I have ten translations of the New Testament which I read and compare with each other: these are, Tyndale's, the common version, Purver's, Wynne's, Wakefield's, Boothroyd's, Thomson's, Montanus', the Rhemish Testament, and the new version by brother Campbell. In any difference among these, sometimes I take the majority, sometimes the unprejudiced, and very often I appeal from all to the original. What I mean by prejudice among translators, is a leaning towards their party or particular views. As, for instance, I dare not trust Wakefield on the character of our Lord, nor upon the Holy Spirit. On all questions bearing on the Trinity I go to the original. And, as I do not profess to be master of the Greek, I use the best helps I can get in the case.

I have ten Greek Lexicons, eight Greek and English, and two Greek and Latin. These are Donnegan's, (large edition) Groves, Jones', Parkhurst's improved by Rose, Robinson's, Greenfield's, Hincks', Wright's, Screvelius, and Bretschneider's. Four of these are Lexicons to the New Testament, viz., Parkhurst's, Robinson's, Greenfield's, and Bretschneider's. In interpreting words and passages which have been twisted and warped by sectarian zeal and polemic boldness, I check the religious interpreter by the literary amateur, When, for instance, Parkhurst or Jones leave me in doubt, I balance the account with Donnegan, Wright, or Hincks. And again, when Germanisms or fanciful etymologies, and far-fetched interpretations intrude, I check them by Robinson, who is always sound, and by Rose, who, in his additions to Parkhurst, has kept a sharp look out on Hutchinsonian fancies, and Neologian latitudinarianism. The little pocket edition of Greenfield is beyond all praise. It is so clear and concise that in all ordinary cases it answers every purpose.

In addition to these helps I would recommend Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Bible; or Carpenter's Guide to the Study of the Scriptures; Flatt and Storr's Elements of Biblical Theology, and Knapp's Lectures on Theology. Of commentators I cannot say much, as, when I stood most in need of help, I found them poor crutches. The time it takes to consult comments had better be spent upon the text. Try it who may, the best scriptarian is the best theologian. If you only know English, get Horne, or Carpenter, and Knapp, and make yourselves familiar with what they have written in proof of the truth of Christianity, and in proof of the genuineness, authenticity, integrity, authority, and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Then, as you go through your Bible (which ought to be at least twice in the year,) read the preface to each book furnished by Horne, and you will have more light on the Scriptures in one year's labour than in three with notes and comments.

I very much fear that some may think that I set up for a critic in languages. This I do not profess. I began these studies too late in the day to be a critic in them. Still what I know, I know; and if a man cannot run, he may be allowed to walk; and if he wants to move and cannot walk, a generous public will allow him crutches! I say to all who love God and want to do good, press on and be not easily daunted. Kings and emperors never crossed the Alps-Hannibal and Bonaparte both did! If, however, you feel prompted by ambition,

and wish to have a name in this world, pick up Blackstone and Coke, and Cullen and Macintosh: the New Testament is not the book for you! Ambition here is sinful, unless indeed it be Paul's ambition, expressed so forcibly to the Corinthians-"I am ready to spend and to be spent for you, though the more abundantly I love you the less I be loved." Any man who is willing to do good for such wages, this is a good man.

In all benevolence, dear reader, in scanty means and a large anxiety to learn and be useful, I subscribe myself largely thine to help and to sympathize, MATHETES.

RULES FOR LADIES.

1. MARRY not a profane man; because the depravity of his heart will corrupt your children and embitter your existence.

2. Marry not a gambler, a tippler, or a haunter of taverns, because he who has no regard for himself will never have any for his wife.

3. Marry not a man who makes promises which he never performs, because you can never trust him.

4. Marry not a man whose actions do not correspond with his sentiments-because the passions have dethroned reason, and he is prepared to commit crime to which an evil nature unrestrained would instigate him. The state of that man who regards not his own ideas of right and wrong is deplorable, and the less you have to do with him the better.

5. If Christians wish to live happy, grow in grace, be useful in the world, and die in peace, " let them marry ONLY in the Lord."-ED.

ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS, &c.

MODERN SPIRITUALITY.-No. II.

Tullylagan, December 11th, 1845.

To Mr. TEner. My Dear Sir-Will you permit me to make use of you as the medium to convey to the editor of the Christian Messenger a few remarks on the critique which appeared in the number for this month of that periodical, on my letter to you of the 14th of October last, on the subject of water baptism? Not having any idea at that time, that my letter would ever meet the public eye through the pages of a magazine, it was written in the free and careless style in which one would address his friend. In the following remarks, as far as it appears to be necessary, I shall adopt the consecutive plan, so much desired and pursued by my critic.

First, as to the heading of the subject, "Modern Spirituality," allow me to say, that if he will take the trouble of looking into ecclesiastical history, he will find so far back as the third century of the

66

Christian era, that in those times many denied that grace was universally given by baptism. Augustine condemned Julian the Pelagean for denying exorcisms and insufflation in the use of baptism, all which protestants of the present day, I believe, deny. Thus we see in the early times doubts were entertained respecting the efficacy of water baptism, and while those who were considered orthodox accused the others as heterodox for differing from them on this point, the former, in their turn, hold opinions on other subjects repugnant to the spirit and genius of Christianity. Mosheim tells us, that in the third century, The sign of the cross was supposed to administer a victorious power over all sorts of trials and calamities, and was more especially considered as the surest defence against the snares and stratagems of malignant spirits." And in the darkest times of popery many suffered martyrdom for denying that water baptism had any efficacy in children or adult persons. P. Pithoeus mentions in his fragments of the history of Guienne, which is confirmed by Johannes Floracensis in his epistle to Olisa, abbot of the Ansonian church," I will (says he) give you to understand concerning the heresy that was in the city of Orleans on Childemas day; for it was true, if ye have heard any thing, that king Rolent (of France) caused to be burnt alive fourteen of that city, of the chief of their clergy, and the more noble of their laicks who were hateful to God and abominable to heaven and earth; for they did stifly deny the grace of holy baptism, and also the consecration of the Lord's body and blood."

This is sufficient to show, that the term, " Modern Spirituality,” is inapplicable in the present instance to those of the present day who continue to deny the efficacy of water baptism, as there were those who testified against the practice in all ages of the church, and the application of this new term would lead us to suppose that it was a new thing and of recent introduction. (1)

Nearly the first page and half of the critique is taken up in showing how illogical I was in saying that," Water baptism was non-essential and an ordinance of man,' In thus expressing myself my mind was fixed on the water baptism of the present day, not on the water bap tism of John which, although of divine origin, was only intended to continue for a time, and to be finally superseded by the more spiritual baptism of Christ. However, I admit it was a loose mode of expression, but I dare say it produced the effect intended, that of showing you in a few words that our views on this subject were diametrically opposite; still, the phrase was one calculated to lay me open to the strictures of the more accurate reasoner, or the censure of the nice casuist.

In the second division, for so the writer has arranged his reply, he says, "In the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, there were hosts of good men who were striving for perfection in the sight of God, These men were under the influence of the Holy Spirit, when they performed mighty deeds in the strength of God." And he adds, "Yet not one of this cloud of witnesses was ever said to be baptized with the Holy Spirit." In this he endeavours to draw a distinction where I can discover no distinction, for I believe this emanation of the light of Christ experienced by good men in all ages of the world,

was a manifestation of that spiritual baptism, for it was the Spirit of God operating on their minds, and which is called in the New Testament" the baptism of the Holy Ghost." Paul, in referring to these good men, assures us that they "all eat the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual rock, which followed them, and that rock was Christ."

When the veil and cloud of forms and ceremonies was removed from the Jewish religion, then the purity of that worship which had the Omnipotent for its author, became fully apparent; and all good men of the Old, as well as the good men of the New Testament, believed in the influence of the Holy Spirit to direct, guide, and govern their actions, if submitted to. This was the belief of David, as expressed in Psalm xlviii, 14. "For this God is our God for ever and ever; he will be our guide even unto death." The Prophet Micah chap. vi. 8, says, "He hath showu thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" The Prophet here not only corroborates the words of David, but he tells the people what true religion is. And both point to Christ who even under the law was as much the light and guide of his people as when he took upon him the form of man, and appearing on earth abrogated the old ceremonial law, and declared to the woman of Samaria, "that the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth."

Since, therefore, God has not left us ignorant in a matter of such vital importance, it behooves us, as far as in us lies, to divest religion of its outward clogs and hinderances (which, it is to be feared, many place too much reliance upon), lest such a dependance should unhappily lead us, like Mary at the sepulchre, to be found seeking the living amongst the dead.

To the Messenger's conclusion I cannot subscribe, "That from the beginning of the world to the day of Pentecost there was only one instance of baptism with the Holy Spirit, and that there has never been another instance since." He adds, "So then, as the influences we now enjoy cannot be termed 'baptism of the Spirit,' the one baptism,' in connexion with the one faith,' must be baptism in water." With the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the case of the men of Cesarea, we have now nothing to do; that it was a miracle, and intended to display the power and majesty of God to an unbelieving generation, is very apparent-but that such a visible baptism is not now experienced in the church, does not take away from the belief that true Christians do not still hold an intercourse with heaven, and feel the still small voice of Christ operating in their hearts, and which, if attended to, we are told will be as a guide and lamp to their feet. And what was that glorious manifestation, and this still small voice of Christ experienced by believers, but one and the same thing, the spiritual baptism promised? (2)

Now, as respects the outward baptism with water, we find that so exact were the divine directions given to Moses concerning even the most minute parts of the ceremonials under the law, that "Bezaleel was filled with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding,

and in knowledge, to whom was added Aholiab, and wisdom also put in the hearts of all the wise hearted, that they might be able to make and execute all that was commanded." Ex. xxxi. If under the Gospel dispensation it had been intended that any of these ceremonies should have been perpetuated, surely, some explicit directions would have been left for that purpose; but we find that no such directions were given by Christ as to the manner of performing those ordinances which some of the Christian family still allege are required of them— the want of such directions has been the futile source of much dissension and discord among them. Thus, those who advocate the practice of immersion (which appears to be the literal meaning), and adult baptism, condemn those who adhere to sprinkling and infant baptism, and both condemn the believers in a more spiritual system, the former saying that the practice of the first is as "unreasonable as it is unscriptural, and that they can have no more fellowship with the infant sprinkling of the one class than with the spiritual baptism of the other, considering both to exhibit either gross ignorance or remarkable depravity."

Now, I am one of those person who are accused of "either gross ignorance or remarkable depravity," being unable to get over the corroborative evidence of the four evangelists, who all agree in their testimony, and all represent John the Baptist as using language similar to the following: "I am but attempting to prepare you by my baptism, which is only temporary and must decrease, for the spiritual baptism of the infinately more worthy Messiah, who will pour out upon you his Holy Spirit, whose operations will be enlivening, powerful, and purifying."

No man can become a true member of Christ's church except his heart and life be thoroughly changed, and a new vital principle of holiness formed in him. And this is not to be effected by the dead formal ceremony of water baptism, as the most that can be said in its favour is, that it is the representation of the thing, but not the thing itself; but it is an inward grace given by the Spirit of God, that in reality regenerates the heart. By this the Christian receives the Messiah as God's free gift, and depends on him for salvation; and by this, as Paul tells us, he can say that "Jesus is the Lord." And every one, Jew or Gentile, who believes in Christ as freely offered, is freed from the condemning sentence of God's law; but whosoever rejects or neglects him, remains under the curse. (3)

As I have now, in reply to the Messenger, sufficiently, for the present, explained my views of the subject under discussion, I shall in conclusion refer him to the different writers who show the connexion between the Jewish and Christian baptism, our English friends being amazed that I should in any manner connect them. The Jews are said by many writers to have used baptism together with circumcision and sacrifice, in the admission of male proselytes; all these ceremonies having been observed in their admission into covenant with the Deity at Sinai, when they washed their clothes and sanctified themselves. The female proselyte was admitted by baptism and sacrifice, and in cases when the proselyte had children, they both circumcised and baptized, or baptized them only according to their sex. The baptism of