent of these events, unless, indeed, he has had some share in causing them. To repent always implies sorrow for what the person repenting has voluntarily done. It does not in itself imply moral goodness; but it always implies a consciousness of moral action in regard to the thing repented of. To repent is, therefore, to be sorry for something which the person repenting has freely done.

To reform, says Johnson, is to change from worse to better; and, in this acceptation, Dr. Campbell understands the term. I submit, however, to the critical English reader, whether the word reform is not now exclusively applied to an external

change of character, or conduct. Does it ever necessarily convey the notion of an internal change of principle, or disposition? If not, then is it utterly inadequate to express the meaning of the Greek word here under consideration. To be sure, we qualify the word reform, occasionally, so as to convey the idea of an interna! change. Thus we say, a man is radically reformed, or he is the subject of a genuine refor. mation.

The Greek word here rendered repent, cannot, I apprehend, be adequately represented by any single English word. It is a compound in the original, and never signifies less than to change one's mind. In the New Testament, the verb signifies to change the disposition, and the noun a change of disposition. There is, however, one exception, in regard to the noun, and that is in Heb. xii, 17, where it signifies simply a change of mind. Perhaps there

are others.

This is as

In the verse under consideration, the exhortation of John seems to mean no less than this; Change your dispositions, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. A French translation, published in 1811 by the booksellers in Boston, (I know not the author,) instead of the word answering to our repent, has a phrase equiva lent to be converted. near the true meaning as any translation I have seen; certainly much nearer than our own. But if the question lay between Dr. Campbell and our version, I should prefer the latter. Dr. Campbell's translation is altogether defective, because it does not bring into view any internal change.

Let the interpretation which I have suggested, be applied to several other passages where the same Greek word occurs. The first is in the 8th verse of this very chapter: Bring forth, therefore, fruit meet for a change of disposition; i. e. Exhibit such external conduct as is suitable to an internal change of character. Mark i, 15. Change your dispositions, and believe the Gospel. vi, 12. And they went out, and preached that men should change their dispositions, or be convert ed.

Except

Luke xiii, 3, and 5. ge change your dispositions, ye shall all likewise perish.

Thus, in every passage which I have examined, where the same Greek word occurs, the same interpretation suits the scope of the passage.

To the mere English reader it ought to be stated, that two Greek words, which occur many times in the New Testament, are both invariably translated repent, in our common version; the one erroneously, as it appears to me; the other with sufficient propriety. The latter occurs Matt. xxi, 29, xxvii, 3, and in many other places.

The definition of repentance in the Assembly's Catechism is very full, and expresses at large that internal change of character, which John and our Savior made the first article of their preach ing, and the great object of all their public labors.

V. 16. The former part of this verse is very naturally thus translated: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water. That sect of Christians, who hold immersion to be necessary to the valid VOL. V. New Series.

ity of baptism, lay much stress on the mode in which our Savior was baptised; but I do not see, that the mode is described by the Evangelist. John's disciples were baptised in Jordan; he baptised in water, or with water; and our Savior, after being baptised, went up from the water, or out of the water. From is, I believe, generally thought to be a better translation than, out of The mode is not here described unless by the word baptise; and as to the meaning of this word, the reader is referred to all the places where it occurs in the New Testament. Let the following question be candidly considered: If it should be ascertained, that our Savior was baptised by having water poured on his head, while standing in the margin of the river Jordan, would it in the slightest degree impeach the accuracy of the Evangelist, even if no new sense were given to any of the words which he has used? If this question is answered in the negative, as I think it must be, with what propriety can it be assumed that John certainly baptised by immersion?

V. 17. The word rendered I am well pleased, is very forcible. Campbell has it, This is my beloved Son in whom I delight: The French translation above referred to has a verbose phraseology like the following: This is my beloved Son, on whom I have placed all my affection.

Doctrines.

In this chapter we are taught, that while Jesus remained at Nazareth, John came preaching in the uninhabited parts of Judea; v. 1; that an internal change is necessary in men, before they

58

can enjoy the benefits of the Christian revelation, which was then at hand; v. 2; that the necessity of this internal change is the first thing to be preached; that John was predicted by the prophet Isaiah, as the herald of our Savior; v. 3; that the proclamation which John was to make was foretold to be, Prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH, make his paths straight; that Christ is JEHOVAH; that John led a self-denying abstemious life; v. 4; that a vast proportion of the population of all that country, including Jerusalem, the whole of Judea, and the districts lying on the river Jordan, went out to hear him; v. 5; that they were baptised by him in Jordan confessing their sins; v. 6; that the Pharisees and Sadducees came also to his baptism; v. 7; that he accosted them as possessed of most vile and odious characters; that vengeance impends over sinners; that a change of character must be proved by a change of conduct; v. 8; that no external privileges will avail to save sinners; v. 9; that God is able at any time to create any number of holy and exalted beings; that where the Gospel is preached the time of decision is come; v. 10; that they who derive no suitable improvement from the Gospel will be utterly rejected and destroyed; that John used water in his baptism; 11; that this baptism was designed to show the necessity of a radical change of character, in order to salvation; that an illustrious Personage incomparably superior to John was to succeed him; that this Personage would baptise with the Holy Spirit; that He has this world and all its inhabitants as his prop

erty; v. 12; that he will make a thorough discrimination between the righteous and the wicked; that he will carefully preserve the righteous, and utterly destroy the wicked by inflicting upon them torments from which they will never be delivered; that while John was engaged in his labors, Jesus came to be bap tised by him in Jordan; v. 13; that John objected, alleging our Savior's superiority to him; v. 14; that Christ removed the objec tion of his servant, and was bap tised; v. 15; that it became him to conform to every divine institution; that when he ascended from the water, the Spirit of God visibly descended upon him; v. 16; and that a voice from heaven declared him to be the beloved Son of God, the object of the Father's perfect complacency and delight; v. 17. It is also implied, that confession of sin was required from the subjects of John's baptism; v. 6; that it is sometimes proper to address sinners with great keenness and severity; v. 7; that Christ communicates, or confers, the Holy Spirit, and consequently is God himself; v, 11; and that Christ was obliged to the same observances as other men, and therefore partook of the human nature; v. 15.

Miscellaneous Remarks,

It is often observed, that the Christian religion differs from all other systems of instruction by aiming directly at the heart. This is, indeed, a grand peculiarity of the word of God. And it is worthy of special notice, that this peculiarity appears in the very first publication of the Gospel. The very first word