one word? If there be no difference in meaning, how comes it to pass that when he substitutes hades for Doddridge's hell, he gives as a reason that the word "is very improperly translated hell?" (f) Is there no difference between the original and a very improper translation? Taking the Epistle to the Hebrews as a specimen of the whole work, he says, in his answer to the "Friend of Truth," "About fifty times you will find Macknight in the Appendix in this one Epistle," and then offers a guess that there are as many as three thousand such alterations in the whole work, instead of the reduced calculation of fifteen hundred which his Antagonist had made. Are we to understand that he has altered the words of his authors fifty times in one Epistle, and three thousand times in all, without once changing their meaning?

But the letter of his challenge calls for an instance in which his New Testament gives a meaning different from his Doctors, by translating a word which they had adopted. The word heresy is translated by my Opponent, and adopted by his author. Doddridge says, "After the way which they call heresy, so do I worship the God of my Fathers." My Opponent says, "After the way which they call a 'sect, so worship I the God of my fathers." Now if it can be shewn that my Opponent understands the word sect in an indifferent sense, and that Doddridge understands the word heresy in an evil sense, then my Opponent has altered his author's meaning by translating a word which his author had adopted. In a note to which my Opponent refers from this text, his meaning is conveyed to us in the language of Dr. Campbell. After explaining the original by class, party, sect, he observes, "The word was not, in its earliest accepta"tion, conceived to convey any reproach in it, since it was 66 indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one dis"approved by the writer." Thus my Opponent's word sect is understood indifferently. Now although Doddridge gives the word sect in his paraphrase, he gives a reason for preferring the

(f) Rev. vi. 8. Compare Appendix No. 21.

word heresy in the text. He admits that on account of the circumstances of the primitive Christians, "they might properly be called a sect or party of men," but he says, "I cannot but think "this a place, where the word digeois, which I own to be often “indifferent, is used in a bad sense; for Paul plainly intimates, "that Christianity did not deserve the name they gave it." Thus my Opponent's translation gives a word in an indifferent sense, which Doddridge thinks might properly be applied to Christians instead of his author's adoption of a word in an evil sense, which Doddridge thinks the Christians did not deserve. Yet my Opponent's promise says, "We shall not depart in any "instance from the meaning which they have declared those "words to convey."

Paul once preached Christ to the Jews. My Opponent says, "But when they set themselves in opposition, and reviled, he shook his garments."(g) Would not any common reader understand from this, that the Jews reviled Paul? and was not this what my Opponent meant that they should understand? Yet Doddridge says, "they set themselves in opposition, and BLASPHEMED" that glorious name on which he was pressing them to fix their dependence. To the same amount, in other places,(h) Doddridge adopts blasphemy, and my Opponent translates slander, defamation. It is well known that in common language, reviling, slander, and defamation, denote an offence against our fellow men; whereas Dr. Allison, a Baptist Preacher, in his English Dictionary, says that "blasphemy is an offering of some "indignity unto God himself." In accordance with this, Doddridge in describing the Roman Beast, says that it was "full of blasphemous names,"(i) which his paraphrase explains by its 66 ascribing to itself, and the harlot upon it, properties and glories which belong to God alone." My Opponent, instead of "blasphemous names," translates "slanderous names."

My Opponent might here urge in extenuation, that he was following his perfectly correct and elegant pattern, Dr. George (i) Rev. xvii, 3..

(g) Acts xviii, 6,

(h) Rev. ii. 9. 13. 1.

Campbell, as he promised in his preface. If this were true, it would only shew that he made two promises which were inconsistent with each other: one is that he would always substitute Campbell's words for those of the other two Doctors; and the other is that he would never depart from their meaning. But if I mistake not, while Campbell justifies him in one departure from Doddridge(j) his principles and practice condemn him in all the rest. He admits that the word blaspheme should be retained when God is the object of this offence. In the last text the Beast is said to be full of blasphemous names, because he claims divine attributes and honors. For this very thing the Jews repeatedly accused our Saviour of the same offence; and in no such case does either Dr. Campbell or my Opponent render it reviling, slander, or defamation, but they both retain the word blasphemy. "Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? Can any one forgive sins beside God?" "For a good work we do not stone thee, but for blasphemy, because thou, being [a] man, makest thyself God."(k) In these texts my Opponent has exactly followed his model, except in the insertion of our indefinite article before the word man, which, among three thousand alterations, can hardly be noticed.

According to my Opponent's translation, Paul's reason for delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was "that they might be taught by chastisement, not to defame." Although Macknight, whom he here professes to copy, uses the word revile in his commentary, yet as he expressly declares "Christ or his doctrine" to be the object of this reviling, he retains blaspheme in the text, according to the principles of my Opponent's favourite, Dr. Campbell: "that they might be taught by chastisement not to blaspheme."(1) In another instance (m) he retains blasphemers, where my Opponent substitutes defamers, although Macknight's commentary explains it "blasphemers of God, by the injurious representations which they give of him." I cannot tell how

Acts xviii. 6. See his Prelim. Dissert. 9. Part 2. Sect. 12. (k) Luke v, 21. John x. 33. () 1 Tim. i. 20.

(m) 2 Tim. iii. 2.

many cases of this sort his book contains; but I have very little doubt that one whose time and patience would permit him to wade through this mass of perversion, would discover many other instances, in addition to the seven which I have pointed out, in which my Opponent's authors adopt a word with one meaning, and my Opponent translates it with another meaning: yet the promise of his Prospectus is, "But in doing this, "we shall not depart in any instance, from the meaning which "they have declared those words to convey." And after the work was published, he challenges "all the colleges and divines 66 on this continent to shew" that he has "in one instance, de"parted from this promise."

My Opponent may be called a challenge-monger. The Reformers used to challenge that they might debate: my Opponent debates that he may challenge. A Reformer once contended ten days upon the ground of one challenge: my Opponent does not stop at ten challenges in one day, and sometimes in one speech. When used as a manœuvre, it sometimes appears ingenious, although it may be disingenuous. If a man accuse him of Unitarianism, he challenges him to prove him a Socinian, as if Unitarianism did not embrace his darling Arianism, as well as his brother Holley's Socinianism. A. accuses B. of stealing one of his cattle. B. challenges A. and all the colleges and lawyers on the continent to prove that he has stolen a cow; thinking thereby to conceal the fact that he had stolen a calf. But in the present case his right hand appears to have lost its cunning: for he challenges the continent to shew one instance in which he has departed from a promise, which he has directly violated in the seven specified cases, and we know not how many more.

There was a time when I thought the Unitarian Improved Version a non-pareil in theological atrocity: but, in respect of fraud and falsehood, this Arian Baptist's New Translation is incomparably beyond it. I am not sorry, therefore, that the word Church, which introduced it to our notice, is not once found in this master-piece of deception.

THE POINT

WHICH WAS, IN PART, INTERRUPTED BY THE REVIEW,

RESUMED.

It has already been shewn that the application of this word to the Jews in the Old Testament proves that they were once the visible church of God. You have heard, moreover, that it is confessedly used more than a hundred times in the New Testament, to signify the visible church. Now if we or our Baptist friends who agree in this matter, were asked for our proof, how could we answer more properly than by quoting such passages of the New Testament as shew, by their connexion, that the people called the church, were a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion? There are now before me nine authorities(n) which give the name of ecclesia to those who had the worship, discipline, character and condition of such a society. Perhaps, there is not a regular Baptist on earth who will deny the conclusion, or deny that it is authorized by these passages of the New Testament. But a good rule will work both ways. If these premises prove the existence of a New Testament church, they will also, if they can be found, prove the existence of an Old Testament church. We are then to look for the worship, discipline, character, and condition of a visible church among the Jews.

(n) Acts xi. 26. xx. 17. xiii, 1. xii. 5. xiv. 23. (comp. 22.) xv. 41. xvi. 5. Matt. xviii. 17. xvi, 18.