Newspaper Page Text
JOSEPH S. BAKER —Editor.
VOL. XIII.
TERMS PER ANNUM.
So* The Christian Index, published on Friday
in each week, (except two in the year), will be furnished
to each subseribei at $2 50 cents, in advance; or $3
if not paid within the year.
|C7* Post-Masters, where the Index is taken, are re
quested to forward remittances lor subscribers at their
respective offices, according to a decision of the Post-
Master General as to their right to do so. All patrons
and agents are requested to notice this.
Every Agent, (and all Baptist Ministers are particu
larly solicited to become agents,) who procure and pay
for live copies of the Index, shall be entitled to a sixth,
as a compensation for his trouble.
Letters on business, or communications, must be ad
dressed to the Editor, post paid.
Advertisements may be inserted on usual terms, at
the discretion of the Editor.
For the Christian Index.
AN ESSAY.
In Defence of Strict Communion, by J. L. Daoo,
Professor of Theology, Mercer University, Ga.
INTRODUCTION.
All the truths of Divine Revelation are not equally
clear ; yet nono of them may be disregarded because of
difficulty in their investigation. If some most needful to
be known, are presented prominently on the inspired
pages, and written in characters so large that he who
runs may read ; there are others which are discoverable
only by diligent search. Yet the truths, thus discover
ed, are precious gems dug from an exhauslless mine;
and even the very labor of discovery brings its own re
ward in the mental and spiritual discipline which it fur
nishes. The diligent student of the Scriptures derives
an abundant recompense for his toil, not only from the
enlarged and clearer views of Divine truth to w hich he
attains, but also from that constant exercise of humility
and faith, for which he finds occasion at every step of
his progress.
As the truths of revelation differ in the clearness with
which they are exhibited, so our faith embraces them
with different degrees of strength. A man who does
not investigate for himself, may receive, with unwaver
ing confidence, and maintain, with obstinate pertinacity,
every dogma of his party : but he who uses his own
powers in the search after truth, will find some things to
tie received as undoubted articles of faith—others as
opinions to be held with various degrees of confidence,
according to the strength of evidence with w hich they
have been severally presented to the mind. By not fur
nishing overpowering evidence on every question of faith
and practice, the Divine wisdom has given scope for the
moral dispositions of men to exert their influence. A
■careful inquiry respecting the minutest portions of duty,
and a fixed determination to observe the will of God ill
■every particular,,m*v exhibit proofs of obedience more
strong and decisive than would be possible if all truth
and duty were discovered by intuition.
It has been said, of A. Fuller,* that on the
subject of Close Communion his convictions were not
very powerful. On what ground this assertion has been
made, we are .not informed. There is, however, in this
statement, no charge dishonorable to Mr. F-, unless it be
implied that his practice and the convictions nf his judg
ment were at variance with each other. He examined then
logical questions forhiniself; and, although he is known
to huve been an advocate of Close Communion, yet there
were doubtless many points in theology w hich nppearid
clearer to his mind.
The winter of the following Essay presents, by special
request, his views respecting the terms ol Communion
at the Lord's Table. Convinced that the subject is at
tended with difficulty, and conscious of his liability to
err, he desires to offer the result of his investigations with
becoming diffidence. Such arguments as have appeared
to him, in the absence of direct revelation on
the subject, to furnish u strength of evidence sufficient to
decide the question which is discussed, he. aims to state
with plainness and clearness—but without that confi
dence of assertion which too often succeeds better, in
gaining converts, than the most logical deductions. It
is his choice that this humble Essay, if it accomplish
anything for the cause which it advocates, shall effect it
by the intrinsic weight us its arguments, rather than by
the author's estimate of their conclusiveness.
•Works of Robert Hall, vol. 1, page 286.
CHAPTER I.
Tiie Question Stated.
We propose to discuss the question whether baptism
is a pre-requisite to communion at the Lord’s Table. On
this question, the Baptists of the United States very
generally take the affirmative side. Believing immer
sion, on a profession of faith, to be necessary to the va
lidity of baptism, it is our practice to invite none to the
table of the Lord, who have not been baptized. This
practice is called Close or Strict Communion.
Paedobaptists also, in general, equally hold that bap
tism is a pre-requisite to communion ; but, as they ac
count the sprinkling of infants to be valid baptism, they
admit to the communion those whom we do not. It is
clear, however, that we have no controversy with them
on the question above proposed. Candid Paedobaptists
have often acknowledged the correctness of our princi
ples as to the terms of communion, and the consistency
of oar practice. With such men, our only controversy
respects the subjects and mode of baptism.
Among the Baptists of England, there are many who
maintain that nothing is a pre-requisite to communion
which is not essential to salvation. They accordingly
admit unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Table ; and their
practice has been termed Open or Mixed Communion.
The ablest advocate of this practice, was the late highly
distinguished Robert Hall, who has written with much
ability in its defence. Regarding the work of Mr. Hall
as exhibiting the full foree of the arguments, on his side
of the question, we shall take a brief review of it in the
next chapter. By aodoing, the way will be opened for a
fair and satisfactory discussion of the question.
CHAPTER 11.
Review of Mr. Hall’s Treatise “On Terms of
Communion.”
This treatise is divided into two parts. The first,
which consists of four sections, is devoted to the con
sideration of arguments for strict communion, which had
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
been advanced by Mr. A. Booth : the second, consisting
ot six sections, exhibits the positive grounds on which the
author pleads for the practice of mixed communion.
Part 1.
Arguments for Strict Communion.
Section 1.
Order of the Sacraments.
Booth. —That baptism was an ordinance ot God,
that submission to it was required, thut it was adminis
tered to multitudes before the sacred supper was heard
01, are undeniable facts. There never was a time, since
the ministry ot our Lord’s successors, in which it was
not the duty of repenting and believing sinners to be
baptized. The venerable John, the twelve Apostles,
and the son ol God incarnate, all united in commanding
baptism, at a time when it would have been impious to
have eaten bread, and drunk wine, as an ordinance of
divine worship. Baptism, therefore, had the priority
in point ol institution—which is a presumptive evidence
that it has, and ever will have, a prior claim to our obe
dience. bo, under the ancient economy, sacrifices and
circumcision were appointed and practised in the patri
archal ages : in the time of Moses, the paschal feast,
and burning incense in the holy p'uce, were appointed
by the God of Israel. But the two former, being prior
in point ol institution, always had the priority in point of
administration.
Hall— This argument proceeds entirely on n matter
ol fact, which it assumes as undeniable, the priority in
point of lime of the institution of Christian baptism to
lliiil ol the Lord’s Supper ; and this again rests on anoth
er assumption, which is the identity of John’s Baptism
with that ol our Lord. It it should clearly appear that
these were two distinct institutes, the argument will be
reversed, and it will he evident that the Eucharist was
appointed and celebrated before Christian baptism exist
ed. ******* *
Having proved, I trust, to the satisfaction of the can
did reader, that baptism, considered as n Christian insti
tution, had no existence dining the personal ministry ol”
our bavior, the plea ol our opponents, founded on the
supposed priority of that ordinance to the Lord’s Supper,
*’ completely overruled: whatever weight it might pos
sess, supposing it were valid, must be wholly transferred
to the opposite side—and it must be acknowledged,
either t hat they have reasoned inconclusively, or have
produced a demonstration in our favor.
Remarks.—l shall not insist on this first argument ol
Mr. Booth, and shall, therefore, not follow Mr. Hall in
his discussion respecting John’s baptism. A few obser
vations, however, will be presented on the topic hereafter.*
Though Mr. Hall claims that the weight of this argu
ment, il it has any, should he transferred to his side, it
is manifest that lie thought it to possess no weight at all.
Ho says elsewhere, (r. 367,) “ In determining a ques-
Hon of duty, resulting from positive laws, the era of their
promulgation is a consideration totally foreign : we have
merely to consider what is enjoined, and to what de
scription oi persons or things the regulation applies,
without troubling ourselves to inquire into the chronolo
gical order of its enactment.” If the argument, as ap
plied by him, were of weight on his side, it would prove
what he nowhere contends for, that the Lord’s Supper
ought to precede Baptism.
♦Chapter 4, §3.
Section 2.
The Commission.
Booth. —Teuclt is the high commission, and such the
express command of Him who is Lord us all, when ad
dressing those who are called o preach His word, and
administer His institutions. Hence, it is manifest the
commission and command are first of all to leach : what
then ?—to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s Supper?
I leave common sense to judge; and being persuaded
that she will give her verdict in my favor, I will venture
to add—a limited commission implies a prohibition of
such things as ore not contained in it, and positive laws
imply their negative.
For instance, when GoJ commanded Abraham to cir
cumcise all his males, he readily concluded that neither
circumcision, nor any rite of a similar nature, was to be
administered to his females. And, as our brethren them
selves maintain, when Christ commanded believers
should be baptized, without mentioning any others, he
tacitly prohibited that ordinance from being administered
to infants; so, by parity of reason, if the same sovereign
Lord commanded that believers should be baptized—
baptized immediately after they made a profession of
faith—then He must intend that the administration of
baptism should be prior to a reception ofthe Lord’s Sup
per; and consequently, tacitly prohibits every unhapti
zed person having communion at His tuble.
Hall. —lt is obvious that the conclusion rests entire
ly on this principle—that nothing, which the Apostles
were commissioned to enjoin on believers, is to be re
commended to the attention of persons not baptized;
since, as far as this argument is concerned, the observe
tior of the Lord’s Supper is supposed not to belong to
them, merely because it forms a part of those precepts.
It is obvious, if the reasoning of our opponents be valid,
it militates irresistibly against the inculcation of every
branch of Christian duty on persons who, in th'-ii judg
ment, have not partaken of the baptismal sacrament —it
excludes them not merely from the Lord’s Supper, but
from every species of inst ruction appropriate to Christians.
* * * If it be once admitted that the clause, on
which so much stress is laid, is not to be interpreted so
as absolutely to exclude unbaptized Christian- from the
wholenf its import, to what purpose is it alleged against
their admission to the Eucharist ? or how does it appear
that this may not be one ofthe parts in which they are
comprehended? * * * It is not sufficient to allege
the prescribed order of the institutions : it is necessary,
also, to evince such a dependence of one upon the other,
that a neglect of the first from involuntary mistake an
nuls the obligation of the second. * * * * The
Jewish law was so clear and express, in insisting on cir
cumcision as a necessary preparation for partaking of
the paschal lamb, that none could mistake it, or approach
that feast in an uncircu rocked state, without being guilty
of wilful impiety. * * * * vVe affirm that in no
part of Scripture is it [baptism] inculcated as a prepura
tive for the Lord’s Supper. * * * *
FOR THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
PEINFIELD, GA„ FEBRUARY 7, 1845.
When duties are enjoijted in a certain series, each of
them, on the authority is which they originate, become
obligatory ; nor are we excused from performing those
which stand later in die sfcret,"rm account of our having,
from misconception of tfc meaning, or from any other
cause, omitted the first. ,
Remarks. —Mr. Hall’s admissions, when discussing
this part of the subject, are worthy of special attention.
“ When the advocates for strict communion remind us of
the order in which the two positive institutions of Chris
tianity are enjoined, th*v appear to assume it for granted
that we are desirous of inverting that order, and that we
are contending for the celebration of the Eucharist pre
vious to baptism, in the case of a clea r comprehension ol
the nature and obligation of each. We plead for noth
ing of the kind. Supposing n convert to Christianity
convinced of the ordinance of baptism, in the light in
which we contemplate it, we should urge his obligation
to comply with it, previous to his reception of the sacra
ment, with as little hesitation as the most rigid of our
opponents; nor should we be more disposed than them
selves to countenance a neglect of known duty, ora
wanton inversion of the order of Christian appointments.
Whether, in such circumstances, the attention of a can
didate for Christian communion should first he directed
to baptism, is not the question at issue; but what con
duct ought to be maintained towards sincere Christians
w ho, after serious examination, profess their conviction
of being baptized already, or who, in any manner what
ever, are withheld, by motives purely conscientious,
from complying with w hat we conceive to be a Christian
ordinance.” This admission sthons that he under
stood the law of Christ, whet) strictly obeyed, just
us we do. He pleads for tolerating ail inversion of the
appointed order when i: is not wantonly made. The
question of toleration will bo fully considered hereafter.
Section 3.
1. Apostolical Precedent.
Booth. —The order of administration, in the primitive
and apostolic practice, now demands our notice. That
the apostles, when endued with power I ruin on high, un
derstood our Lord In the sense for which we plead, and
practised accordingly, is quite evident. Then they tlmt
gladly received His word were what?—admitted to the
Lord’s table? No, but baptized: and the same day
there were added to them about three thousand souls—
and they continued in the apostle's doctrine and fellow
ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. If our
brethren do not look upon the apostolic precedent us
expressive of the mind of Christ, and as a pattern lor
future imitation to the end of the world, they must con
sider the upostles as ei'lier ignorant of our Lore's win,
or as unfaithful in the performance of it.
Hall.—There is one general rule applicable to the
subject, which is, that no matter of tact is entitled to be
considered as an ouihoriraiive precedent which necessa
rily arose out of existing circumstances, so that in the
then present state of things it could not fail to have
occurred. # * * Many practices occur in the his
tory of the apostolic transactions which, it is universally
admitted, we are not obliged to imitate. * * * On
the same principle we account for the members of the
primitive Church, consisting only of such as were bup
tized, without erecting that circumstance into an invaria
ble rule of uction. * * * A primitive convert, or
rather pretended convert, who, without doubting that
baptism, in the way in which we practise it, formed a
part of the apostolic commission, had refused compliance,
would have been deemed unworthv Christian corninu
„jon—not oil account of any specific connexion between
the two ordinances, but on account of his evincing a
spirit totally repugnant to the mind of Christ. * * *
Whateve r degree of prejudice or inattention we may be
disposed to impute to the abettors of infant sprinkling,
the principles on which they proceed are essentially dif
ferent from those which could alone have occasioned the
introduction of that practice in apostolic times. * * *
As it is an acknowledged fact, that in primitive times all
the faithful were admitted to ar. equality of participation
in every Christian privilege, to repel the gieal majority
of them on account of that error, acknowledged not to
be fundamental, is nt once a rude departure from the
apostolic example, and a palpable contradiction to the
very words employed in its first institution—“ Drink ye
all of it; do this in remembrance of me:”—words ad
dressed, ns has already been proved, to persons who had
not received Christian baptism.
Remarks. —Under this, as well as under the former
head, Mr. Hall has made important admissions. “Sub.
sequently to that period, [our Lord’s resurrection,] we
admit, without hesitation, thut the converts to (he Chris
tian faith submitted to that ordinance [huptism] prior to
their reception into the Christian Church. As little are
we disposed to deny that it is at present the duty of the
sincere believer to follow their example—and that, sup
posing him to be clearly convinced of the nature and
import of baptism, he would be guilty of a criminal
irregularity who neglected to attend to it previous to his
entering into Chri.vi.in fellowship. On the obligation of
both the positive ri; ;s enjoined in the New Testament,
and the prior claim of baptism to the attention of such
as are properly enlightened on the subject, we have no
dispute.” The whole dispute, therefore, is narrowed
down to the question, whether an inversion of the proper
order of the sacraments may be tolerated in those who
are not properly enlightened on the subject. From
whatever part of i ‘velatioii Mr. Hull may have learned
the mind of Chris’, ns !o the prior claim of baptism—
whether it rnev li e. •• b- a from the Commission, or from
Apostolical j < si —it is clear that lie did not differ
from us on this poi.it. VVe disagree on the question of
toleration, hereafter to be dis -ussed.
2. Si;:uilicatton of th“ Sicrnremnts.
Booth. —In submitting to baptism, have an emblem
of our union and communion with Jrains Christ, as our
great Represen'utive, in his death, burial, and resurrec
tion. and as in baptism wo profess to have renewed
spiritual file, so in communicating at the Lord’s table we
have the emblems of that heavenly food by which wt
live—by which we grow—and bv virtue of which wt ■
hope to live Ibrever. Hence, theological writers have
ofieij-culied, bitptigm the saqrament o‘. .regeneration, or i
of initiation, and the Lord's Supper the sacrument ol ‘
nutrition.
Hall. —To argue from metaphors is rarely a conclu
sive mode of reasoning ; but if it were, the regenerate
siute of our Pcedobaptist brethren would surety afford a
much better reason for admitting them to the sacrament
of nutrition, than their misconception of a particular
command for prohibiting them, unless we choose to
affirm that the shadow is of mote importance than the
substance, or that the sacrament of nutrition is not
intended to nourish.
Remarks.— The argument from the signification of
the sacraments, though in itself not conclusive, appears
to me important, when regarded as subsidiary. It shall
be considered hereafter.
Section 4 .
Universal Suffrage of the Church.
Booth.—A sentiment so peculiar, and a conduct so
uncommon, in regard to this institution, ought to be well
supported by the testimony ofthe Holy Ghost; for, 1
were all the Christian Churches now in the world asked, 1
except those few who plead for free communion, wlieth- 1
er they thought it lawful to admit unbaptized believers <
to fellowship at the Lord’s tuble, there is reason to believe ‘
they would readily unite in the declaration of Paul:
U’c have no such custom, neither the Churches of God
that were before us. Yes, considering the novelty of
their sentiments and conduct, and what a contradiction
they are to the faith and order of the whole Christian
Church—considering that it never was disputed, as far
as 1 can learn, prior to the sixteenth century, by ortho,
dox or. heterodox, by Papist or Protestant, whether
unbaptized believers should bo admitted to the Lord’s
table, (they all agreeing in the contrary practice,) how
ever much they differed in matters of equal importance—
it may be reasonably expected, and it is by us justly
demanded, that the truth of their sentiment, and the rec
titude of their conduct, should bo proved, fully proved, j’
from the records of inspiration.
j
Hall. —The first remark which occurs on this mode j
of reasoning is, that il is merely an argumentum ad
verecundiam. * * * h assumes for its basis the
impossibility of the prevalence of error. * * * M v
next observation is, that it conies with peculiar infelicity
from the members of a sect who, upon a subject of much
greater moment, have presumed to relinquish the prece
dent, and arraign the practice of the whole Christian
world, ns far at least ns they have been exhibited in these I
later ages. * * * It is well known that, from a :
very early period, the most extravagant notions prevailed
in the Church with respect to the efficacy of baptism,
mid hs ntisoluie necessity 111 in .In u-.-wOr, .
* * * Is it surprising, that those who contend for!
baptism as essential to salvation, should consider it as !
an essential pre-requisite to communion ? * * The
argument from authority, when liurlv stated, is entirely
in our favor. * * * Our opponents ate the only
persons in the world, of whom we have either heard or
! read, who contend for the exclusion us genuine Chris
’ tians from the Lord’s table.
Remarks. —Since, in our inquiries, we are seeking to
! know the will of God, and not the opinions and practice
of men, we need not insist on the present argument.
We do not, however, admit that “the right of refusing
the communion of eminently holy men cm account ol
unessential differences of opinion, is not the avowed
tenet of any sect or community in Christendom, with
the exception of the majority of the Baptists.” It is well
known that Ptedobaptists of the present age, without
considering baptism as essential to salvation, do yet
make it a pre-requisite to communion.
Neither do we admit “ that the absolute necessity of
baptism, previous to communion, sprang from those lofty
and superstitious ideas respecting its efficacy.” Bap
tism has been regarded ns n pre-requisite ,*o communion
where the error of its saving efficacy has not misled the
mind. We sunpose this to have been the case in the
primitive limes, before this superstitious notion had crept
into the Churches ; and it is the case with Ptcdobaptists
of the present age, who have discarded that notion-
Moreover, an error has existed equally great, equally
extensive, respecting the saving efficacy of the Lord’s
Supper. In contemplating the relation that has sub
sisted between the two institutes in the different ages of
Christianity, with a view to compare our principles and
practice with those of former generations, we ought to
regard their relative rather than their real importance
The mistakes as to their real importance rose, prevailed
and are subsiding together; ye! their relation to each
other has, amidst all these changes, remained the same.
Regarding the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament in w hich
a spiritual and saving efficacy wascommunicated, there
appears no reason for requiring that its recipient should
already he in a state of salvation; and, therefore, the
requirement of baptism as a pre-requisite did not origi
nate, os Mr. (1. supposes, from the high virtue ascribed
to this latter ordinance.
(To be Cos iuu J.)
For the Christiun Index.
Scaled Book Opeucd.
Bro, Baker —“ The vision of all has become as the
words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one
that is learned, saying, read this 1 pray thee; and he
saith I cannot, for it is sealed: and the book is delivered
to him that is not learned, saying, lead this I pray thee;
and he saith, I am not learned, Therefore the Lord
saith, forasmuch as this people draw near me, with
their mouth and witli their lips do honor me, but have
removed their heart lar from me, andlheir fear towards
me is taught by the precept of men, fyc. Isaiah 29. 11-
13. The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and
the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”—
14th v. How literally is this prophecy fulfilled now.
What a flood of human productions fill the professing
world, sealing tiif. Bible] Thank God there is an-
Publisher— BENJ. BRANTLY
other prophecy in the 18th verse,—”R,
that day shall the deaf iiear the words
of the book, and the eyes of the blind
shall see out of obscurity anti net of
darkness.” We are hidden to search
the scriptures, but James’ dark version
makes (t impossible. Il hftdlofob
scunty. It is not God’s will ipVt
Preachers alone should understand.—
Human frailty pioves the temptation
to deceive, too great. God made ,:i
book for all, and he who prevents ‘.hr
common mind from understanding jfw
whole will of God, is not of him- It in
made a crime now a days to ask for
an honest interpietaiion of God's word.
Is il our late? Are we all to bow to
that translation of James? Isjtßrp-*’
tists alone who are concerned ! \<-
it is the whole world. Have wr cut
thing to fear from the true word r;
God? Are we afraid of examinim
our otvn belief by that test ? Then i
human precept tuidfearful and do.,
gerous hold of our hearts. I hope
we entertain no belief incompatible
with the mind of God ! It matters
not, my brother, to us what the mi.
of God is, we must search the sci ij
lure, find it out, and hold last toil alow.
James’s version is not the word oKioi'.
Some parts are untrue. Many, too
many, are not interpreted at all, hut
transferred by the command of Janice,
to deceive. If our large denomination,
as a body, demanded, loiced, compell
ed, the interpretation of God’s mind,
it would cause such a shaking atfiongr
the dry bones, as never yet was beard
Can a Christian heart look on, and not
wish to see this day ! Dear brother. £
would cheerfully, then, lay down mv
worthless life, and say in the words of
Simon tlic aged. “Lord ! now hitcst
thou thy servant depart in peace, ac
cording to thy word, for mine eyes
have seen thy salvation, which thou
hast prepared before the face of all pen
pie; a light to lighten the Nations,
and the glory of thy people Israel.”
Il \Y icklitie, or Tyndall or Covi rdnli
had wailed till they had Rome's aj -
probation, they never would have i<_-
ceived it. If we wait till Presbyte
rians of the old school approve, ncith
er shall we. Yet a pure interprelatie?.
j would meet even man's approbation,
when done. Then let us not coin s
j ue in doing and encouraging evil “ll r;
good may come.” The pure word of
i V 1 vH •v/ a o ***y veuw | .... AI.
caunol think that you, or 1, or any
suite man would rather have a falsiiiec:
word, than a true word, of the Lord
Gou. Our opponents could no mote
contravene or successfully oppose a
true interpretation of the word of God,
than Rome was enabled to oppose suc
cessfully “the piece of one,” now in
use. No'..A Nation w ould be born in a
day. Satan would be overcome, and
God glorified. We should have no
more disputes. They have tried
their last device. The cause of dis
putes is the wicked version which
some ijtt advocate. Should we be
the innovators ? No. Whv ; if the
first English rendering is to be the true
one, or the only one, why did James
and his Bishops not continue flick
lijfc's? It was too “puritan,” or
too pure and more accurate than theirs.
Why were James's Bishops ordered
not to translate, but to conform to the
Bishops’ Bible in all ecclesiastical
words and dogmas ? “Ekklesia” it
self meaning ‘an assembly of people,’
or ‘congregation’ not chuich lor ‘Ku
riakon,’ which the word chuich comes
from, means ‘temple of God ;’ yet
“church” is used for “Ekklesia.” Why
so? Borne will answer. It was that
she could say “Holy mother church,”
as the true meaning would not suit,
being “Holy mother assembly of peo
ple,” but it was her policy to keep
the people out of Iter counsels. Thus
would all heresies fall to the ground by
a true interpretation. 1 u 1523. Wil
liam Tyndall said, •■.>! thousand bocks
had the Papists rather to be put
forth against their abominable doings
and doctrine, than that the scriptures
should come to light. For as long as
they may keep that down, they will
so darken the right way with the ntist
of their sophistry, and so wrest the
scripture unto their own purpose, ex
pounding hin many senses before the
unlearntd lay people; when it hath
but one simple, literal sense, whoso
light the owls cannot abide; that
though thou feelest in thine heart, and
art suri, that all is false they s.iv. . t
thou couldst not solve their subtle r.
dies. Which thing alone, moved in
to translate the New Testament. H<
cause 1 had perceived, by Expcriem
that it was impossible to establish i
lay people in any truth, except t
scriptures were plainly laid before
tlieir eyes in their mother tongue, in..;
they might see the process, order an
meaning ofthe text.” Myles C'ovn
dale in 1535 says, “ Seeing that lh
diligent exercise of translating, doiti
so much good and edificth in other
languages, why should it do evil in
ours? Why. 0 why, Brother
Can we offer hi-fi re the thrum of ‘■ and,
at the judgment and iv, the reason.- offer
ed by you sot consenting to conerai
God’s word, except from heuthtn nu
lions ? Then wc are surrounded ;>,
NO. 6