*DISCUSSION
PEVISION OF THE HOLY ORACLES,
AND UPON THE OBJECTS, AIMS, MOTIVES, THE CONSTITUTION,
ORGANIZATION, FACILITIES, AND CAPACITIES OF THE
AMERICAN BIBLE UNION, FOR REVISION.
BY TWO "LAYMEN " OF THE REVISION ASSOCIATIOM,
AND FIVE CLERGYMEN;
THE LATTER SPECIALLY APPOINTED BY A CONGRESS OF:
MINISTERS OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE.
LOUISVILLE, KY.
MORTON & GRISWOLD, PRINTFRS.
1856.








INT RODUCTION -.
THE BIBLE REViSION ASSOCIATION appointed the undersigned to prepare andr
publish in the Louisville Journal and the Morning Courier a series of articles on
the necessity of a Revision of the Holy Oracles, and on the meanIs and facilities
of the American Bible Union for accomplishing this needed Revision. Upon the
announcement that an arrangement of this kind had been effected with the papers
we have named, and before we had made any publication, the drummers of that.sectarianism, which is at once the bane and disgrace of Christendom, took immediate steps for a contention. Five clergymen were found ready to form a temporary
union for the purpose of doing all in their power to shut out from King James's
version, every ray of light that biblical science has shed upon the text of inspiration, and to hunt down with worldly rmeans all who are engaged in a pious, holy.
righteous desire to give the English reader as exact a transfer of the ideas of th(l
Holy Spirit as human labor, genius, learning, and skill can make from the Orig'nal
texts. A "religious" paper, devoted to party purposes, issues, and aims. thus
trumpeted, on the 17th of April, 1856, the official birth of the champions of this
~contention:
"The five clergymen referred to were no mere volunteers, but at one of tib
largest meetings of' lM/,INIS TElERS of various denominations ever held in the city
of Louisville, they were appointed expressly to assure their brethren that this
tRevision movement was a Sectarian immersiornist interest, and that it had no clirlai
to the sympathies of any others."
The capitals are our own. The reader will perceive that this historic record of
the entree of the five clergymen upon their hunt after the Bible Union, announces
that the Convention that appointed them was the Kingdom of the Clergy, not,
representcatives of the people. Jesus Christ never appointed a clerical hierarchy
for the management of his affairs- he announced that the members of his Body
are brethren, they stand upon common ground, and are to call no man on earth
their leader. The commission, as recorded by Matthew, was given to five hundredt
brethren on a mountain in Galilee, thus ordaining that all things pertaining to the
conversion of the world, belongs to the individual members of the body, cand not
to privileged orders. It is sectarianism that maintains the Kingdoli of the Clelgy,
not the Kingdom of Christ; and that same sectarianism, by its clerical orders,
sent these five clergymen into the lewspapers to deride and revile the ri hteous
eiforts of the American Bible Union to ascertain what God has said to niankind,.
and after ascertaining it, to say it in intelligible English. The very terms of the
record we have quoted: -" minzsters of various denominations," shlow that it was
ilot Christianity that was convened to oppose the Revision of the Holy Oracles,
for Christianity knows nothing of " various denominations; s " it is a unit, it was
so constituted divinely, and Heaven has never acknowledged any other characteristic of it. It is sectarianism that is made up of "various denominations," not
Christianity.
On the 10th of April, the same partisan paper, in answer to a proposition of the
Western Recorder, that both sides of the Revision Discussion should appear iin
both papers, said: "we will not publish bothl sides of the Pevzsion questhon." "Because it would be unreasonable and unfair to onur readers to do so."
And on the same day, the same paper saluted the assembling of the Revision
Association in Louisville in the following courteous and gentlemanly terms:
"A QuIER  FOR THE JOURNAL AND COURIER.
" Ma. EDITOR:-Now that the five clergymen have clearly shown the intensely
sectarian character of the Revision movement, will the conductors of the Journal
and Courier permit Dr. Bell, in their name, to puff the doings of the Convention
which meets this week in the city, to promote that object? I, as a subscriber to
both their papers, protest in advance against any such prostitution of the secular
press, to the fostering of the most intensely sectarian movement of the age.
FAIR PLAY."
To this admirable specimen of bigoted sectarianism, the editor of the Journal
thus responded, on the 11th of April:
"INSOLFNCE. - We have been under the necessity several times of iebuking
the Rev. Mr. Hill, of the Presbyterian Herald, for his ill-mannered references t0
the management of the Louisville Journal. He seems to have learned something
from those lessons and now undertakes this interference through the medium of
anonymous correspondents. As we never meddle with the Presbyterian Herald,
we can ee no reason wslhy the editor of that paper should undertake to instruct us
ain what is clearly ours on:o   business. Iii the,pres-ent instarace, the Herald's conrres



4                          rIsNTRIO 1) UC II ON.
p',ndent begs pernmission to muzzle the Louisville Journal in reference to the
Bible Revision Association, now in session in this city. The course of the Jourl
ndll has always been to give every great public enterprise, conducted properly.
and under the management of good and true men, courteous and respectful treats
nennt; and we know of nothing in the character of the Revision Association, or
ill the character of the great number of learned, reputable, and pious men engaged
in furthering its objects, that should exclude it from the respect and courtesy of.this paper. The correspondent of the Herald may rest assured, that we shall
msanifest that respect and courtesy in any way we may think proper,'
And the editor of the Courier expressed the most thorough contempt for this
imlpudent interference with his business.
The individual thus named in Fair Play's modest and decent dictation, felt
himself called upon to return his thanks for the honor conferred upon him, in the
tfllowing card, published in the Journal:
" I think that as a matter of simple justice, I owe the expression of my thanks
to the Rev. Mr. Hill and his corsespondent " Fair Play for their modest request,
-that I alone should not be permitted to notice the proceedings of the Revision
Association. They flatter me exceedingly in conveying the idea that no one but
mTyself would be likely to give aly efficient aid to the cause. as efficient help
wvould be the only klind to which they would be likely to object. While I disclaiml
all right to the honor, I may thank the two gentlemen for even the unintentional
compliment they have thrust upon me.                         T. S. BE L.'
We have recorded the facts of the treatment received by the friends of Revision,
as specimens of a most unholy condition of things still in existence, amidst the
blaze of the light of nearly nineteen centuries of Christianity  These specimens
of clerical interference with the desire of holy and true men, to give the masses of
the people the pure Word of God in the clearest and most accurate translations,
tre precisely such as have attended every effort of holy and true men of all ages,
t:o make the inspired text clear and intelligible to the people, as may be seen in
our XI. letter,
In this volume we present the entire Discussion of the Revision cause between
tawo "' laymen," as sectarianism denominates members of the body of Jesus Christ,
Ion behalf of the Revision Association, and five clergymen selected and specially
appointed as champions, by a convocation of MINISTERS, represented as the lar-,:,cst assemblage of that kind ever convened in Louisville. We cheerfully comtint the discussion to the judgment of the people. " In their opinions they are
seldonl wrong, in their sentiments they are never mistaken.:' The Saviour appealed l oln the judgment of the doctors of divinity, the scribes and other members of the lierarchy, to the people and wie have followed his example.
RleadLer, we pray you diligently to consider these questions: Is King James's
version the Word of God in all'its fullness? Every scholar on earth, who has
paid any attention to the subject, says No.
And since all scholarship, all biblical science says the English language has no
version that is faithful, in all respects to thle inspired text, are you not imperatively
bound, as one who is to give an account of all your acts and words, to look into
thiis matter, and determine for yourself, that let others do as they may, you will
do all in your power to secure for earth's teeming millions as faithful translations
of God's Word, as can be made?  The peace of your soul, reader, rests upon
your response to these questions — rests upon your fidelity to God's own Word.
F'or he that quietly permits false versions of the text of inspiration to pass into the
unlearned mind of the masses of the people, as true representatives of God's words,
or aids and encourages such perversions, apocryphal statements, interpolations
into or omissions from the true text, as are universally acknowledged to disfigure
the Common Version, will not be held guiltless.  The path of investigation is
palpable, the way is clear, and neither negligence nor misdirected action can be
acceptable to God. The voice of inspiration rings in the ears of every redeemed
soul, it lingers amidst even the echoes of every awakened conscience, and will
sound as' the trumpet of an archangel at the bar of final judgment: " to him that
knoweth how to do right, and who doeth it not, it is sin.'"  Even in the utmost
degeneracy of the Jews into the very depths of sectarianism, no Jew ever insulted
Jehovah by saying, as an excuse for bad conduct, that he did not understand what
Jchovah wished him  to to do. Christian reader, take care how you try such ia.
experiment upon your Maker and Redeemer.               JAMES EDMUNDs.
T. S. BELL.




N    M B Eli IB 1S.
THE REVISION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
THE Bible Revision Association have appointed the undersigned to prepare and submit to the public such information,
as to the objects, eflbrts, plans, and facilities for success in the
purposes of the Bible Union in making a revision of the IHoly
Scriptures, as shall conduce to a proper understanding of that,
important enterprise.  XWe enter upon the performance of the
duty with a fill recognition of the responsibility entrusted to
oa1r care.  The enterprise is one of the noblest elements in the
progress of the age, and is commanding attention and approbation wherever the English language is spoken.  And of the
multitudes of great and good minds engaged in hearty co-operation in the work of a thorough revision of the Bible, we do
not know of one that does not recognize this cause as a leading
vitality in Christianity.  IHow, indeed, can it be otherwise?
Thie two most momentous questions that can engage the human
-mind are, first, has God spoken -to mankind?  If he has, what;
has he said?  No one will controvert the fact that the second
question is quite as monmentous as the first.  Even the mere
temporal blessings of the Jews were so entirely dependent upon
obedience, not to inferences, whims, fancies, or feeling, but to
words of the law, that Moses commanded an extensive publica.tion of them  upon great stones covered with plaster, and hle
expressly enjoined: "You shall write upon the stones all tie>
words of this law very plainly."  If that was essential undler
th:e Mosaic institution, can it be less so under the Christian di:-.




6             FIDELITY TO GOED IS THE'p3cnsation?  Call any Christian mind ultter a negative to this
q nestion?
It is not a matter of any controversy that what is called the
authorized version of the Scriptures fails -to answer the. condi,
tions we have named.  There is not one sect in Christendom
that even pretends to think it in all respects a fair exposition
of the mind of the Holy Spirit, as that mind was expressed in.
the original language.  There is not a classical scholar anywhere, there has not been one in any age since King James
prescribed orders, not only for a translation, but as to how it
should be made, who has not discovered manifold faults in.
the version thus made to royal order.  A vast multitude of
translations have been made by scholars, eminent alike for
learning and piety, of almost every sect recognized as orthodox.
These have been great helps in the hands of biblical readers
toward retaining the authorized version, for the same reason
that the mass of persons who are able to read Greek do not
feel the necessity for a better version, as much as those, who,
without the ability to read Greek, know that the authorized
version is not a faithful translation in all respects of the ideas
which the Holy Spirit expressed in Greek.  The more thoroughly the investigation is made, the more thorough will be
the conviction that in these matters the Bible Union has means
for success, which were utterly inaccessible to the men employed by King James.  Not to enter into details, at this time,
it may be sufficient to say that, when King James's translation
was made, not one of the Greek manuscripts, now received as
authorities for the purity of the text, was known to be in existence.  The first discovered one of these four manuscripts did
not come to light until seventeen years after the publication of
King James's version, and that version, with all its acknowledged imperfections, has been jealously locked up against any
ray of light from the floods -thus cast upon the voice of inspiration.  There can be no good reason why such a state of things
shall any longer be tolerated,  There is not an apology of any




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 7
kind for the refusal of any Christian to aid in removing the
acknowledged rubbish that has grown over the revealed will of
Heaven to man.
In the year 1850, in the month of June, a ntumbeli of pious,
devout, and God-fearing scholars determined that, while others
might do as they desired in view of this state of things, as for
themselves, they would no longer aid in perpetuating the existence of errors against which their learning and consciences alike
rebelled.  They felt that it was absolutely necessary that a
vigorous effort should be made for a correct version of the Holy
Scriptures, and they resolved upon starting the work, To this
resolve the American Bible Union owes its origin.  The times
seemed eminently propitious for success. At no period since
the Apostolic age has there been a finer scholarship in the Greek
and Hebrew languages than at this time. And for many centuries there has not been such a pure original text as the present
age possesses. These two truths constituted an excellent basis
for the superstructure undertaken by the Bible Union-an English text which should be a faithful reflection of the original
text. That such an object may be attained few persons will
deny; that it is desirable all will admit. Timid persons were
frightened with the idea that the result might be a sectarian
Bible, and many such characters rushed into opposition without
pausing to inquire whether an evil of that character could not
be successfully guarded. They readily admitted that there are
errors of a grievous nature in the authorized version, which promote and feed divisions among Christians, but they seemed to,
think the evil irremediable.
The Bible Union has successfully grappled with this evil.
There is not one element of sectarianism in its constitution, its
aims, its efforts, or its work.  It has called to the work of revising the Holy Scriptures forty of the best Hebrew and Greek
scholars that could be found in Europe and America.  If there
are any better scholars than those employed by the Bible Union,
no amount of honest and assiduous effort on the part of that




8              MFIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIlE
association has enabled it to hear of them.  Ten different sects
have contributed the forty scholars to the great work of revising the Holy Scriptures.  Not one of these forty was engaged
on account of his special sectarianism, but solely on account of
his well-ascertained position in acquirement and ability, and
for fidelity to the Holy Spirit, in faithfully transferring the ideas
uttered by inspiration in Hebrew and Greek, from those languages into the English tongue.  No sect has any, the least control over the work, nor can any sect, in any manner, direct its
course. The broad principles laid down for the guidance of
the translators, and for as perfect security against error in the
work as human powers can devise, utterly destroy all scope for
sectarianism or partyism in the labors of the Bible Union..
For nearly six years that association has been publicly engaged
in its objects, in Europe and America, and no one has yet
charged that that broad principle has ever been departed from.
We ask attention to it, we challenge for it all that scrutiny,
time, and talents can do toward detecting a flaw in its character.  Whenever an improvement is suggested in any quarter,
the Bible Union will cheerfully adopt it.  That principle is
contained in the following resolution:
"'That appropriations made by the Union, shall in no case
be employed for the circulation of a version which is not made
on the following principles, viz: The exact meaning of the
inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the time they were first written, must be translated by corresponding words and phrases,
so far as they can be found, in the vernacular tongue of those
for whom the version is designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness."
A very large portion of the Bible is completed, so far as the
first translations are concerned, and we do not know of a sentiment nor a phrase that has been translated in violation of the
fundamental law of the Bible Union.  The friends of the workl
have not only made that law for revision, but they have ta.k-ec




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                  U)
all conceivable pains to secure its observance. In addition to
the high scholarship we have named as engaged in promoting
the objects of the Bible Union, there are over three hundred
critics, in England and America, engaged by the Union for the
purpose of guaranteeing the fidelity of the translators to the
principles we have quoted.  These critics belong to a large
variety of sects, but not one of them was selected because of
his position in sectarianism, but entirely on account of his reputation for ability in critical labors.  Each book revised has
not only to pass the inspection of all the scholars engaged en
the other books, but has to be examined by each of the critics,
before it goes to press. And, in addition to these ample saibguards, before the work is finally adopted by the Bible Union,
copies of it are distributed to eminent scholars, not in the employment of the Union, and suggestions are solicited fronl
them.  This, therefore, is an enterprise which rejoices in thle
fact that no sect has created it, no sect can guide or control it,
no sectarianism enters into any part of its life or movements.
The Bible Union is a voluntary association of persons, who,
without the slightest idea of sectarianism, believe that the W~ord
of God, cleansed from all the impurities which sectarianisml
and other sources of error have thrown around it in King,
James's version, can be presented to English readers so as to
express the identical thoughts to them, which were expressed
originally in Hebrew and Greek.  The ultimate object of the
Bible Union is announced in the following terms:
"In accordance with the object se-t forth in the Constitution.
the Bible Union seeks to procure a faithfully revised version of'
the English Scriptures and similar versions in other European
and heathen languages.  The design is to have the Bible speak
with one voice throughout the world."
Can any honest heart withhold a hearty amen to that announcement?  And the Bible Union, strong in the recognitio,:n
of the sacred and momentous duty it has undertaken, and f::'



FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIHE
less of any opposition that may. array itself against its truths,
thus expresses its sentiments:
"No compromise of truth in its simplicity, its purity, and
its clearness will be made, to gain the co-operation and sanction of any man, or any body of men.  But while the principle
of the most scrupulous fidelity to God is inflexibly adhered
to, no suitable means will be neglected to bring forth the Book
with the greatest weight of human authority, which, consistently with that principle, can be secured."
The cause has been in progress nearly six years, and we
know much now for which we once could only hope.  The
success of the Bible Union has been, in every particular, far'
beyond the sanguine hopes of its early fiiends.  Its means
iave far outrun expectation, and it is winning confidence and
aid from the numerous sects in America and England.  One
of the most pleasing testimonials to the success of all those
portions of the revised Bible that have been printed, is found
in the cordial commendation they have received from the most
authoritative periodicals devoted to sectarian interests, in Englan-td and America. The secular press in both countries is contributing some of its noblest powers to the furtherance of this
cause. And the Edinburgh Review, which for half a century
1has occupied the highest rank in periodical literature, in a:recent number, not only pleads powerfully for the revision of
the Bible, but announces that it must be made.  We shall
re-publish portions of this article in the next Weekly Journal.
England is largely contributing to the American enterprise,
and the subject was presented to the English Parliament lately
for its action.
To all who may read these sentiments, we submit the following queries, asked by the Bible Union:
"Is it right to continue the publication of known acknowle-:ged errors as a part of God's Word, when you have the,ower to corect them and to publish the truth?
"Can you, consistently with your obligations to Christ,




TRANSLATION OF TIHE SCRIPTURES.               A1
refuse to aid, to the extent of your ability, in removling from
His precious Word the unauthorized additions of men, which
pervert the meaning or obscure the sense?
"You acknowledge that the work ought to be done.  If the
Bible Union does not accomplish it, who will?  Shall we be
teft to work without your assistance?' Would you have us do
the whole first and then come to you for aid?  No; my brother,
if the enterprise is worthy, it is your duty to help it Now.
The Lord grant you grace to meet the duty in the spirit of
cheerful obedience, and to His name be the glory."
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
NUMBER Ii.
THE REVISION OF THE BIBLE.
IN our first publication we referred to an article of great
c:learness and force in the Edinburgh IReview, for October,
1855, on the evils that have accompanied the revelations of
the Holy Spirit, in their English dress, and the absolute necessity there is for a change from these evils.  As we press forAard in our expositions, we shall endeavor to give the public
mind full and explicit facts upon these matters.  In thie present
-publication, we shall mainly confine ourselves to a re-publication of such portions of the Edlinburgh Review as may serve
to show, what one of the highest literary authorities in the
world has to say'upon the past and present evils of the Bible
as it is now distributed to those who speak the, English language.
Tihe foundation of Protestantism, nay, of practical Chrisfianity, is thus announced by the Reviewv
"But whatever influences may interfere to warp its operation,, all Protestants, whethler Chturchmen or dissenters, are




`12          FIIDELITY TO 0OD IN T'i'lE
agreed inl the principle that our only authoritative religious
teacher is the Bible; and that'as there is no truth nor doctrine necessary to our justificatcation and evelasting salvation,
but which is, or may be, drawn out of that fountain and vell
of truth; therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into the
right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds to
know Holy Scripture, without the which they can neither sufficiently know God and his will, neither their office and duty.'
"Since the Bible, then, is of such inestimable value —the
depository of all religious a nd moral truth —the sacrced ark i
which the history and the subject matter of the Creator's
communications to his creatures are preserved, we might very
reasonably have presumed that it would be regarded with,a.
reverence correspondent to its importance, and that, in the
copies of it disseminated among the people, every care would.
be taken not only to render the translation an exact reflection
of the sense of the original, but to place the work before thlen
in such a convenient form as might induce them to read it, and
accompanied by such useIful typographical aids as might fcilitate their understanding what they read.  It might have been
fairly expected that, in publishing a work which is of such
momentous consequence to us all, both here and hereafter, the
text would have been carefully divided into paragraphs according to the sense; that what was S'poken would have been placed
between inverted commas; and that all passages taken by one
sacred writer from another would either have been printed. in
italics, or, in some easily' intelligible manner distinguished as a
quotation.  It would have been no more than reasonable to
assume that, among a Protestant people-setting the high
value upon them which we do-esteeming them as our sole
authority in religion the Sacred Scriptures would have been
published, with at least as much consideration for the reader's
convenience as the writings of our popular poets and novelists;
and that there would be editionrs, not only of every variety of
size and type, which might prove attractive to the taste of th-e:




TRANSLATION OF THIE SCIRIPTURES.             13
wealthy, or be adapted to the limited means of the poor, but
which might be demanded by the infirmities of our aged and
suffering brother Christians.  But the very reverse of this is
the case. There is no other class of works, whether we regard
the size, the type, or the distribution of the letter-press, in which
we find that so little has been done'to assist the reader, and so
mrucll to perplex him, as in the Sacred Scriptures.  If it had
been the object to multiply their difficulties, to prejudice their
meaning, and to deter men from the perusal of them, we doubt
whether the most accomplished Jesuit could have devised any
more effectual mode of publication than that which has been
generally adopted, and almost universally prevails.  NTo works
of' inferior value could have maintained their ground against
the treatment they have encountered. We are not ignorant of
the several editions of the Bible which exist; and we fearlessly
declare that we have never yet met with any copy of the Bible
which we could take up and read with typographical satisfaction."
On the manufacture of the Bible into scraps the Review
44 This is a slight evil in comparison with the mischief which
has been inflicted on the sense of the inspired writings by the
mode of breaking them up into. chapter and verse which has
Ibeen uniformly adopted.  These divisions, which have no
existence in the original, have been made without any authority
-whatever. About the middle of the thirteenth century, Cardi-'nal Hugo de Santo Caro projected a Concordance to the Latin
Vulgate, and divided the Old and the New Testament into
chapters. Rabbi Nathan, in the fifteenth century, in preparing a Concordance of the Hebrew Scriptures, subdivided the
chapters into verses. Robert Stephens, in the sixteenth century, passed simultaneously through the press a New Testaument and a Concordance; and, so at least his son Henry tells
us, while traveling on horseback between Lyons and Paris, he
X:ut the New Testament into verses for the sake of adapting it




14           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
to his Concordance.  This, we believe, is, in brief, the most
approved account of the origin of those divisions and sub-divisions by which our editions of the Bible are disfigured. No
other book ever suffered such irreverent treatment.  In all
other compositions the paragraph ends where the sense pauses,
in the Sacred Scriptures, whatever the sense may be, every
third or fourth line brings the reader to the end of the par~agraph.  They are the only works we happen to be acquainted
with in which the correct arrangement of the author's text has
been rendered subordinate to the facility of reference.  And'we are quite sure that they alone are endowed with a sufficient
force of vitality to outlive so cruel a process of mutilation."
The grievous character of this evil upon historic narrative,
epistolary style and meaning, and Hebrew poetry is fully
shown by the Reviewer.  The Review adds'
"4A very intelligent friend of ours declares that lie never
could comprehend the drift of the Epistle to the Romans till
hlie read it without the interruption of chapter and verse, in
Shuttleworth's translation.  And we entirely sympathize with
him  in his embarrassment. WAe repeat that no other work
whatever would have possessed internal life enough to bear up
against and maintain its place in public estimation under the
usage to which the Bible has been subjected by its editors.
We had, at one time, intended to evince the deteriorating
and enfeebling effect of such an injurious process of division,
by printing two or three of the finest passages from our own
authors, snipt into pieces and severed, without any sense of
compunction, from their context, as the Sacred Scriptures are
printed,, but we have refrained in tenderness fobr the feelings of
our readers.
"But is not the condition of our common English Bibles
obnoxious to charges of a far more grave description than
those which we have already noticed, and which merely relate
to the size of the volume and the distribution of the letterpress?  Does the translation itself present that fall, correct




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.'5
and distinct expression of the sense of the original, which all
Christian people, who look to the sacred volume as their paramount religious authority, would be desirous of possessing, and
which all who entertain a pious reverence for its contents would
be anxious to afford them?  We do not ask this question unadvisedly, or from a desire of putting forward any peculiar
theory or favorite devices of our own. We make the inquirysimply as Christian laymen, who most sincerely wish to learn
what the Sacred Scripture were designed to teach us, whose
only means of acquiring a saving knowledge of the truth is an
accurate translation, and who look to our ecclesiastical superiors for the grant of so reasonable a demand on their learning
and their zeal.  We studiously place ourselves in the position
of persons who are utterly ignorant of the original languages,
and whose only information respecting the state of our national
version is derived from the most patent and familiar sources,
the notes of Scott, of Adam Clarke, of D'Oyley, and Mant, and
of the Paragraph Bible; and we ask whether any man, with thle
continual emendations which are suggested in these commentaries before him, can entertain the persuasion that our common
English Bible really does afford an adequate representation of
the sense of the inspired writings, or that it should be allowed
any longer to remain in its present unimproved condition?
"TWhat was the opinion of Selden, a high authority on such
a subject, at the time of its last revision?' There is no book,
says that learned man,'so translated as the Bible for the purpose. If I translate a French book into English, I turn it
into English phrase, and not into French-English.'II fai
froid,' I say,'It is cold,' not I It makes cold;' but the Bible
is rather translated into English words than into English
phrase.  The Hebraisms are kept, and the phrase of that language is kept, which is well enough so long as scholars have
to do with it; but when it comes among the common people,
Lord, what gear do they make of it!' Most extraordinary,.
indeed, is the gear they make of it! "




I6            FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
The Reviewer thus alludes to those critical labors of the
Rev. Arthur Stanley, which are commanding the attention of'
the learned world.  The Reviewer asks:
"' Is the translation of the Holy Book such as it ought to
be?"
And answers:
"6 The Rev. Arthur Stanley, in his recent and very learned
edition of' St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians,' mentions,five kinds of error which exist in our received version of them,
and which he has rectified in his own.  His emendations are:
i1st. Such as are produced by a restoration of the ancient
MISS.  2d. Such as are produced by a better system of punctuation.  3d. Such as are produced by transposing the words
into a nearer conformity with the original order. 4th. Such as
are produced by bringing out the emphasis of words, apparent
in the original text, either from the use of the pronoun, or
from the place of the words in the sentence.  5th. Such as are
produced by inaccuracy of translation."'
We do not see how any one can call those truths in question.
On the subject of the original text of the Bible, the Review
says:
i" It would carry us far beyond our intention, to enter upon
the vexed questions of Biblical criticism in this place, but we
shall confine ourselves to an illustration of our meaning, borrowed from the ingenious commentary on some of St. Paul's;Epistles, lately published by Mr. Jewett, of Baliol College.
"No one who is acquainted with Sophocles or Thucydides
in the volumes of Dindorf or Bekker, would be willing to
reprint the text of those authors as it is to be found in editions of two centuries ago. No apology is therefore needed for
laying aside the'textus receptus' of the New Testament.
The text of Lachmann has many claims to be considered as
the most perfect which has hitherto appeared.  It is the first,
most consistent, and, with one exception, the only recension
of the New Testament drawn entirely from the earliest manu



TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES                17
scripts and authorities. It is the work of a scholar of the
highest genius, and of the greatest knowledge and experience
as an editor.  Lachmann is the first who based the text on the
most ancient authorities, solely on the grounds of evidence,
without regard to doctrinal considerations or claims of authority, and irrespective even of the meaning of words. The result
has shown that the most ancient text is also in every sense the
best. "-Jewett's Preface.
" It is obvious that the highest purity of the text to which
modern scholarship can attain, is the first condition of a correct
version.'
But there are other imperative reasons for a revision:
I" Scriptural phrases which were sufficiently clear to our great
grandfathers have gradually but imperceptibly changed their
meaning, and become altogether unintelligible to their descendants. For instance, CARRIAGE, in the Bible, signifies the things
carried, such as baggage; with us it means the vehicle.  PREVENT, in the Bible, signifies to help by anticipation; with us
it means to hinder.  To LET, in the Bible, often signifies to
abstract; with us it means to permit.  PITIFUL, in the Bible,
signifies full of pity; with us it means contemptible.  The
preposition or, to the confusion of many a passage, and the
bewilderment of many a reader, is continually -used as synonymous with by; a sense which it has now so entirely lost, that
Gifford, in his edition of' Massinger,' has thought it necessary
to make a note upon it."
And again:
"l But there is another, a more general and plausible objection to the alteration of our common version; it ought not to
be touched, because it has, for centuries, been held in reverence
by the people. We admit the fact.  It has obtained, and most
deservedly so, the deep and affectionate reverence of our Protestant population; but how is that any reason against its
being rendered more worthy of the deep and affectionate reverence with which they regard it?  If I heir reverence extend be2




:118          FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIlE
yond the respect that is due to the most accurate and compidec
translation of the inspired writings which, on the whole, has
ever been submitted to the contemplation of the unlearned disciples of' the Gospel; if their reverence attaches to its admitted
errors and deficiencies-such a feeling is not pious but superstitious; and it ought not for a moment to be deferred to as an
impediment in the way of so great a blessing as an improved
edition of the sacred volmune.  It classes, as an instance of
ignorance and folly, with the Popish priest's obstinate adherence to his old?umfpsimzus, which has been a jest amnong Protestants ever since the first dawn of the Refbrmation.  They
who would resist the elimination of the palpable mtistakes and
the acknowledged imperfections of our English Bible, froml an.
apprehension of offending the religious prejudices of the people,
are guilty of a pious fraud, which, though of a lighter shade of
guilt, ranks in the same vicious category with the practice of
tie Romanallist, who lends his support to the perpetuation of a
Ielief in fictitious relics, or endeavors to sustain the faith of
his -flock by the contrivance of a ifraudulent miracle.
" In dealing witIh a book, of which divine truth is the argurmaent, nothlling ought to be regarded but the means of rendering
it the most distinct and perfect reflection of that truth; and if
ou-r present translation do not afford such a distinct and perfect
reflection, it ought to be subjected to a course of continuous
and careful revision, till it shall.  But even suppose that this
confidence of the people in the immaculate excellence of the
English Bible were as deeply impressed and generally diffused
as some of us imagine, and that hitherto we have evinced a
salutary caution in respecting it, the time for such forbearance
has now ceased."
And the reviewer, from all the premises before him, says:
"No overweening confidence in the English Bible, even if it
now existed, could be long preserved in face of the exhibition
which the Annotated Paragraplh B1ible sets in a popular form
befo-re us, of the wrong version in tlhe teixt and the right -er



TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRI1PTURES.                19
sion in the note.  But whatever course our ecclesiastical authorities may pursue, they may depend upon it, that the Bible will
lnot long be allowed to remain ill its present nmtilated and
unsatisfactory condition."
With these extracts from the Edinburgh Review, we lIust
close this communication.  In our next we shall continue to
call the attention of our readers to such facts and truths as the
rmomentous interests confided to our care may demand.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
FIRST LETTER OF THE FIVE CLERGYMEN.
THE REVISION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
THE undersigned have been requested by a number of their
brethren —nministers and members of several Christian bodies,
to make such reply as they might deem  needful to certain
statements and reasonings lately advanced in some of the
newspapers of this city in behalf of the c" Bible Revision Association."  The request was proimpted, no doubt, by the opinion
that this revision mlovement-sectarian in its spirit and aims,,and not called for by the church at large, or required by the
actual necessities of the subject-is not entitled to the public
confidence and support. HI:eartily concurring in this opinion,
universal as far as we know in the churches of which we are
ministers, we proceed to sustain it in terms as brief as may
consist with clearness, and intended to be entirely respectful
toward those from whom we differ so widely on the subject.
It would be as unnecessary for us to notice this at-tempt to
publish another version of the Scriptures as any other of the
many translations which have been made, were it not that this
iS. avowedly designed to supercede that to which we are accustomed, and withl which we believe the great body of Christ.ani




20            FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
people are justly satisfied, and that those who are engaged in
urging its claims on the public, deceived themselves, may mislead others by representing their enterprise as eminently Catholic, to be approved and promoted, on that account, by all
denominations of Christians, while in truth its origin, progress,
and whole character prove it essentially and intensely sectarian.  A simple statement of its history will make this plail
to all unprejudiced and candid persons.
The American Bible Society, formed in 1816, and supported
by nearly all the denominations of Christians in the country,
went on for about twenty years, in great peace, and with great
success, to do its work at home and abroad. At length a serious difficulty arose in consequence of some members of the
society desiring that its sanction should be given to the rendering of the Greek word BAPTIZO by a term clearly meaning to
immerse, in certain translations then in progress, instead of by
a word formed from the Greek into the language in question1
to wit: the Burmese, as has been done in the English version,
This desire of the Baptist brethren was, of course, resisted by
others, and it was refused by the society, as must have been
foreseen from the beginning of tile matter.  The Baptists generally withdrew, and formed a society, which should cause the
word in dispute and its cognates to be rendered by words
meaning immerse, &c., in all translations in foreign tongues
for missionary use.
This association was called the "American and Foreign Bible
Society."  After their separation on this point from the great
body of Protestantism, some of their number demanded that
the same rule should govern their future publications of English Bibles, which they had now applied to foreign.  A schism
among themselves was the result; and Dr. Cone, with a majority of the members, withdrew from the majority, who adhered
to the received English version, and formed themselves into
the "American Bible Union," which, with the co-operation of
Alexander Campbell, his friends and adherents, has commenced




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 21
the very important work of a re-translation of the HIoly Scriptures, and of which, as we understand, the "Bible Revisioni
Association" in this city is a branch-at least an ally.
Some scholars of different denominations-paid of course Ior
their services-are in the employment of this body, and it is
said that here and there a minister or layman, not an immersionist, and not in the employment of the society, sympathises
with the movement.  We may add that a few literary and
scientific men also have been found to approve the scheme,
from a desire to adapt the Word of God to modern notions of
science and fashions of literature.
This brief recital is quite sufficient to show that the " Revision " is mainly supported by a forgone conclusion, which must
forbid an impartial and scholarlike translation of the Word of
God.
We intend no disrespect, although it clearly suggests a distrust and suspicion of this enterprise, that it is so nearly confined to persons. who, differing irreconcilably among themselves
on vital doctrines of the Gospel, agree only as to baptism, and
insist that, as the sacrament can be rightly administered only
by immersion, the English version of the Scriptures must con-.
form  to that view.  The Bible Revision Association is represented, as composed with very few if any exceptions, of Baptists and Reformers-or, as sometimes called, for distinction,
Canmpbellites- merging their differences of decided and conscientious convictions as to what they deem fundamental principles of the Christian religion, in agreement about baptism, and
uniting to re-translate the Word of God, irrespective of vital
doctrines, so as to make it call that immersion! We understand that the Reformers, as a body, support the scheme with
unanimity and great cordiality, while only a part, and, if we
mistake not, much the smaller part, of all the Baptists in the
country sustain it at all. However this may be, it is well
known that many of the most eminent ministers and other leading men of the Baptist denomination, including many of their




FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIlE
nost distinguished scholars, do not only refuse to promote it,,
-but do earnestly and constantly oppose it.  The Rev. I)rs.
Wrayland, Fuller, Welch, Williams, Dowling, Riley, Pattison,
MIalcolm, Magoon, Ide, and others not a few, very eminent among
them for their learning, wisdom, usefulness, and varied abilities,
Ilave taken the strongest of ground against the whole schele.?
1as needless, unwise, and fraught with mishlief.
The support of it by Baptists is the more remarkable, a.s
they have heretofore insisted that the word baptism  meant
niothing but immersion-and their present purpose to ChaIg'x
the word in this revision gives up the point, which has been,
in their view the strength of their argument and the glory of
t;heir name.  They have boldly contended tIlat nB3PdTIZE is a
-true and faithful word in English, as that from which it co0mes
was in Greek, to express the idea of' InK..,3_nRsE —_and that no
other sense can be fairly gotten from it and its kindrecl ternms
And now to abandon all these terms, and substitute themn withi
others which more clearly express what they desire the WTord
of God to say, is to acknowledge that they canl no longer maintiain their ground with the Eng'lish.  Bible.  No wonder, thle
people say, that such immllersionists need a new Bible.
It is another just ground of suspicion and' distrust of thii-t
movement, that many of its leading friends are so ready, nay,
so desirous to bring discredit on the old English Bible.  It has
been the accepted Word of God for nearly two hundred and
fifty years, with th!3- great body of the people who have used
the English speech.  13aptists, no less than others, have found
in it "the holy scriptures, which are able to make them wise
unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus."  We
are very sure that when they make their new version it will b(e
no more to them than this has been, "the word of His grace
which is able to build them up, and to give -them an inheritance
among all them which are sanctified."  The Bible, as we have
it in our mother tongue; has been the light and strength and
joy and h.ope of our fathers for tlese long' cenlturies, and is still




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               23
deemed sufficient for all the purposes which God intended it to
fulfil by such a vast majority of their descendants, that those
who make light of it are as a drop in the bucket.  We think
it not uncivil or unkind to ask, who are these that now deride
THIS BOOK?  The wisdom of ages and the wisdom of God
unite to say, "By their fruits ye shall know them."  The fruits
of this old English Bible as it is-enlightening the peopleelevating them for this world, and preparing many of them for
the next-rebuke as pretenders the men who say they can
make it better-the more as the grand improvement which they
propose is to change baptism to immersion! They seem not to
consider that other people will inquire whether, even if they
could amend the present version in some parts of it, they would
not be exceedingly apt to injure it materially in others-and
in such as are far more important than those in which they
might improve it.  They do not claim to be infallible, or
divinely inspired as scholars to translate? any more than as
interpreters to explain. And they ought not to think it strange
that those who love the Bible as it is in our own language are
jealous of such as begin their work of changing it by scoffing.
Every one feels that derision of an object, which is loved or
revered by him, excites his suspicion of the good taste and
wisdom at least of the derider.
The friends of revision have made a bad appeal herein,
except to partizans-the more especially as the specimens of
their own work already put forth do not seem to have won for
it any great respect.  The following criticism by the editor of
the London Record may fairly express the general feeling with
which their translations, as far as they have been made public,
are received: "Certainly the emendations already started, and
the disputes which have arisen upon almost all of them, give
us no very comfortable assurance of the possibility of the corrections proposed, or the probability of any very general acceptation of them. For instance, we have examined the specimens.
of a revised version of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Epis



24            FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
ties of John and Jude, and the Book of Revelation, issued by
the American Union, with a feeling, we must confess, of great
disappointment." If this writer had seen the revised Job, his
disappointment would have been no less, we dare say. There
is an old adage, that people who live in glass houses should be
very careful how they throw stones-and still better, as our old
English Bible has it, " let not him that girdeth on his harness
boast himself as he that putteth it off."
It is pretended, in behalf of this revision, that our translators
were neither free to use their knowledge, nor competent to do
their work aright, if they had been free-not equal, as scholars,
to the men whom the American Bible Union employs, and
bound by authority to produce a "version made to royal order."
It were much more to the purpose to prove these charges. It
cannot be done. That was an era extraordinarily rich in true
scholars. The fifty odd men who did this work were among
the most eminent of their day for knowledge and learning —of
the sort they needed-and for their acknowledged piety, honesty, and love of truth.  Neither can it be shown-and therefore it ought not to be said-that they were restrained or
coerced by royal authority.  "If it has been imagined by any,
or by many, that the present version of our Bible was either
suggested by the monarch, or that he was at any personal ex-;pense in the undertaking, or that he ever issued a single line of
authority by way of proclamation with respect to it, it is more
than time that the delusion should come to an end. The oriiginal and authentic documents of the time are so far explicit, that
just in proportion as they are sifted, and the actual circumstances placed in view, precisely the same independence of per-:sonal royal bounty, and on the part of the people at large, the:superiority to all royal dictation, which we have beheld all
along, will become apparent." This statement, which the
writer proceeds to sustain by ample historical testimony, we
take from a work of great learning and research, which is.thus characteized by some of the most eminent Baptists of'




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               25'this country: "', The Annals of the English Bible,' by Christopher Anderson, of Edinburgh, a Baptist minister of the highest character, whose work is of unquestionable authority on the
subject to which it relates."
We quote further from " The Translators Reviewed," a worlk
of equal research, by the Rev. Dr. MAlcClure, of New York.
He says of his labors-and the book will be found to sustain
it all. "As the result of his researches, which he has carried,
he believes, to the utmost extent to which it can be done with
the means accessible on this side of the Atlantic, he offers to
all who are interested to know in regard to the general sufficiency and reliableness of the common version, these biographical sketches of its authors.  He feels assured that they will
afford historical demonstration of the fact which much astonished him, when it began to dawn upon his convictions that the
first half of the seventeenth century, when the translation was
completed, was the GOLDEN AGE of Biblical and Oriental learning in England.  Never before, nor since, have these studies
been pursued by scholars whose vernacular tongue is the Eng.
lish with such zeal and industry and success.  This remarkable fact is such a token of God's providential care over his
Word as deserves most devout acknowledgment.  i'  
The general result is the ample proof afforded of the surpassing qualifications of those venerable translators, taken as a
body, for their high and holy work."
Such were the men to whom was given, in the providence of
God, this great trust.  The rule by which they were governed
in its execution was this: " That a translation be made of the
whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew
and Greek, and this to be set out, and printed, without any
marginal notes."  That is, the MTWord of God plainly rendered
into the common language of the people, without note or comment! No wonder that their work soon won the public confidence, and has held it, with comparatively few exceptions, to
the present time.- It has never been pretended by its intelli3




26G          FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIIE
gen-t friends, that it is free from  imperfections.  One of the'most difficult things in the world is to render one language into
tanother Awith absolute accuracy, and it is not reasonable to
expect that so large a book could be so rendered out of languages no longer spoken-unless it would please God to inspire
me-n, and mq ake them infallible for thal-lt work.
It has done nuore than all other books to fix our noble speech,
aAnd is this day carrying it, in its strength and beauty, around
the earth. Even its enemies cannot witllhold their praise.
ake these beautiful and philosophic words of Newman, whosef
dislike of the Protestant religion cannot blindcl him to the beauty
an2d power of the Word of God in its old English dress: " W bho
slall. say that thle uncominon beauty and marvelous Eng4lish of
the Protestant Bible is not one of the strongholds of heresy in
this country?  It lives in the ear lIke a music that can never
be ifrgzottcn  lilke the sound of church'bells which the convert
hardly knouws how he can forego.  Its felicities ofteni seem  to
be almlost thinggs rather than words, It is part of thle national
mind, and the anchor of the national seriousness.  The imemory of tile dead passes into it.  The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses.  The power of all the griefs
iand trials of man is hidden beneath. its words.  It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been
a, bout him of soft and gentle, of pure and penitent and good,
speaks to him  forever out of the English Bible.  It is his
sacred thing, which doubt has never dimmed and controversy
never soiled.  In the length and breadth of the land, there is
not a Protestant, with one spark of religiousness about him,
1JYwhose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible."
We have been favored with copious extracts from the Edinbur;gh Review, intended to depreciate the English Bible.  To
exhibit the just force of this testimony, it would be well to
show us how far that work is really friendly to our holy religion, as understood and embraced by evangelical Christians.
Can the Bible Revision Association assure us that the Gospel




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                  27
ots our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with its blessed institations, as pious Baptists and other Christian people in Europe
and America' hold and love it, is any more an object of respect
with these reviewers than the old English Bible?  It will be a
sad day for the Church of Christ when it conmes to look to
sulch sources for light upon religion, or the way it should tre at
the Word of God.  Are such as these, or any other men of the
world-not lovers of the truth as it is in Jesus-to settle by
their authority great practical questions for the people of God?
"Literary authority" is the word, the Edinburgh Review the
fountain of it!  Be it so.  At this high suggestion, the Word
of God must be revised, and the old English Bible, one of the
noblest monuments of English literature, as true scholars have
held, be, thrown away!  Be it so.  Will the Edinburgh Review, or anybody else but themselves, be willing to commit'that great work to the American Bible Union or the Bible
Revision Association of Louisville, Ky. Who but themselves
twill trust them either as scholars orexpositors?  It will still
remain to be shown that these bodies are competent to such a
work, either for the learning which they can command or the
impartial and just fidelity with which it will be used or the
wisdom  of their measures.  Said the Rev. 7Dr. Welch,  on
taking the chair at a great meeting of Baptists opposed to this
movement: "We may also ask without impertinence, are the
men who have undertaken this delicate and most. responsible
-task, in all respects qualified for its adequate performance?
It is no easy work which they attempted.  A different procedur:e, it is certain, would have been better adapted to insure
success.  It would have been necessary to call a convention of
the ablest and most learned men in the denomination.  They
should give the subject their profound and earnest attention,
seek the aid of all the lights which they could command, communicate with their brethren in Europe, especially with those
who speak the Anglo-Saxon tongue, appeal to every university
inr tl'he United States for its counsel and assistance, and thusl




28             FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIIE
procure a version which should be worthy of universal confidence."
But other counsels prevailed.  Instead of this wise and cautious moderation, a few men determined to carry this measure
over the heads of their brethren, resolved to have a Bible which
would support their preconceived sectarian views, as the old
one, they admit, does not.  In the face of history, in derision
of its faithful testimony, they charge that our venerable translators set out to make a Bible, which should support man s
views, not God's.  And now, forgetful of the Saviour's words
concerning the mote in another's eye and the beam  in theil
own, they are seeking to do the very thing which they bitterly condemn, as they unjustly ascribe it to these old servants
of God, whom  He honored to do so great a work.  Unquestionably, if they succeed in carrying out their purpose, their's
will be "a version made to order."
W. L. BRECKINRIDGE,
Of the Presbyter;an Church.
HI.  I. DENISON,
Of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
SAMUEL LOWRY ADAMS,
Of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
E. C. TRIMBLE,
Of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
G. GORDEN,
Of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
NU MBER III.
THE BIBLE UNION. —  REVISION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Wa  think that we lhave already given sufficient proof to
convince all honest-hearted persons, that the efforts of the Bible
Union to secure a faithful and perfect translation of the Holy
Scriptures into the English language are as free fiom; and independent of all partyism or sectarianism as human powers call




TRANSLATiO'i. OF THlE SCRIPTURES.              29
comtnand.  The Bible Union has grown to be a large and
numllerous body of God-fearing men, and throughout its ranks
oeverywhere, in all its individual members, one spirit and one
desire prevail.  And that spirit and desire are that all possible
measures shall be taken to procure an honest, faithful version
of the Scriptures, faithful to God and useful to man.  It is
utterly impossible that any man or party of men can prescribe
to the revisers or critics that anything shall be translated to
suit the partyism  or sectarianism of any body.  We have
already shown how  carefully, how  securely that point is
guarded.  The very corner-stone on which the Bible Union is
founded is, that each word and phrase of the original utterances of the Holy Spirit shall be translated into the vernacular
of all people, by words or phrases in each vernacular that shall
-most perfectly present to those who use it the divine ideas
originally presented in Hebrew or Greek.  Can any reasonable
objection be made to that?  Can any one suggest any improvement in its character?  And this fundamental law can be
modified or repealed only by a unanimous vote.  Let that be
remembered.  And in order to show how consistent the action
of the Bible Union is, we shall now merely remark that the
board of revisers is made up of persons who are among the most
eminent scholars of the following denominations: Church of
Tingland, Old  School Presbyterian, 3Methodist Episcopal
Chutrch, Associate Peformed Presbyterian, American Protestlant Episcopalian, Disciples of Christ, Seventh Day Baptist,
Baptist, German  Reformed Church, and Lutheran.  This
board of revisers is the body that finally settles the translation as it is to go to press, and a majority of it are Pedobaptists.  Another principle that lies at the very basis of the operations of the Bible Union is, that the revision of the Bible
shall be made to conform to the version now in -use, in all
places where it can be done consistently with the first law.
VWe appeal to men of integrity, of fair dealing, of honest purposes whlethelr human  means could devise more honest meas



.30'           FInFIDELITY  TO GOD) IN TFHE
ures than tlhese, measures faithful alike -to God and iman?
But these are not all the safeguards that stand in perpetual
vigilance over -this holy work.  Each scholar engaged  obr the
work of revision knows beforehand that all his work mlust conform  to the conservative laws we have named, and he signs.a
contract with the managers of the Bible Union, which provides
for a rigid adherence to these laws.  This contract we shall
publish in due time.  If the mieasures thus takeni and thus
secured will not produce a faithful version of the Bible for all
who speak -the English tongue, can any humanD.  means be
devised by which that desideratum can be accomplished?  The
timid, the ulnbelieving fear that something will be unsettledl b)
these measures, but, if tlie past experience of mankindl is Jf
any value, all that can be unsettled by knowledge and truth
are ignorance and error, and the Bible Union was not established to sustain or cherish them.
There have been for centuries two widely variant Bibles iTI
use —one for the learned, and the other for the umnlearneI.
This violation of the very element of the revelation of God to
man must come to an end some time, and it is time now thlat
the ax were laid to the root of the tree.  There is not one rea,son under the heavens why each Engrlish reader of the Bible
should not as perfectly undeorstand the ways of God to man as
the brightest scholar of thie 1and.- The enjoyments of the
learned iu biblical attainmients are deeply interesting,  vast in
their magnitude, vl.talismg, strengtlhening, and purllifying in their
character.  And shall the mtasses of the people be cut off from
the attainment of these blessings, w\hen they can be broghlt
within their reach?  The Bible Union says no, and myriads of
the people in every State of the Confelderacy, in Great Britain,
Cand in her colonies have responded to that resolve, in a laingua'ge neither to be misunderstood nor mistaken.  Each individual on this earth has to be judged by the words of Jesus
Christ, uttered either by himself in person,  or tlhroagh the
Itoly Spirit, and if these  words are not made cle"ar, pro



TRANSLATION O   T'HE SCRIPTUI-ES 
cise, unmnista.kable in their character, it shaHll'not be for the"r
want of a well-directed effort on the part of ti;e Bible Union
to command all the resources which time, labor, learning, and.wealtl: have prepared  fbr this noble work.
Within six months afte-r the publication of King James's
version, bi'blical learning commenced its attacks upon that
work; the anclestors of those very dissenters who are now en.deavoring to consecrate and maintain its errors, its glaring. defi-.
ciencies, and inconsistencies, then denounced the wrongs that it
had done to tlhem.   Every tage since that tiranslation was mnad(e.
has teemed with the strong and irresistible objections of eAinent scholars among  all the l)rotestant sects against that version.  Immense labors and learning, and thle expenditure of
untold treasures have built up for scholars and -br men of
leisure and wealth, a. p}lain, cmphatic Bible speech, that should
have been placed in the text of inspiration, palpable and accessible alike to the peasanit and the prince.  For, let it be remrembered, that such men as WalCh, ML[ aseh, Marsh, Townlcy,
Pettigrew, Lowth, Ge orCgc Campbell, a nd Mack hnight, by their
biblical powers; ~B uxto fT JTabolonski, Van Der Hooght, Micthaclis, Kenrnicott, IRossi, BoothrloyC, by their remiarkable powers,
upon the Hebrew text; JJolin'TillS, Dr. Wells, Wetstein, Matthei, Griesbach, Lachman, to say nothing of hosts of others.
by their efforts upon the Greek text, have thrown f oods of light
upon the Bible, which are alm1ost utterly shut out from  tih.
masses of the people.  F'rom 1624, when the Elzevtir editions
commenced, the scholarship of every age has industriously ransacked the earth ibr means to purify and correct the original
texts of the Holy SDcriptures.  In a. single case, Dr. IKennico,.t
was engaged from 1760 to 1769 in collecting Hebrew mal'mscripts.  A voluntary subscription of fifty thousand dollars wVas'
placed at his disposal to aid him  in his work.'He employed
scholars all over Europe to assist his search and labors, and lhe
obtained six hundred Hebrew manuscripts and sixteen maimscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch, scarceely ole of whuich wai;




3  FIDLELITY TO GOD  IN THE
Lnown to King James's translators.  A -vast library has beec
treated, made up exclusively of biblical criticism, sacred philology, invaluable translations of various parts of the Bible,
commentaries, and of other aids to a clear and precise understanding of all that Almighty God has spoken to man, but for
any utility that any of these labors of the pious and the learned
leave been to King James's translation or to the masses of the
people, this vast and invaluable material might as well havoc
been buried in the depths of the sea.  The learned can pursue
these labors upon the original text, immense libraries may be
built up by critical skill and industry, and no hlue and cry is.raised against scholars.  Their work is considered laudable
and neritorious; but the moment that scholarship attempts to
correct the errors of King James's version, to amend its numerous defects, to clear up its obscurities, and to bring it up to all
that learningf has discovered and settled as essential to bring it
near to the revelation of the Holy Spirit, so that the masses
of tie people shall be put in possession of all that God has
said to man, superstition takes alarmn   bigotry is aroused;
preudice, misrepresentationl  and zeal without knowledge or
truthl call all their forces to battle.  IDemetrius summons the
Ephesiaxn artisans to guard the shrine fiom  his notions of
destruction.  Scholars and privileged orders may be entrusted.
with all facilities for increase of Christian knowledge; it is
only the masses of the people that must be shut out from  all
Isuch enjoyment.  But the enemies of revision may as well
forbid the mists of the meadow to disperse before the risilng
sun, or attempt to shroud the beams of the morning in thelr
own darkness, as to undertake to stay the progress of this
cause.  The work will go on despite of all that a blind opposition can do to hinder its course.  All that the biblical scholarship of the past two hundred years has done for purifying and
elucidating the Word of Life, and which is now locked up firom
all intercourse with King James's version, shall now  have
an opportunity of lighting up that version with all the holy.u. opportunit  0 ~~~~~~t~                            -




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.              33
beams of heavenly radiance that learning and labor have sent
forth. There is not one of the leading sects of Christendom
whose most eminent scholars have not pleaded for just such a
work as the Bible Union are now carrying forward successfully.
The masses of the people must and shall have the laws of
ClGod written and printed very plainly. No scholar who has
any respect for his reputation for scholarship, can be induced
to say that such is now the case with King James's version;.
no earthly mortal has any reason or privilege for saying that
it shall not be made so. Take an example of the tampering
with the Divine Word that disfigures the authorized version.
In the twelfth chapter of Acts, fourth verse, we are told that
Hlerod intended to bring Peter out of prison after "Easter."
Neither Herod nor Peter nor any other man in Judea could
have told when that would be. Ask a learned Presbyterian
or Methodist to take the Greek text and say whether there is
~the least shade of an excuse for that "translation," and he,
will unhesitatingly say no; that To Pacska always means
Passover, and never, under any circumstances, can mean
Easter, Ask an Episcopalian scholar, and he will say the
same; but the excuse is, that by this utter disregard of what
the Holy Spirit really said, the solemn feasts of the Church
are sustained!  Is the Word of God to be confided to such
conservatism as this? If those who know these wrongs will
not amend them, must those who both know and feel them
stand dumnb in the presence of such abuses?  Is it likely that
either the heavens or the earth will weep over the unsettling
of such tampering with the Word of God as this?' And let
it be remembered that this is but a small specimen of a
numerous class.   TlWhen John Wesley revised the New Testament, he corrected tile abuse of which we speak, and restored
Passover to the text, instead of Easter. We hope that the
"representatives of the clergy" who have promised to meet
the Bible Union in its efforts to provide a pure Bible for the
people, will panoply themselves well: for they may rest assured
0




3A           FI1)ELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
that they will need all the defensive armor they may be able
to find in any quarter.
It is strange that the movements of the Bible Union should
already have produced the mutilation of biblical literature.
Kitto has published ten editions of his immortal " Cyclopedia
of Biblical Literature."  In the large and expensive work, too
expensive for common use, he pleads powerfully for a revision
of the Bible, on the very plan which was afterwards adopted
by the Bible Union.  Samuel Davidson, one of the ablest
biblical scholars of the age, wrote the article for Kitto's work,
and thus speaks: "It is needless to pronounce a formal enconium  on our authorized version.  The timne, learning, and
labor bestowed upon it were well bestowed. It far surpasses
any English version of the entire Bible in the characteristic
qualities of simplicity, energy, and purity of style, as also in
uniform fidelity to the original.
"A revision of it, however, is now wanted, or rather a new
translation from the Hebrew and Greek, based upon it. Since
it was made, criticism  has brought to light a great mass of
materials, and elevated itself in the esteem of the fundamental
theologian as an important science.  Hermeneutics, too, have
been cultivated, so as to assume a systematic, scientific form.
We require, in consequence, a new English version, suited to
the present state of sacred literature."
Will the reader believe the fact, that since the Bible Union,commenced its labors, a eCcear) edition of Kitto's Cyclopedia
has been published for distribution among the people, in which
It has been found convenient to om~it all this article of Dr.
Davidson's on revision?
In our next publication we shall attend to the remarkable
logic, and the still more remarkable historical statements, contained in the publication of the "representatives of the clergy,"
which appeared in the papers of last Saturday.  If those gentlemen feel no sorrow for the position they occupy, they miay
rest assured that we do. In addition to these matter-s, Awe shatl




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                35
show that the learned of every leading sect called evangelical, have uttered their censures of King James's version,
and have pleaded for amendments. We hope that those who
love that version merely because of its age, will seal their lips
on the Roman Catholic religion, for that is at least eight hundred years older; and if age sanctifies error, why shall it be
partial in its charities and operations?
JAM3ES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
N IJU BER  IV.
THE REVISION OF THE BIBLE FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AN iMPERATIVE DUTY.
THE Bible Union is engaged in one of the noblest works
that ever occupied the attention of human beings.  There is
not a more momentous enterprise, to each individual, in the
whole range of human affairs, than that which seeks to know
-aiit God has said to man, and endeavors carefully to determine that knowledge upon foundations which shall command
the most perfect confidence. There was a Supreme Providence
in making the original utterances of the heavenly revelation in
the Hebrew tongue, for it was the best on earth for the purpose;
there was an equal providence in the ordering of the New Institution in the Greek language, on account of its perfections
amnd universality.  Tlese utterances were inspiration over
which no mortal power has control; which no man may alter
but at his peril; with which no one must tampero  All who
approach the inspired text must feel that they are on hallowed
ground, and that no upright or holy mind can do otherwise,
in translating that text into another language, than make it
express as precisely what the inspired text expresses as is posible.  There is a Providence now in ordering this essential




3  FIDELITY  T O GOD IN THIu
work foi the English language.  Nothing of the kind has ever
vet been done. There is not one version in that language that
is in all respects a faithful expression of the ideas of the Holy
Spirit, and there never has been one. The want of such a
version is an evil which grows daily.  The English language
is becoming the predominant language of the globe; the English race is the supreme power of the earth. It has done what
no other race has done; it has made the circuit of the globe
as a race.  Starting from Asia, it has traversed the earth, and
now, from the plains of Hindostan, from the slopes of the Pa.cific, it looks over upon the cradle of its progenitors  It is
daily adding to its power; its speech is daily assuming new
importance in all that concerns civilization and the momentous
affairs of humanity.  Richardson says  "Not one hour of the
twenty-four, not one round of the minute-hand of the dial, is
allowed to pass, in which, on some portion of the globe, the
air is not filled with accents that are ours. They are heard
in the ordinary transactions of life, or in the administration of
law; in the deliberations of the senate house or council chamJber; in the offices of private devotion, or in the public observance of the rights and duties of a common faith."  And in
view of these vast and momentous affairs, which are daily and
hourly growing in vastness and importance, is it not humiliating-nay, is it not iniquitous-that there is not upon the earth
a transcript of God's word in that language-a transcript that
is faithful in all things to the inspired text?  We speak to
intelhgent minds; to thoughtful, reflecting persons; to men
and women who are to account to God for all they think, say,
and do; who weigh facts and evidence, and who love truth;
and we ask, is not this a grievous and intolerable wrong? The:
predominant race upon the earth, the world's master-speech, is
locked, bolted, and barred out from the fullness of the inspired
text.  Every sea, every estuary, every gulf, every mighty
river that drains continents, all climates and territories, feel
the advancing march of Anglo-Saxon civilization, and in its




TRANSLATION OF THE: SCRIIPTURES.              on
van should stream the light of God's truth in the full mid-daJ
effulgence of heaven's own inspiration; not in the fitful, dark,
obscure, unsteady lights of human contrivance.  A  plain,
simple, perfectly decisive method has been furnished by
Heaven, by which each individual can ascertain for himself
whether the English language possesses the revelation of
God's will as he uttered it to the earth.  The means for settling this question are not in the heavens, so that we need to
say, who shall ascend and bring them to us, so that we may
hear them, and perform our duty; nor are they beyond the
sea, so that we need to ask, who shall go for them and bring
them to us; but they are nigh us, in our mouth and in our
heart, so that we may use them. And He that sitteth in the
heavens will demand of all who speak the English language a
full fidelity to this responsible trust. Through His servant
Moses; through the Anointed One whose blood has redeemed
us; through his commissioned Apostle, God has given every
intelligent being the most perfect means to settle this important question: fIcts the lznglish- language a -Bible that is
fcaittful in all respects to the voice of inspiration?  Moses,
Jesus Christ, and Paul have fixed the law, that in the mnouth
of t0wo ol three witnesses every thing shall be established. The
important' word in this law is witness; but there is no kind of
difficulty in determining what is the meaning of that. Witness is derived from the Saxon word gewitta, on4 who knows.
A witness, then, is one who possesses positive knowledge; not
one who retails what he hears, but who knows that which he
affirms. It is palpable that a blind man can not be a witness
in any matter requiring sight, nor can a deaf man be a
witness in any thing relating to hearing.  In the important
question before us now, in order to constitute a man a witness,
he should be a master of three languages; he must be of two.
lIe should be a master of Hebrew, Greek, and English; he
must be of Hebrew and English, or of Greek and English.
The most perfect mastership of the Hebrew, Greek, and Ger



38             FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIlE
mlanl languages merely would as entirely cut him  off froms
being' a witness in the case before us as though lhe were not,a
mastcr of ally language.
Now we ask all honest mlen and women, who expect to give
an account of their stewardship to God regarding their treasurership of his Sacred Word, to look. at this important point.
Can there be found in the whole English race two or three
witnesses who lhave said or will say that we possess one version
of the Bible that is faithful in all respects to the inspired text?
Can on.e such witness be found?  If there are not two or three
witnesses, or even one, that will thus testify, then the question
is virtually settled.
When we were informed that several gentlemen, representing'
the clergy, 1had detetrmined to come before the people in opposition to the Bible Union, we had hoped to hear something
edifying on tile subject.  It is scarcely necessary for us to say
how mnuch we have been disappointed.  In the entire publication mnade by those gentlemen on the 16th inst., there is not
one word on the issues before the public.  The vital proposition whlich those gentlemlen were bound to announce and sustain is, that Ziing JCames'S version, is, in all respects, ca fcitAiful tra,/slation 0from  thle ins)iired text.  Those gentlemen
nowhere utter such a declaration; but it must be palpable to
themselves, as it is to others, that until they announce and
prove that point, all argumentation on their part is utterly futile
and vain.  If they can not thus speak, their case is closed,
and they may as well retire from the field of investigation.
Of the medley of matters which the gentlemen alluded to
have thrust into their publication, we shall say but little.
Among logicians it would not be necessary for us to say a
word; for no logician can discover any relevancy, in any part
of the publication under consideration, to the issue involved.
Yet we shall bestow a few passing words upon the document.
The "representatives of the clergy" have undertaken to
paint a portrait of the Bible Union.  Will they bear with us




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               39
rwhen we say that no acquaintance of that body can recognize
a single feature of the organization in that painting?  Let us
retouch their work with the pencil of facts, and make the portrait truthful.  Our clerical friends announce that the Bible
Union originated in an attempt, by the Baptists, to "foist"
an improper version upon the American and Foreign Bible
Society for circulation among the heathen.  Dates and facts
will settle the character of this statement.  The British and
Foreign Bible Society patronized thle Calcutta version for thirty
years, in which 6aptizo was translated by a word corresponding to immersion.  The American andl Foreign Bible Society,
with an organic law setting forth that they would patronize
any faithful version of the Bible for the term of fifteen years,
circulated Judson's Bible in the Burmese language, in which
bca2tizo was made to express immnersionl. After patronizing
this kind of' fbisting" for fifteen years, the American and
Foreign Bible Society changed their law and made a new one,
requiring all versions to be faithful, not to God's inspiration,
but to King James's version.  The disruption, therefore, was
not because the Baptists wished to foist any novelty upon the
Society, but because the Bible Society deserted its law that
was faithful to God, and made one that was faithful to King
James's version. That is the reason why the Baptists deserted
the American and Foreign Bible Society.
And now, as to the character of the persons engaged in the
cause of the Bible Union.  It has over five hundred thousand
persons engaged in its support.  The great mass of these persons are among the most pious, the most holy and righteous
people on earth, if obedience to Jesus Christ in every thing is
a criterion of holiness and righteousness. There is not one in
the whole body who would respect a translator for tampering
with or wresting one word of the inspired text.  Each one
feels that he must give an account of his stewardship to God,
and he recognizes the necessity of perfect fidelity to God and
man in these matters. There is not one in the whole: body




40           PFIDE-LITY TO GOD IN TILE
that would buy a false translation of a word if it were as
cheap as a penny; there is not one who does not regard each
word of the inspired text as a priceless gem, with which no
man can trifle. Is it likely that the naked assertion even of
five clergymen can make any body believe that such a body of
people, for any purpose whatever, could be induced to tamper
with the Word of God?
When the Bible Union commenced its operations, there was
not one religious paper in this country that would publish a
line in its favor; but such has been the progress of the cause
among the people, that forty-four papers, devoted to a pure
speech for the Bible, now come to the Revision Rooms of
Louisville alone.  The immense expenditures required for the
work of revision are borne by the people, and their contributions grow liberally every year.  But, above all, the Bible
Union has become the possessor of the largest amount of rare,
valuable, and essential material for a faithful version of tile
Word of God that is owned by any organization in America.
It thus possesses advantages for its sacred and heavenly mission that no other body enjoys.  No injunction or restriction
is laid on any one employed in revision, except that every
idea, originally uttered by the Holy Spirit, shall be expressed
as perfectly in English as the capacity of the language will
permit. Nobody asks or requires any specific translation of a
word or phrase for any party purpose. And each reviser enters into a solemn written compact of the following character:
"The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the
time they were first written, shall be translated by corresponding words and phrases, so far as they can be found in vernacular English, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness."
And the contract further provides that it shall be done "inl
the phraseology of the common English version, so far as is
consistent with fidelity to the original, and a proper regard to
the present state of the English language."




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                41
Now we ask thle intelligent and honest-minded everywhere,
hlow could fidelity to God and duty to man be more faithful than
the Bible Union has been in.each and every particular in this
matter? Yet five clergymen of the city of Louisville announce
that these honest, faithful measures will produce a Bible made
to order. We admit the fact, gentlemen, but not in your invidious sense.  It will be the first Bible in the English language that ever was ordered to be made in exact conformity, in
every particular, to the inspired text.  The Bible Union has
given no other order but that, and on it that body is willing to
stand at the judgment-bar of God. We grieve to say that
the clergymen to whom we allude insinuate that the revisers
are actuated by mercenary motives. Do they mean to say
that an agreement to do a useful, sacred duty, in an honest,
faithful manner, is mercenary?  Well., gentlemen, we went
among your scholars, guided by the assistance of the best
lights in your denominations; we employed men who adorn
your pulpits and your halls of learning; men whom you set
forth to the world and endorse, in the responsible duties you
pay them for performing, as worthy of all acceptancei and if
you now charge that such men, who are still your preachers
and professors in your colleges and theological seminaries, are
mercenary, may you not injure the standing of your own denominations while you are trying to injure the Bible Union I
We submit the question to your patient consideration.
But again. These five clergymen profess to be familiar with
the history of the translators of the; English Bible; but in
order to show the value of their historic sketch of the Bible
Union, for which they used no authentic material, we cite
a single instance of their accuracy in matters with which
they profess to be very familiar.  They announce that the
English Bible was translated by " fifty odd" persons  Anderson's Annals of the Bible, from which these clergymen quote
in their document against the Revision Association, would
have shown them that there were but forty translators, instead




e42          FIDELITY  TO GOD IN T1lE
of "fifty odd."  Their names and the portions assigned each
division of names are all givel in Anderson's work. We shall
give these forty translators a thoroug'h investigation in a future
article.  WThen we do that the people of Kentucky will not
be likely to hear much more about " sectarian,"'"mercenary"
revisers, or about "Bibles made to order."  But we now ask
attention to this fact: each of the learned gentlemen amlong
these five remonstrants uses two Bibles, the Greek and the
authorized version; and each one fr'eely revises the authorized
version in his pulpit, and we hope and doubt not that he often
improves it, for it has a large capacity for improvement.  One
of these ministers uses three Scriptures in his public ministrations: -he reads the inspired text in Greek, uses the version
of the Psalms in King James's Bible, and uses a different
version of the Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer. And
yet these gentlemen, who luxuriate in the workl of individual
revision, denounce the honest, faithful, and holy efforts of five
undredcl thousand Christians who are determined to procure
for the English language what it does not now possess and
never has possessed -an English -BiSle fait/lfal in all
things to the text of insjZiSration.  Verily, gentlemen, you
kick against the goads.
Of the judgment which these gentlemen pass upon that
portion of the work already partially revised, we shall have
something to say in a future number. Reverting to the I)Divine
law already mentioned, we shall easily and perfectly establish
the superior excellence of the revision by witnesses whose words
our clerical friends will not gainsay.
On one more point made by our clerical friends and co-laborers in the work of revision, we must say a few words. We
hope they will not be offended at being called co-laborers, when
we aesuiue them that the fiiends of revision sincerely regard
their first document as quite an aid to the cause.  It is a
curious fact that they use against revision the identical rule of
evidence upon which the Jews rejected the Saviour of the




Tit ANSLATION  OP TIlE SC  IPTU'IUES S,3
world.  Thle }Messiah said, "Search the Scriptures; they testify of inme."  But the Jews cut the knot in another way,
Thley asked, "1LIave any of tile rulers or Pharisees believed(
on him?"  And these gentlemen, instead of giving the laudable, the sacred cause of the Bible Union a patient, full investiCation, on facts and testimony, ask, "Are Dr. Wayland anld
Dr. Malcolm in favor of the movement?"  Upon such logic
iwe would not waste an argument; but we hope our fiiends will
bear with us while we correct their random assertions.  Thev
n'ame ten distinguished Baptists as using their influence, abili-.
ties, learning, and zeal against the cause of revision.  Among
these names is that of the Rev. Richardl Fuller.  If our clerical friends had read the papers, they would have found Mr.
Fuller's position defined in a letter which lie has published.
Hle is one of the ablest, firmest, most liberal, and one of thle
most zealous friends of the cause of revision that it has in its
ranks.  He not only liberally contributes his talents and
mnealns to the cause, but is president of a society in M3aryland
whose object is to aid the Bible Union.  Of the other Baptists
ilamed by our clerical fiiends as active in opposition, we assure
them that they misstate their position.  We are safe in saying
that about one half of them  have never uttered a sentence
lagainst the Bible Union, nor is it probable that one of the ten
Baptists named would consent to occupy the place given them
by our clerical friends.
We now proceed to establish the fact that King James's
version is not, in all particulars, a faithful revision of tl:e
Word of God.  Moses, Jesus Christ, and Paul imade and
sustained the rule by which we try that version - in thle mouth
of two or three witnesses every thing shall be established.
There is but one escape for anti-revisionists, and that is the
rejection of the authority of Mloses and Christ.  If their law:br the establishment of a truth is a valid one, we can easily
alnd satisfactorily arrive at truth.
Let; the reader now bear in mind what constitutes a witness,




44            FFIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIlE
and that Moses and Jesus Christ say, that in tle mouth of
two or three witnesses every thing shall be established.  We
proceed to summon men who are witnesses.
EPISCOPAL'CHURC-I WITNESSES.
Robert Lowth, whose "Lectures on tile Sacred Poetry of
the Hebrews" placed him on the highest eminence as a critic,
and whose works are a monument to his learning and skill as
a biblical scholar of the first rank, thus speaks of King
hames's version:
"In respect of the sense and accuracy of the interpretation
[translation], the improvemenets of whic/h it is cp2table are
gre&at acd nzuimberless."  And nearly one hundred years ago,
Bishop Lowth said: "Whenever it shall be thought proper to
set.forith thZe Holy scrptures, for the use of our Chuvrch, to
better advantage tlCan cts they c2ppear in the present Efnglish
translation, the expediency of which grows every day mzore
and aore evident," &c.  That is the testimony of a witness
whose qualifications were never surpassed, and whose position
as a testifier no one will challenge.
Benjamin Kennicott, D. D*, Canon of Christ Church,
Oxford, of whom, with unchallenged accuracy, it. has been
said, "Hebrew  literature and sacred criticism  are indebted
more to him than to any other schlolar of his age," says of
King James's version: "Great improvements might now be
made, because the Hebrew and Greek languages have been
much cultivated, and are far better understood since the year
1600."
Anthony Blackwell, A. AM., author of a celebrated work
called "The Sacred Classics Defended and Illustrated,' the
second volume of which is a monument of learning and biblical skill, says of King James's version'  "m Innumezrable
instances might be given of faulty translations of the Divine
original."
WVc might go on and fill this entire paper with similar tee



TRANSLATION  OF THEE SCRIPTURIES                45
timony; but, so far as the Episcopal Church is concerned, we
have fulfilled the Divine law.  By these witnesses we have
established the character of King James's version.  There is
not one witness of equal qualifications with these who contradicts their testimony.
IPRESBYTERIAN WITNESSES.
Geo. Campbell, Professor of Marischal College, Aberdeen,
-whose "Ecclesiastical Lectures," and  answer to HIume's
"Essay on Miracles," will live while the English language
exists. was one of the most masterly biblical critics'that ever
lived.  Hiis preliminary dissertations to his translation of the
tbur Gospels display far more learning than is to be found in the
entire works of the forty translators of King James's version.
He was a scholar over whom the Presbyterian Church has
good reason to rejoice.  Both Catholic and Protestant biblical
critics recognize his remarkable merits.  The Catholic Bishop
Kenrick, in the preface to his translation of the four Gospels,
speaks in warm  terms of George Campbell's abilities as a.
scholar and critic.
The tenth and eleventh preliminary dissertations of George
Campbell are crowded with abundant evidence that King
James's version is not a faithful translation of the ideas of
the Holy Spirit.  Of the evil influence of the Genevese translators, of Junius, Tremellius, and of the unscrupulous Beza,
over the forty translators of King James's work, George
Campbell gives ample testimony.  He bears witness to the
fact that Ile found fozur  undrecd errors in their version of
Matthew alone.
James M1acknight, universally recognized by both Catholics
and Protestants as one of the ablest biblical critics that ever
lived. was for thirty years the foremost man of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  In his translation of the Epistles
of the New Testament, he corrects fifteen out of every sixteen
verses of King James's version.  He thus witnesses: "Even




43           "FID)ELITY TO GOD IN THE
that which is called the King's translation, though in general
lmuch better than the rest, is not a little faulty.  It is by no
means suc  a just reprTesenatcion of the- insypired oirigincals, as
merits to be im.zplicitly celied on, for cdetermizning the controvertecL articles of the Christian ftaith, and FOR QUo ETING TI-IE
DISSENSIONS WHICHI HAVE RENT THE CHURCH."  It is thus the
nursing mother of sectarianism.  No witness comparable -to
George Campbell or James MAacknight can be produced to
refulte their testimony.
METHODIST WITNESSES.
John Wesley, the founder of Methodismr, without the aids
possessed at present, and without asking the assistance of
other scholars, made a revision of the New  Testament on his
own account.  He says:  I I have never, knowingly, so much
a.s in one place, altered for altering sake, but there, and there
only, where,  2rst,, the  sense  was madce  better, clearier,,stronzger, or   e more consistent with, Ite conztext;  secondlly,
where the sense being equally good, the phrase was bettGer or:
nearer the orIiialct."   He made seventy-two changes in one
chapter of Acts.
Adam  Clarke, D. D., one of the profoundest scholars that:
has adorned Mfethodism, on 2d Samuel, 12th chapter, says:
4"Though I believe our translation to be by far the best in
any language, ancient or mnodern, yet I amc s8atifced it stccad;,
mnuch in need of revisioln."
So far as Presbyterians ~and Methodists are concerned, until
khey can bring forward equal or superior witnesses to George
Campbell, Jas. 3Macknight, John Wesley, and Adam  Clarke,
to contradict them —and none such can be found-we have,
under the Divine law, perfectly established the fact that King,
James's version is not, in all things, faithful to the inspired
text.  And our clerical fiiends will not themselves assert to
the contrary.  But, they may say that the Bible Union is not
the body to revise the Scriptures.  -May we inquire whletlhr




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                   47
our clerical friends are exactly the men to say so?  In all
fairness, in all holiness, in all the truth and love of the gospel,
lare not those who know and feel an evil, and who take legitimate imeasures to remove or remedy it, superior, in every
point of view, to those who know and feel an evil, and cdo
nothing to remove it?''lhat is precisely the relative position
of the Bible Union and of our five clerical friends.
JAMEs EMDNUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
SECOND LETTER OF THE FIVE CLERGYMEN.
THE REVISION OF TE I-IOLY SCRIPTURES.
Ir has not been the purpose of the undersigned to cxpoe
every objectionable feature of the Revision scheme, nor to
engage in any personal controversy with the gentlemen who
aire advocating it in the newspapers of this city.  We halit(:
deemed it enough fOr us to show the reasonableness of the
general satisfaction with the old English Bible, and of fthe
distrust towards those who wish to change it for sectarial
ends.  Even though they were the best scholars and the most
ihonest-hearted men in the world, they would be unworthy to
be trusted with the translation of the WVord of God, i/f tI/ey
were determinzed befoweAahed to mnake it spgerk in7 a )articadai,,WIay to stit a parC'ty.  The best scholars are liable to mistake,
as the most sincere and. intelligent Christians are capable of
error as well in faith as in practice.  It matters little whethller
such determination arise from  their mistake as scholars, or
their error as believers, or their prejudice as partizans and sectarians.  In any case, it unfits theml for such a work. as this;
and the more resolutely they pursue it in defiance of the opinions of the Church at large, the less do they deserve the
public confidence and support.




48           FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
TrIhe whole question of baptism has been much disputed in
-the Church.  Like every other question concerning religion,
it ought to be discussed freely, in the spirit of charity and
mutual forbearance, with all the light- that can be shed upon
-it, the ultimate and only authoritative arbiter being the Wordt
of God in its plain and simple meaning. But this does not
imply that it is proper for any body of men to reconstruct the
Bible to uphold their own views.  We have heretofore shown,
in the history of this Revision movement, from the beginning,
and through the progress of the circumstances which have
resulted in its operations, that such was its main design.
It will not be denied that the American and Foreign Bible
Society was formed by a secession of Baptists from the American Bible Society because that truly catholic association
refused to sanction certain translations in foreign languages
which made the Word of God call baptism immersion.  Nor
will it be denied that the American Bible Union, out of which
has grown the Bible Revision Association of Louisville, was
formed by a secession from the American and Foreign Bible
Society because that society refused to apply to the old English Bible the principle which it had adopted in its foreign
translations.  Doubtless these last seceders were consistent;
but that is only another -way of saying that they separated
from their brethren because they were determined, no matter
who opposed them, to make the Word of God, in all their.translations of it, declare that baptism means nothing but immersion, and thus do what they could to settle that question,
by forcing the Bible, as we believe, to say what it does not
mean.
We are not ignorant that such a purpose is disclaimed by
the revisionists, and that strenuous and earnest efforts are made.by them to persuade tihe Christian world that their ends are
not sectarian.  It is not for us to reconcile this representation
of their design with the history of the enterprise.  Neither is
it for us to reconcile the several representations of this designT




TRANSLATION:OF THE  SCRIPTURES.                49
with each other, as they have been made at different times by
-its intelligent friends and most influential promoters.
We proceed to show how such friends and promoters of it
ihave declared its object and disclosed its spirit.
It is no disparagement of other men to say that the Rev..
Dr. Cone was, in his day, the head and heart of this movenent. He guided its counsels, lie infused into it his own
spirit.  Can any one suppose that this eminent man did not
know what he was about, or that he did not consider the force
of tilhe words he uttered on great public occasions, when' "Revision" was the subject of his discourse? Long the president
of the first Baptist Bible Society, formed by the secession:
fiom the American Bible Society, and then president of the
second Baptist Bible Society, formed by the secession from
the first, from its organization to the day of his death, and
honored and trusted by his brethren above any other, he may
be held, in some sort, to speak by authority. On one occasions
he is reported as saying, " There can not be a moment's hesitation as to the best izgZis/i word among Baptists.  Having
directed their missionaries among the heathen to translate bap-.
tizo and its cognates by words signifying immerse, immersion,
c&c., they can not long continue to be so inconsistent as to,
despise or reject immersion in their own vernacular tongue."
On a former occasion, addressing the Bible Union as its:
president, in words of encouragement to his brethren to proceed
inm their work of revision, lie said of himself: "H e has dared
to say from this pulpit, again and again, that Christian baptism is imfmersiolz only; that, if right to preach it, it is right
to prizit it-TO PRINT IT IN THE BIBLE; for if it is not in
the Bible, we have no right to preach or print it as a part of
God's revealed will to man."  *  *'*  "Since the English
word bayptize, according to our standard lexicographers, means
to spr;inkle, pour, asverse, christen, &c., the American Bible
Union must come up to the help of the Lord against the
miighty, take off the Popish cover from HIS PURE WORD,. dis,
4




FIDELITY  TO GOD,IN TIlE
abusee'the public mind led astray by doctors and dictionaries,
and, among other revealed truths, show to all who understand
our language, that baptismz is IMmlERSION ONLY."
That is in the "'vernacular," because scholars and common
usage say that bafptize, the original Greek word as used by
our Lord and his Apostles, simply turned into English, meanss
something else, and not immerese; THEREFORE,  we will make
the Word of God, in our version, say that it means I:MMEasE
ONLY, and moreover, 4IE WILL SO PRINT IT IN THE BIBLE.
It will be observed that Dr. Cone boldly rejects a distinction
which is not only clear, but of the utmost importance, tile
denial of which by a well-informed, reflecting, and truly Christian man, can be explained, as far as we can see, only by a
spirit of intense sectarianism; that is, the distinction between
preaching a doctrine and prilting it in the Bible.  Clearly,
the one is to state and enforce our sense of what God has
taught in his W'ord, the other is to mold the WYord of God
to our notions.  One is to expound relig:i1on; the other is to
make it.  In the one, fgood men may err unquestionably
through the infirmities that are, common to all, the other is
xceedingly like that presumption 6 whiclh sit teth in the templei
of God, showing itself that it is God.''
On a still earlier occasion, the first anniversary of this Bible
Union., in 1850, President Cone is reported as hatving stld in
a public address, " Brethren and friends o-t faithfl immersionist versions of the Sceriptures in all languages, the English not
excepted!'  - * The American and Foreign Bible Society
was organized to vindicate A PRINCIPLE —that the FoTrd of God
sj/ouzcl be TRANSLATED) m   I i27     lancI&; that, in accordance with
t;his principle, bacptizo and its cognates should be rendered by
words signifying immerse, immersion, &dc.   And lere we
iought the battle with the Pedobaptists, and here we have to
fight the battle over again with the Baptists who will not allow
li2meeree, itmsmersion, &c,, to have a plface in the New Test.ament."  Nor does it appeoar that Dr. Cone becrane warmer.




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 51
and expressed himself more strongly as the discussion of the
question advanced; for it seems that years before this, as long
ago as 1842, at the anniversary meeting of the American and
Foreign Bible Society, of which he was the President, he expressed his views in these terms: "In prosecuting our work,
our hands have been strengthened by the formation of the
Bible Translation Society of England; and Brother Edward
Steane, its accomplished Secretary, in a letter published in the
London Baptist Magazine of the present month, urges the
importance of adhering to our fundamental principle, the Bible
tl'anslated, in the following terms'Our wi-sclwn consists, as
I conceive, and certainly not less our strength, ill standing
firmly on our own ground.  Our only business is to uphold
immersionist versions, and to give them as large a circulation
as we can, and this becomes ou0r business because all the rest
of the Christian world have thrown them awa<y.  Thlis single
object is our rallying point. Let the Society steadily preserve
its course as it has begun, and it will, under God's blessing,
1unite Baptists heart and hand as one man, and grow every day
into a more formidable antagonist to error and a more extensive propagator of truth.' In these sentiments we cordially
unite. "
"IN THESE SENTIMENTS," s,'ayS Dr. Cone, "*WEt CORDIALLY
rTNITE ""  The gist of these sentiments is, that IMMERSION iS
the RALLYING POINT. The circulation of IMMEIRSIONIST versions tle ONE BUSINESS and SINGLE OBJECT of'the brethren!
We submit to all candid mlen whether, if Dr. Cone may bec
taken for a fair exponent of the revision movement, it is not
proved that the aim and spirit of that movement have been from
the beginning essentially and intensely sectarian -the super
extract of the spirit of a party, and therefore unvworthy of t:he
confidence, support., and sympathy of the'iChurch at large.
XWe intend no disrespect to any when Nwe say that Alexander
Campbell is by far the most eminent person for his abilities,
position, and influence among all the promotrers of this schelm,




r  FIDELITY TO GOD IN TiHE
inl the west and south-west at least.  He may well be referred
to, then, next after Dr. Cone.  Tile undisputed head of a
large and powerful sect, he has stamped his opinions upon his
followers as few men have ever been able to do. His opinion
on so much of the question of baptism as the revisionists are
concerned about, is well known.  He has long held it. He
has fearlessly declared it.  He has made it very plain. I-e
has long ago translated the New Testament to support it.
rThat opinion, as announced by himself, is, "1 that immersion in
water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, is the only Christian Baptism."
Accordingly, in his version of the New Testament, he dis-c
carded the English words baptize, baptism, &c., and boldly
supplanted them with immerse, immersion, &c. In like manner, and with entire consistency, he has not called himself a
_BAPTIST; nor do his adherents use that name.  In short, his
example, his influence, his learning, have all been strongly
committed to the purpose of making the Word of God teach
that immersion, and nothing else, is baptism.  Such a man
would naturally take his place at the head of a movement like
this, among his own people, with whomn his name is a tower
of strength; and Baptists who have differed from him so widely
on vital questions in religion, and whose churches his influence
has rent asunder, drawing many of their people to his stan(lard, would naturally join heart and hand with him in this
wAork, just in the degree of their excessive attachment to imImersion; just as they exalted this outward ordinance above
the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, just as they made
up their minds to do what he was bold enough to do before
them —compel the Word of God to read IMmEnsIoN!  WTe
are not surprised, therefore, to hear that Baptists of this class,
that is, the Bible iRevision Association, merging all other differences in agreement on this " rallying point," should desire
AMr. Campbell for one of their translators.  They steadily
Vefiuse, we are informed, to make the names of the translators




TRANSLATION OF TtHE SCRIPTURES.                5i)
public, preferring to do this thing in a corner; but now and
then a name "leaks out," and the rumor is, that to AiMr. Campbell has been entrusted the "revision" of the Acts of the
Apostles. If this be so, we commend the wisdom of this step;
for on the principles of the Association, and for the main object
it has in view, no selection could be made more to the purpose.
But what becomes of the catholic spirit of the enterprise, its
freedom from all sectarian bias, its fair deserving of the Christian confidence and liberal support of all denominations?
With Mr. Campbell's translation of the New Testament long
before the world, with his settled opinions as an immersionist,
to say nothing of the vital doctrines of the gospel on which he
has been held these many years by all the Churches commonly
called evangelical and orthodox to have departed from  the
truth as it is in Jesus, and therefore to differ irreconcileably
from themselves, how can it be expected that any but immersionists will accept his work.? It may be very learned, it
may be very fair in the purpose of his own mind; but it will
certainly bear the image and superscription of his cherished
opinions. And how can the Church at large encourage it now,
or receive it when it is done?  This is said to be his own view
of the subject freely expressed.  He is candid enough to take
it, and manly enough to say so.  We honor such a man while
we differ from him widely on some great questions of Christian
doctrine.  We have seen, in several different quarters, a paragraph ascribed to him; and in the True Baptist, a paper of
great ability, research, and fairness, as we believe, referred to
Mr. Campbell's Millennial Harbinger of January, 1852.  We
are not able, at the moment, to lay our hands on the Harbinger, and can not, therefore, verify the quotation for ourselves
as we would desire to do.  But we have no reason to question
its accuracy.  There is no doubt, we believe, that the same
sentiments were uttered in this city by the Rev. Dr. Maclay,
a. leading man, as a travelilg agent and lecturer and otherwise,
in the Baptist Bible' Societies fronm the beginning, and, since




54           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TlE
the death of Dr. Cone, chosen President of the Bible Union.
The paragraph is in these terms:
" I am fully of the opinion that those practicing the immersion of believers are the only people that can make a really
valuable and faithful translation of the New Testament. They
have in Protestant Christendom the only commanding and
favorable stand point for such a work. Their eyes are couched.
They can see what no man, looking through the leather spectacles of pedobaptism or pedorantisni, can see in the Christian
institution. I speak experimentally as well as theoretically,
having been on the top of Mount Sinai before I stood upon the
top of Mount Zion.  I know the horizon of both these timehonored summits. I therefore emphatically silence all cavil as
to their incomllpetency, and strongly declare the conviction that
they, and they only, can furnish a version worthy of the age.
* *  Pedobaptists and Baptists will never agree to make a
new version.  Not one Pedobaptist will touch the ark of our
sanctuary, fearing he might be stricken dead. *  * While it
is a show of generosity or catholicity on our part to invite him,
he will with all complaisance say, with one of olden time,'I
pray you, sir, have me excused.' None but immersionists can
anite in this work, and none but they can do justice to the
subject."
In the'. Proceedings of the Bible Revision Convention, held
at Memrphis, Tenn., April 2, 1852, together with Addresses
showing the necessity of a Revision of the English Scriptures;
Louisville, Hull & Bro., 1852," we finlI an elaborate and wellconsidered discourse by Mr. Campbell, in which he says:
"But again, none but Baptists can do this great work,'   -'
Still, none but immersionists do discern the spirituality of the
kingdom of Christ.'!
We submit to all candid men whether, taking Mr. Campbell
for a fair exponent of the revision movement, it is not proved
to be an immersionist movement, a sectarian movement, ani



TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               55
mnated by a spirit which will be extremely likely, speaking in
the gentlest and most moderate terms, to sacrifice the Word
of God to a party?
There are many men of less note and influence engaged in
this enterprise, who have expressed themselves to the same
effect with these more eminent persons, only more incautiously.
We might quote their sayings at great length.  We deem it
needless, having done our work sufficiently without them. We
will only add the testimony of a few leading Baptist ministers
opposed to the revision, who, looking at the subject from a different point of observation, have taken the same view of it
with ourselves.  Thus says the Rev. Dr. Fuller; " The
moment we resort to a new translation, we sacrifice the whole
argument, and virtually say,;as the book now is, we can not
make out our case; we must therefore follow the Campbellites
and the Socinians and others, and make a Bible to suit ourselves!'"  Says the Rev. Prof. Ripley: "It is impossible to
put aside or bring into comparative disuse the English version,
and therefore to alter the established name of the ordinance;
so that the substitution of immnerse would only be regarded as
a party measure or a Baptist interpretation, of value only
within the precincts of a certain denomination."  Says the
Rev. Dr. Brently-'" Tihe Baptist will have gained not a particle of advantage by the change, while he will have increased
at least the suspicion, in the mind of his Pedobaptist neighbor,
of tampering with the Word of God, and of making a version
expressly to suit his own particular views."  Says the Rev.
Dr. Dowling. F"Let us alter the word baptize into immerse,
and that moment we render ourselves liable to the charge of
making a Bible to suit our own purposes, because we could
not maintain our cause with the common version.'
We think we have vindicated the opinion which we expressed
at the beginning, that "this revision movement, sectarian in
its spirit and aims, and not called for by the Church at large,




Oci2           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TILE
nor required by the actual necessities of the subject, is not
entitled to the public confidence and support."
W. L. BRECKINRIDGE,
Of the Presbyterian Church.
IH...DENISON,
Of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
SAMUEL LOWRY ADAMS,
Of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
E. C. TRIMBLE,
Of the Cunmberland Presbyterian Church.
G. GonRDEN,
Of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churck
N 1; NT: 3 E,1'Itv
THE REVISION OF THE TEXT OF INSPIRATION FOR THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
IT is a curious and impressive fact, that almost every attempt that has ever been made for securing a faithful utterance
of the Divine oracles, for the use of the masses of the people,
has been received with denunciation on the part of those in
the house of God, who forgot Paul's injunction: "Be amblitious to be unambitious."  One would suppose, a priori, that.all such efiorts would be hailed with delight; but those who
may thus judge show that they know but little of the sectarian
departmen-t of human nature. History is full of examples of,these irrational, unscriptural, heaven-defying attempts to manacle the progress of the pure truths of heavenly revelation;:but we have not space now to sketch more than one instance.
That occurred in the fourth century.  Even at that early
period, that illustrious scholar, Jerome, incurred the most violent opposition in his efforts to produce what is now known as
the Vulgate Bible.  But few of the people could read the
Greek Bible; but says Dr. Davidson, "An excessive and superstitious veneration for the Septuagint, and the V'_cuS made




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                5,
from it, prevailed at that time, so that any one who departed
from them could not hope to escape animnadversion.  Calumnies were fieely Littered against the laborious translator.  Hce
was pronounced a heretic.  Detraction and opposition befell
him. Even Augustine joined partially with his accusers, not
daring to go against the stream of popular opinion.' *  Its
departures fiom the current G-reek version, and from the old
Latin version taken from the Greek, were seized as proofs of
the danger accruing from the new work.  Accordingly, it wvas
reservecl for the more correct judgment of posterity to appreciate the merits of Jerome as a translator.  His contemporaries condemned vwhat they ought to have approved and applaudecl."  Tyndale deserves to be held in gratefil memory by
all who speak the English language for his noble efforts to
supply the people of England with an intelligible translation
of Gocl's Holy Truth, which hle made the object of his life.
HIe was persecuted unto death for those efforts, but he accomplished his purpose with a remarkable success, considering the
hindrances thrown in his way.  Nineteen-twentieths of the
purities and beauties of the common version, which are ascribed
to the forty translators of King James's version, are due to the
learning and skill of Tyndale.  And Jerome is entitled to no
ordinary praise for his beneficent labors in producing the
Vulgate.
These lessons of the past should not be forgotten.  The
labors of those who are endeavoring to procure a faithful version of the Word of God for the present English race should
be assisted and promoted by all who love the truth of God
more than all other things.  Those timid souls, those timeserving trimmers, whose apprehensions are awakened with the
fable that evil will come if men lose their confidence in King
James's version, should keep their clamor for some useful purpose, if any can bo founci for it. One of the most distinguished
doctors of divinity of the i;Methodist Church in this country;
one of the most learned and able biblical critics in that denomr



5r 8           FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
ination, in speaking of such characters as we have named,
says: " It is painful to the liberal and candid mind to revert
to the prejudices and opposition which such inquiries" [what
says the inspired text?]  "have met with in former times,
within the bosom of the Church itself, and it is mortifying to
catch, now and then, from modern Christians, an echo of the
same narrow sentiments.  Even ministers, authors, and editors
are occasionally found who openly decry or privately discourage Such pursuits, from tile mistaken notion that they weaken'
the popular reverence for the Word of God. Revelation needs
no such defenders, it seeks no lurking-place; it fears no in —
-estigatlion.  Error allone can suffcr by an examination of evidence.  It is the hight of fanatical folly to cling to any system
of belief which we are not willing to submit to the most.;search-ing, test of facts.  If the Bible will not bear the closest
scrutiny that a fair criticism  can apply, then we are free to
confess it unvwor-thy of our confi(dence.  On the contrary, it
has always trinumphled after such an ordeal; and it is these
very labors of biblical critics that have established the substantial and wonderful accuracy of the text of Scripture on a
basis of certainty whichll the cavils of infidels can never hereafter shake. "
Now we ask why all these treasures of biblical knowledge,
of truth, of all the landmarks of God's higlhway amiong lmen,
tire gathered for scholars exclusively?'Why  is it laudable,
why is it worthy of all praise to undertake and pursue these-:
labors for the b.enefit of the learned; and why are the iuidertaking and pursuit of these labors for the benefit of the
masses of: the people considered wortly only of detraction,
nmisrepresentation, evil judgmen-t, and evil doing?   Is the
homage of the hleart, is the praise of thle lips, is tllem obedience to the revealed will of God on the part of a doctlor
of divinity more grateful to Jehovah, more acceptable to Him,
lthan on the part of thle hunrmblest soul on God's foot-stool'?
Tihe "common" people of Berea were nobler than others,




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRI-PTURES.                59,because they searched the Word of God.  Apollos was
mzighty in the revcaled will ofi Gol.  The Colossians were
directed to "let the Word of' God dwell in them, richly."T
The leaves of the Word of God are the leaves of those.
trees of life which John saw in his visions.  "i:Ian shall
not live by bread alone, but by every zord that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God."  These are the utterances of inspiration; these were the intentions of the Holy Spirit, at a time
when no one in the body of Christ attempted to hinder the
career of the Word of God.  We are standing in the nlicdst
of different times.  Men can now be found who know thlat
the people of this country have not the fullness, the purity of
the Word of God, and can lift their ar1n of threatening toward
those who are determined to secure that boon for the English
race, if human agencies can accomplish it.  It is almnost impossible to open any work written by a biblical scholar thllat is
not full of evidences that, instead of the pure truth of God for
the people, we have a very faulty translation of it, by translators who had not a perfect text friom which a pure version
could be made; who often utterly misconceived what the -Holy
Spirit said; who made corrupt uses of their opportunities, and
utter sentiments,' as of divine origin, which God never countenaneed; who often supplied words that nothing can justify, as
was provedl in a sermnon at the Second Presbyterian Church,
on Lorc.'s Day, the 24th of February; and who mark, as probably spurious, passages which recent labors have found to be
among thle purest and best established utterances of the Holy
Spirit.  The highest authorities in biblical learning among
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists, unite in bearing
witness to these facts, and no witness disputes their truth. Let
us summon a few witnesses to these truths, and hear what
they have to say.  Bishop Lowth, of the Church of England,
in his notes to Isaiah, page 132, London edition, in recording
the recovery of a HIebrew word that was not in the text fiom
which King James's translators revised, says. "I have en



60            FIDELITY TO GOD IN T'HE
deavored to set this matter in a clear light, as it is the first
example (in Isaiah's prophecy) of a, whole word lost out of the
text, of wlhich the reader wilgl  nd lman.y othe~r 2plain exasmpl'e, in the course oJ these notes."
Dr. Adam Clarke, of the Methodist Church, says —and his
words should burn themselves into the very heart of hearts of
all who wish to be faithlfil to God andcl man, for God will hold
all to strict accountabilit;y: "'.iIost of th/e advantlages w hic/ our 
nlbeielievers have ctppearcd to have over" certain passcages of
Scrpivture, have arisen fromn an izaccurate or lccse translation
of the terms of the original, and an app2eal to this has generdally silenced these gaint-ayer'c,."  But we hlave five clergymen
pleading for a continuance of all these evils, which biblical
criticism  proclaims, instead of pleading, as faithful devotees of
God's truth, for an extension of those means which enable
scholars to "silence gainsayers."  Why should not the masses
of the people be so armed with "the sword of the Spirit, which
is the ~WVord of God," that they may "'silence gainsayers?"
Will our five clergymen answer that plain question?  He who
teaches a pious mind one new truth of Jehovah's revelation,
imbues that mind with additional power and grace; lhe who
undertakes to veil or obscure one passage of the inspired word
fi'om the understanding of men, is a friend neither to God or
man. But if one new'truth of the inspired text, or one truthl
once obscure, but now clear and tangible, is thus important,
what must be the importance of thousands, given as God gave
them, and disrobed of the rubbish with which man's devices
have covered them'  And the united voice of all biblical criticism bears testimony to the existence of the evils we have
named in King James's version, and is equally unanimous in
the declaration that all these evils can be remedied.  Let us
look at two authorities on this subject.
Conybeare and:Howson, two distinguished ministers of tlhe
Church of England, have recently published a work entitled
T'he Life and Epistles of St. Paul."  It has been hlailed wit;i




TPANSLATION OF TIHE SCLIPTUITES,                61
acclamation everywhere, by the learned, as one of t1he noblest
monuments of biblical criticism ever crected by learning. The
highest authorities in periodical criticism among Presbyterians
and Episcopalians hlave bestowed upon the work the warmest
approbation, and the authors deserve the lasting gratitude of
all scholars for the floods of light they have thrown upon the
New Testament.  In a vast number of instances, they conclusively establish the existence of the very faulty condition of
the text used by King James's translators, and in many other
instances show the bad use made of the text that was in the
hands of those translators.  Thus, for an example, in 2d Corint;hians xi. 25, Conybeare and Howson say:'"The true
meaning is lost in the authorized version, and is similarly lost
in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew vii. 25, 27."'  In
Paul's discourse at Antioch, in Pisidia, a metaphor more bea-utiful than any thing in Demosthenes or Cicero, is entirelny lost
in the authorized version.  Again, these authors, on Romans,
iii. 25, after giving the Greek text, say: " Thie mistrcaesldaion whic/h is in the act/Aworized version ent.rc[l'/ alters tae
meaning."   These are but specimens of' many- hundreds of
Such instances given byT these renowned biblical scholars.
Again, the Religious Tract Society of England, composed
of' what are called evanggelical sects, established 1799, have:recently produced an "AInnotated Paragraph Bible," which
should command the favor of the.English world.  It is not
saying too much to say, that if such a Bible had been in the
hands of' the English race one hundred years ago, Christianity
wvould have been immensely advanced over the world, and in
the hearts and practices of myriads, beyond what it is, The
increasing knowledge of the English people in Bible matters
demanded a Bible worthy of the text of inspiration, and the
"Religious Tract Society" have furnished one, for which they
deserve the liarhest honor.  That society makes a multitude
of improved versions in lieu of the fiaulty ones of King James's
work.  A. great numbelr of tllose improved revisions are inva.l



62             FIDELITY  TO  GOD  IN THE
table, and will prove a precious boon to all who love the vpuri
light of the Bible.  The revisions are numerous throughout
the work. For example, the new translations in the five books
of Mloses alone amount to three hundred and fifty-seven.  In
Isaiah, they amount to two hundred and sixtv-five- And this
invaluable service has been rendered to the Einglish people ly
the brethren of the five clergymen, who, if they were able to
prevent it, would permit no such service to be rendered to the
American people.  And the Church of England, recently at a
Pmeeting of both Houses of Convocation of Canterburv, at
WV7estminster, has given notice of a motion for all the objects
announced by the Bible Unmon for a revision of the Holy
Scrniturecs.  And while surrounded bv such a host of overwhelmingr testimonies and facts, five clergymen of Louisville
hbave dcleliberately set themselves to the worlk of perpetuating
the existence of a faulty version of God's AVord.  But the
vast treasures of biblical knowledge, accumulated by the
labors of' the learned, must and will stand in the text of
God's inspiration,) and all the ouposition that clerical zeal can
command will not only not prevent it, but will not even
obstruct the work.  Tqhe enterprise is safely beyond the reach
of its caviling  opponents.  Fron m  the days of the Apostles to
the present moment, there has not been a Bible Society of
holier, purer, and nobler purposes; there have been none more
erfectrlv of one mind and hcart, than the Bible Union, and
its members  will carry the 7work forward, no matter w7hati lmn va
be the sacrifice demanded.  Amidst the immense arrav of
writnesss among all thle sects, who point out clearly the line
of duty in this holy, this sacred enterprise of the Bible Union,
tlie voice of inspiration speaks in terms that can not be misundlerstood.  Mloses  teaches, that if we know a matter Upon0
whichl we shou.ld testify, and the time conmes fbr us to bearll
tettimony, and we do it not, we shall be guilty.  If we wa Irn
-not m-en of' the pure counsel of God, and they die in'their- 
wrong dor(n., their blood, Jehovah says, will be relrcde at




TRANSLATION OF THE SCiRIPTURES.                    J;
our hlands.  But if we warn the wicked, and they turn Pnot,
and die in their wrong doing, we have delivered our souls.
The Fing of IIeaven is not among the enemies of Bible revision.  Do our clerical friends imagine that they can crush the
lifli out of an enterprise vitalized by such principles as we
hlave named?  Archbishop iN'ewcome, one of the most learned
and devoted lovers of the Bible that has lived since the Apostles, in his "t-Historical View of Translations," says   "Wer6
a version of the Bible executed in a manner suitable to the
magnitude of the undertakin:g, such a measure would have a
direct tendency to esta6l.ish t/hc,aiti/  of t/ioescanclI8, to openi
their understandings, -to warm  their hearts, to enliven their
devotions, and to delight their imaginations."  And to the
adcomplisllment of these results, the Bible Union will devo'te
all their carthly powers that ma-y be necessary,  All the cIelgymen -that can be induced to oppose it can not make the cauase
even pause in its progress.
There are a few unsettled itenms between the Bible rlevision
Associaltion and our clerical friends, to which we shall now
address ourselves.  They seem  to think that a sneer from
them  is quite sufficient -to snuff out, the Edinburgh Review.
The article on Revision, in that Pleview, was written by a
biblical scholar fthoroughly acquainted with the whole subject.
Every paryaTapha off the writer shows the hand of a master,
and the article exhibits an intimate acquaintance with the
masters of ancient and modern theology.  This writer appeals
to witneses  i-wlo adorn the Church of England universities
and puzlpits, and to  Selden, the most learned man in  the'We stmI-, i t er IAssembly, which made the Pryesbyterian Confession of Faith.  And how do our five clerical friiends meet the
overwhelming facts witnessed by these witnesses?  They say"To exhibit the just force of this testimony, it would be well
to show 1us how far that work is really friendly to our holy reUigion: as understood and embraced by evangelical Cllhristians.
Are not Jowett, of Baliol College, Selden, "'the glory of Elng'




6;(3          FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
land," the author of the " Homily on Reading of the Scripj
tures," Hartwell Horne, the present Archbishop of Canterbury,
the Iev. Arthur Stanley, Professor Scholefield. Bishop  lorsley, and "The Religious Tract Society," "really friendly to
our holy religion, as understood and embraced by evangelical
Christians?"  If they are not, our'clerical firiends should let
the Aworld know who are.  The authorities we have named are
appealed to in the Edinburgh Review, and sustain all it saysa
But our clerical friends have no confidence in their own ideas
of "the just force of this testimony."  In their distress, they
summon Mr. Newman as an authority; yet neither of the five
clergymen considers him "really friendly to our holy religion,
as understood and embraced by evangelical Christians."  But
thle legs of the lame are not equal.  Our clerical friends appeal to Mr. Newman to prove a point that is not in the controversy  the excellence of the Englishl of' the common version.
But certainly they are aware that that English has been
grea-tly altered since King James's day; and excellent as they
may say it is, neither of the five clergymnen would use all the
speech of that version, either in the pulpit nor in. society.
Why did they not appeal to their flriend in need, Mr. Newmain,
on the character of the translation?  HIe is quite as good an
authority in the one case as in the other; and the law says,
if they reject their witness in one thing, they must in all.
Again the clergymen say: "' Can the Bible Revision Assoi
ciation assure us that the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, with its blessed institutions, as pious Baptists
and other Christian people in E urope and America hold and
love it, is any more an object of respect with these reviewers
than the old English Bible?"  Now, if these clergymen
wished to make an evil charge, why did they cloak the desire
-under the form of such a query?  They well knew that they
had not one fact on which to base the charge thus insinuated.
The Edinburgh Review is in the fiftieth year of its existence,
and these clergymen can not place their fingers on one article




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               65
in its pages that is opposed to Christianity.  A multitude of
articles in favor of the Bible have appeared in its pages. We
challenge contradiction to these statements.  And we add,
that many of the bright lights of Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism have sought the services of that renowned head
of literature as a means of advocating Christianity.  One of
the celebrities of Scotch Presbyterianism is the principal contributor to the Review.  We allude to Henry Rogers, the
author of a work of great renown, called "Reason and Faith,"
which first appeared in the Edinburgh Review. He is also the
author of the " Eclipse of Faith."  Verily our clerical friends
must have been in sore distress when they resorted to such an
attack upon that Review, in order to shrink the crushing force
of its authorities, facts, and reasonings, upon revision. They
should remember that they are now  before the intelligent
people of Kentucky, who are not very likely to be deceived
by such snares as these.  One who knew.the people well,
said  "They are seldom wrong:in their opinions; in theirsentiments, they are never mistaken."  We should be pleased
to see these five gentlemen agree upon a common definition of
what they mean by "the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, with its blessed institutions."  What is the
gospel with one, is not with another of these five clergymen;
and -what are "its blessed institutions" with one, are not with'
the others.  They are in a delightful state of harmony to sitin judgment upon the piety of the Edinburgh Review!
These five harmonious,clergymen are shocked at the idea
that Baptists, and those Christians whom they politely, courteously, and piously insult with the epithet of Campbellites,
should be united in the cause of revision.  It is marvelous in,
their eyes that the two should have waived their differences!
Could they not have found a greater wonder to marvel over
by looking in upon themselves?  Three varying phases of one'
human creed-the Westminster Confession, with scarcely any
common bond, one representative of the Thirty-nine Articles,
0




GC6          FIIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
who would admit neither of his co-workers into his pulpit, and
a representative of the Discipline of the Methodist Church
South-are banded together in opposition to the Bible Union's
efforts to procure a faithful translation in English of the inspired text for the enlightenment of the people-a blessing
they have never enjoyed; and these five harmonies shake their
heads in melancholy grandeur over the fact that two denominations hcave waived their differences!  Consistency, thou art a
jewel! This coolness is too unseasonable to be interesting or
refreshing.  Our clerical friends admonish us that no one in
putting on his armor should boast like him that taketh it off
Our admonitors should bear in mind. that some persons may
hlave no great reason for boasting even when they talke off their
ar nor.
Our clerical fiiiends roundly asseir that the object of the
Bible Union is to get some change made in the rendering of
the -Greek wordl baptizo, and, without the semblance of proof,
they declare that a foregone conclusion.  We have already
dissipated the statement to the winds, in showing that a majority of the Board who are to make the final decision of the
text as it is to go to press are Pedobaptists.  Our clerical
friends are in a very awkward dilemma.  Ae have shllovwn by
nample testimony, complete indeed, that the Bible Union has
made no contract whatever for the translation of any specified
word; and here is the dilemma of our clerical debaters  they
miust either prove their unqualified assertion by some testimony
t. hat is not known to any body connected with the Bible Unioin,
or they must rest their assertion upon the fact that a contract
to faithfully transfer every word of the inspired text, by honest
English words, must necessarily result in some change of the
present word baptize.  On one of these horns of the dilemma.
they have hung themselves, and we commend the case to their
consciences.
The Bible Union is cheered in its progress by thousands of
p:ious hearts and holy hands.  It has gathered strenglth from




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 67
this clerical war, and it will be happy if the war continues.'We shall give the people the enjoyment in the Bible which the
author of Polymetis found in studying the classics through
the remains of ancient architecture and paintings.  He says:
"The chief use I have found in this sort of study has not
been so much in discovering what was wholly unknown as in
strengthening and beautifying what was known before. When
the day was so much overcast just now, you saw all the same
objects you do at present-these trees, that river, the forest on
thle left hand, and those spreading vales to the right, but now
tihe sun is broke out, you see all of themi more clearly and
writh more pleasure.  It shows scarce any thing that you did
not see befbre; but it gives a new life and lustre to every
thing that you did sec."  King James's version is under a
clouded sky, in a drizzling atmosphere; the revised Bible will
show the sloping vales, the rolling rivers, the lofty forests, and
-the majestic mountain heights of God's inspiration in the full
blaze of -the meridian sun.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
P. S. —Since the foregoing was in -type, we have seen the
publication of the l.st of March, made by the five clergymen
appointed to oppose a revision of the Holy Scriptures. In our
article of next Tuesday, we shall examine that remarkable
document, and we are sure that we can satisfy every dispassionate mind that even if all its statements were correct, whict
we regret to say they are not, there is not one sentence in the
entire publication that has the least bearing on the Revision
question.  We pledge ourselves to make these declarations
good next Tuesday.  3'lay we suggest to our clerical friends
a revision of at least one of their statements before we do it
for them?  They will gain nothing by waiting for us to do it.




68:FIDELITY TO GOD IIN TllE
N'UMBER VI.
A BIBLE FAITHFUL TO THE INSPIRED TEXT.-ITS ENEMIESg
WHO ARE THEY?
ARCHBISHOP'VHYATELY,:in illustrating the various forms of
ignoratio elenchi in logic, Speaks of one kind "in wivhich the
respondent finds it more serviceable to disprove some pcartt
of that which is required, and dwell on t/at, suppressing all
the rest.  Thus, if a university is charged with cultivating
only the mere elements of mathematics, and in reply a list -of
books studied there is:produced, should even any one of those
books be not elementary, the charge is in fairness refuted; but'the sophist may then earnestly contend that some of'those
books are elementary, and thus keep out of sight the real
question, viz,, whether they are all so."  Our five clerical
friends, who are attempting to arrest the revision of the Bible,
have given the readers of their publication of M,[arch 1st an
extended display of that method of disputation, as we shall
now proceed to show. The means by which the objects and
designs of any organization are to be discovered and settled
are through its constitution and laws.  The constitution'and
laws of the Bible Union, in all their completeness, have been
before the public for the past five years. No -attempt'has
been made to conceal any of those fundamental features; but,
on the contrary, all possible- publiCity:has been given to -them.
Truth has been piled upon truth, fact -has been heaped upon
fact, in'such a manner as to make the - platform of the Bible
Union perfectly familiar to the public mind.  We hold that
this platform is- invulnerable to attack from any quarter. The
five Louisville clergymen have not even attempted to assail
any ore principle proclaimed by the Bible Union; yet every
one who has read the two decretals they have issued knows
that they would be intensely gratified if they could find one




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRItPTURES.                69
salient point in the constitution, organization, or platform of
the Bible Union, against which they could direct an assault.
The enmity is willing, but the power is weak.  And we feel
amply assured that the Bible revision movement can not be
assailed by any one truth or fact in the possession of these
clergymen.  Let us test this declaration by notorious facts.
The Bible Union says: There is not, and tiher;e nzever hias
been, an Enyglish version of the hioly Scritures fait/ful, in
all respects, to the inspired original.  Now, if these gentlemen know of one such version, they can produce it, and we
are silenced; the revision movement is at an end.  If these
clerical gentlemen can find any such version, their appointed
task of annihilating the revision cause becomes one of the easiest and cheapest of labors.  Again the Bible Union says, that
King James's version is condemned, in very many places, by
the highest authorities in all the leading sects.  The five clergymen do not and can not deny that truth.  The Bible Union
says, that the masses of the people who spe&ak Enzglislh are
fually entitled to have the utterances of the inspired text in
as dcear, fll, definite, and intelligible terms as the masses
had them in the original languages.  The five clergymen do
not, can not controvert that truth.  The Bible Union says,
gthat scholarship or the means of sacred philology are able to
make as perfect a representative i~n English of the inspired
text as any translation can be a representative of the ideas
of an original. Our clerical friends do not dispute that truth,
because, if they were to do so, they would virtually destroy
all usefulness of the entire text of inspiration, so far as the
English race is concerned. Now, in order to give the people
of the English race the benefit of these principles in a practical way, the Bible Union made a constitution, founded upon
this living truth: "The Word of God shall be translated
into all languages, so as most clearly to express to the people
the exact sense of the original or inspired text, without reference to the tenets or practices of any sect or party in Chris



70q         FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
tendom."  That truth is broad enough to hold every Christianr
on this earth who loves his Maker and Redeemer more than
he does his party. These five clergymen can easily step upon
that platform, if they desire to take a Land in securing a version of the Bible faithful in all respects to the original.  In
the most intimate acquaintance they may form with the Bible
Union, in its most secret archives, they will not find one principle or practice that is in the least degree inconsistent with
the broad truth announced above.  Come in, gentlemen; you
will create more joy in heaven and on earth by mrnafI'lly
struggling for a faithful version of the Word of God, than by:clerically fighting for a faulty one.  Inasimauch as you do not
even call in question one principle or truth announced by the
Bible Union, what have you to fight about? Do you really
know?  Surely you. do not suppose that you are fighting the
Bible Union in assailing some of its members; for you know
that there is not one organization of men under the heavens
4that can truly and honestly be measured by any thing but its
constitution and laws.  You may try individuals by the constitution or laws, but you cannot try the constitution and laws
by individuals.  Thus, when infidelity undertakes to measure
Christianity by somne of its'professors, our five clergymen can
easily detect the fallacy. They appeal to the institution as
founded by Jesus Christ, and the laws ordained by the Apostles.  Take another example: Suppose a Judaising teacher
had gone to Antioch immediately after the difficulty between
Paul and Peter, and announced that the Gentiles must submit
to Moses: the'pure Bible speech" brethren at Antioch would
meet the doctrine by an appeal to the constitution- the decree
of the apostles, elders, and congregation at Jerusalem, on the
M{osaic point. But the Judaiser, in the very ignoralio elenehi
of our five clergymen, would ignore even the existence of such
a document, and insist that Peter was the head and heart of'
Christianity, the foremost man in the cause, and that he had
-een recently at Antioch refusing to acknowledge the baptised(




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                71
but uncircumcised  gentiles as Christians.   Thus, though
crushed down by the mountain-load of testimony, our Judaiser managed still to carry on a verbal campaign.
But let us pursue our clerical friends through all the sinuosities of their logic, We have shown call the principles of the
Bible Union, against no one of which do our clerical disputants utter one dissenting word.  Now what is the Bible
Union?  It is a regularly organized body of Christian people,
who stand perfectly fair in society as honest, upright people
before God and man.  There is not a Bible Society in the
world that has stronger claims upon the confidence of every
pious man and woman on earth.  But this society is not able,
of itself, to make a pure version of the Word of God, and
has not attempted it.  Where is the capacity for this essential
work to be found?  The unanimous voice of the world says it
exists exclusively in men of learning.  The Bible Union,
therefore, constituted a Board of Revisers, consisting generally
of the most learned biblical scholars that could be found in
Europe or America, and many of the highest dignitaries in
the various denominations assisted the Bible Union in finding
the best scAolars in their ranks.  We are debtors to Episcopalians, Church of England men, Presbyterians of diverse
names, and Methodists, for the assistance given us in finding
their scholars. To this Board of IRevisers the entire subject of
translation is committed, and it has full and independent control of that whole department.  It decides upon the text that
is to be printed as the version secured by the Bible Union,
and is in no way hampered by the Union, except in the requirement of fidelity to God and man,  The Board consists
of upwards of forty men of ansullied character as men, and
they are recognized as among the most learned men of this or
of any other age.. And so little idea did the managers of the
Bible Union have that their object was to procure, as the five
clergymen assert, a translation merely of the word baptzizo,
that this Board of Revisers, this jury of faithful versions, t:o




72            FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
whom the whole responsibility is given, is so constituted that
it has a large majority of Pedobaptists in it. If the assertion
of these clergymen as to the objects of the Bible Union had
even a shadow of evidence to rest upon, would not this fact
be conclusive against their assertion?
No one has any control over this Board, either in its deliberations or acts.  The Bible Union has confidence in the men
who compose it, and has submitted to it the entire question of'translation, without attempting to hamper any man in the
Board with a single sectarian or patty thread.  Our five clerical friends do not deny any of these truths; they can not con.trovert one of them. Those who may not have read their
production of March 1st, may feel curious to knowi, under
these circumstances, how these gentlemen manage to argue.
They can not assail the Bible Union with one truth or fact,
and how can they make a show even of controversy? Why,
with the most imperturbable gravity, they undertake to batter
4own the impregnable bulwarks of the Bible Union by publishing the opinion of Dr. Spencer Cone on the proper rendering of the Greek word bcptizo, and by asserting that Alexander Campbell made a translation of the New Testament. Let
no one suppose that we are losing sight of the dignity of the
revision cause, and imagine that we are jesting.  We are
uttering the words of soberness and truth.  "Why," says
some straightforward man, not expert in the ways of dodging,
4' what have those two things to do with the question of revision? The five clergymen might as well have quoted Gen.
Jackson's proclamation on the South Carolina difficulty, and
have said that Napoleon died at St. Helena."  Certainly they
might have done quite as well with these two items of the
past, they have quite as much bearing on the question before
the public. Yet those gentlemen could not have inflicted a
greater shower of words than they did on this little piece of
false logic if they had been recording the discovery of a new
continent. Dr. Cone had and Alexander Campbell has strolg




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.,3
and well settled convictions as to the meaning of the word
baptizeo; but when a tribunal of learned men of integrity was
established to decide all questions of translation, Dr. Cone and
Alexander Campbell at once went into the Bible Union, and
showed that they were willing, in a meek and quiet spirit, to
submit baptizo, with all the other words of the Bible, to the
tribunal of revision.  Would it be discreditable to these five
Pedobaptist clergymen to imitate the example?  If they are
as well convinced of the strength of their view of the meaning
of the word bcaptizo, upon which they harp so much, as they
say Dr. Cone and Alexander Campbell were, why not submit
their case to the adjudication of this learned tribunal?   Their
Pedobaptist brethren largely predominate in this board of adjudication. Are they afraid of their own brethren and of their
own scholars?  All questions of life, liberty, and property,
are amenable, in this country, to tribunals erected by the
people, and the award of justice depends upon the purity of
constitutions, laws, and courts, and not upon the wishes or
hopes of litigants. If a litigant begins to abuse a respectable
jury before it utters a sign of its award. common sense would
say that such a litigant felt that his cause was desperate.
The Bible Union is in the exact condition of the tribunals
of the American people in its leading points. It has a constitution, laws, and a competent tribunal for revision; and the
purity of these fundamental provisions of the Bible Union is
not challenged or controverted by the five clergymen.  Why,
then, are they not willing to seek justice as other men do?
Granted that the opinions of Dr. Cone and of Alexander Campbell on immersion are strong, can they not make their opinions equally as strong on sprinlling?  If they can, they will
be equally potential with Dr. Cone and Alexander Campbell
in guiding or biasing the learned jury who have charge of the
whole case?  If they can not, the deficiency is not chargeable
to the Bible Union. The revision jury will not settle the
character of a word or phrase by the wishes of any partizan




I-4i AFIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
or sectarian, or of any num ber of such persons.  Unless our
plans and rules are  false and unconstitutional, or our translators are incompetent or bribed, each word and phrase of the
inspired text will be faithfully dealt with.  If b6cqtizo should
*be translated by the word imzznrse, it will be, under the general law requiring fidelity to God and man, a law which no
man impeaches; and it will be done by a board that has a
large majority of Pedobaptists in it. It would not require one
half the courage on the part of these clergymen to do as Dr.
Cone and Alexander Campbell have done-to lay down all
their preconceived notions at the feet of this tribunal and await
its award, as it does to be stemming the torrent of truth and
fact that is roaring in their ears in this discussion.  If they
refuse this honest proposition, may not public opinion turn
upon themselves the weapon they have been prodigally using
upon the Bible Union, and settle down upon the conviction
that the opposition of the five clergymen to the Bible Union
enterprise has not arisen from a'study of the movement in its
aims, principles, and neasures, but from a sectarian jealousy
on their part in regard to the rendering of a single word?
To that point, gentlemen, you have brought yourselves, and
ihere you must hang.  The revision enterprise is a general
work, extending from Genesis to the close of thle Revelations,
a ind it is carried on by general principles.  It knows nothing
of single words, as such.  May not a shrewd public detect
the fact that the opposers of this work are consciously or unconsciously acting the part of sectarians in directing all their
opposition to a single point of translation which may possibly
affect their sectarian positions and standards?  While officiously attempting to pull the mote of partyism  out of the
eyes of their brethren, may not their own vision be obscured
by a beam of sectarianism?  Look at these things, gentlemen.
You charge that the rendering of the word bcptizo is a foregone conclusion.  How can you assert any thing of that kind?
The tribunal that is to decide it for the Bible Union has not




TRANSLATION OF TI-E SCRIPTURES.               75,iven tile least hint as to what is to be its decision, and how
can you announce its foregone conclusion?  Should you not,
as clergymen, pay some little attention to the proprieties of
fact, and assert nothing that you can not prove?  The opinions of Dr. Cone and of Alexander Campbell upon bcaptizo or
any other words of the Bible, can not sway, bias, or coerce
tile revision tribunal  which has all this matter in its hands
any further than those opinions may be based on clearly established truth and philological authorities.  As clergymen, you
certainly do not object to this.  Even if tle board of revisers,should see the opinions of Dr. Cone and of Alexander Campbell on the word bcgptizo, may it not also see your fresh, original, conclusive, and overwhelming arguments and statements
on baptism, with which you have embellished your two articles
against revision, and be converted? M{ay you not, gentlemen,
have overwhelmed the board of revisers by your cogent reasoning upon baptism?  It is not the Baptists nor the Christians that are trying to create an outside pressure upon the
jury to wrinrg the verdict from  that body.  It is a portion of
the Pedobaptist clergy that nZre exercising their timidity and
fears in this way.  But if onr clerical friends have fully
swept the revisional tribunal into their logical vortex, what
becomes of their gaudy rhetoric about Spencer Cone as " the
head and heart" of this work, when he was not even a, member of the board of revisers?  And what becomes of their
assertions respecting Alexander Campbell's position?  He is
but one man in the tribunal, where their brethren are largely
in the majority!   But they assert that he made a translation
of the New Testament to suit himself.  Suppose he did: what
has that to do with the revision question?  Hundreds of the
brethren of these clergymen have translated the New Testament, and certainly our clerical friends will not claim that they
hold a patent for the business. John WVesley revised the New
Testament to suit hlinself; but that did not seal his lips upon
the Bible, nor paralyze his actions.  The MBethodist book con



76           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
cerns throughout the country print, sell, and circulate this
revised New Testament, revised by one man, who had not
such advantages of biblical scholarship as the humblest scholar
on the revision jury of the Bible Union possesses. And here
is a stationed Methodist preacher denouncing in the papers
some of the best scholarship in the word for doing what the
founder of his Church did, without a murmur from his lips.
Every blow that he aims at Alexander Campbell's head on the
subject of translating the New Testament, falls heavily on the
head of John Wesley.  All the denunciation he lavishes on
the Bible Union falls furiously on the Methodist book concerns
of this country.  If, as this preacher tries to teach in the
newspapers, the Bible Union has no right to revise the Holy
Scriptures, John Wesley had no right to do it; but if the
Methodist book concerns have a right to print and circulate a
revised New Testament, the Bible Union has an equal right
to do a better thing.  Alexander Campbell has as much right
to translate the New Testament as the Episcopal Church has
to use two varying versions of the Psalms; and he had quite
as much right to do this as any one of these five clergymen
has to stand up in the pulpit and translate portions of the Bible
to suit himself- a luxury these gentlemen use whenever they.
please.  If, because Alexander Campbell made a translation
of the New Testament, his lips are to be sealed on revision,
then, by parity of reasoning, the lips of at least four of these
clergymen should be sealed on the subject, for they make
translations of the Scriptures whenever the humor seizes them.
It is a bad rule that will not run parallel lines. These five
clergymen seem to teach that if a man has ever been engaged
in the business of translation, he is disqualified from translating.  Thus they reproduce an equivalent of the maternal idea
expressed in the prohibition to the son against going into the
water until he had learned to swim!
The public may not be aware of the truth that the assertion of these five clergymen, that Alexander Campbell trans



TRANS-LATION OF THE SCRIPTU-RES,.    7q
lated the New Testament, has:no foundation in fact.  As
small as the matter may appear to reasoning and intelligent
minds, we must say that Alexander Campbell never translated,
the New Testament, as these:five clergymen assert he did.
He puzblished a New Testament translated by two Presbyterian divines, who are among the brightest biblical intellects
the Church of Scotland ever possessed, and by a doctor of
divinity of the Congregational Church, a species of Presbyterian Church.  George Camnpbell, the pioneer mind in biblical
science, and one of the most remarkable intellects that has
been devoted to the Bible, translated the four Gospels of
Alexander Campbell's publication. Jas. McKnight, prolocutor of the Presbyterian General Assembly of Scotland for
nearly thirty years, and one of the best biblical scholars known
to history, translated the epistles of Alexander Campbell's.piblication.  Philip Doddridge translated the Acts of the
Apostles of that publication.  The work of these three translators constituted the book which these pains-taking and accurate clergymen call Alexander Campbell's translation.
We suggested to our clerical friends, last Tuesday, the propriety of revising some of their statements, rather than to
leave for us that work. We have just revised the statement
of these five clergymen made about Alexander Campbell's
translation. That one now to be revised is of a graver cast.
In the anxiety of these gentlemen to press Dr. Cone into their
service, they have ascribed to him. in quotation marks, sentitlents which he never uttered'by mouth or pen, and which no
body but these clergymen ever reported on him. We know
what we are saying.:Now let these gentlemen produce evidence to sustain them, or make public reparation for the wrong
done to Dr. Cone. It is bad enough to thus attempt to wrong
the living; it is worse to invade the sanctity of the tomb.
These clergymen, in the face of the Rev. Richard Fuller's
own recent publications, and of the notorious fact that he is
President of the Maryland 1Revision Association, to both of




78            FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TlE
which facts we referred these gentlemen, have the hardihood,
in their article of March 1st, to again claim him as an enemy
to revision.  Such conduct needs no comment.  The first announcement might set up the weak plea that it was a sin of
ignorance.  The second can seek no cloak of that kind., As
a specimen of clerical courtesy, it is duly appreciated.
Our clerical friends spend a great deal of time in dwelling
upon the general excellence of the authorized version.  They
owe the public some explanation for slumbering at the post of
duty.  These clergymen know that the Bible Society has been
fobr years circulating Bibles which that Society, in 1852, acknowledged h1ad nearly twelnty-.foour thousannd errors in them.
A learned committee of- that Society reported this fact in 1852,
and we have the report now before us.  Now it betrays great
indifference on the part of these clergymen as to what kind of
Bibles the people get, when they permit editions of that book
to be in the mcarket with nearly tzventy-fouir thousand errors
in them, and with no word of warning to the people.  And the
very men, the very sects, the very Bible Societies, which arc
now up in arnms against the Bible Union, circulated these Bibles
with nearly twenty-four thousand errors in them up to 1852.
And more than that, at the very meetiing of the Bible Society
to which the report of this committee was made, Dr. Edward
Robinson, the distinguished Presbyterian scholar, urged the
Society -to expunge Easter from the Bible as an utterly false
rendering, which no mnan could justify.  The Bible Society
refilsed to do it a aa matter of time-serving policy.  [But that
Society, in its  iaaiginal Bibles, przznts the wordscls uSed by the
iloly Spirit in th/e mna,?gyi., anld permits the Saxon idol, Eostre
or Easter, to occupy the text of the Word of God!  In the
Bibles printed for the masses of the people this falsehood glares
from the text without any marginal correction' And those who
sanction, encourage, and sustain such tampering with the text
of inspiration dare to insult the public intelligence by talkin,
in advance about a sectarian Bible from tihe Bible Union.




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 7 9
This is a specimen of tile kind of fidelity which some antirevisionists exercise toward the'Word of God.  When the
Bible Union thus tampers with the text of inspiration then,
and not till then, let it be denounced.  But let it be remembered, than when the Bible Society corrected, through a jury
of experts in the special art needed, nearly twenty-four thousand
errors in the Bible in common use, these clergymen said not a
word; but when the Bible Union undertakes, with the aid of
the best scholars that can be found, to correct the numerous errors in King James's version, which all Biblical science says
s;hould be corrected, these gentlemen make a declaration of war
upon the Bible Union.  Has not the Bible Union every right
to make a faithful version of the Bible that the Bible Society
hlad to correct nearly twenty-four thousand errors in the
authorized version?  Will our clerical friends answer that
question?
JAMES EDMUNDS,
T. S. BELL.
THIRD LETTER OF THE FIVE CLERGYIMIEN.
THE REVISION OF THE IIOLY SCRIPTURES.
TIE undersigned have heretofore expressed their purpose to
decline all personal controversy in this discussion.  WVe wilt
not now depart from it.  Uncivil words and discourteous allusions we resign to the other side, assured that truth and reason
need no such helps.  This, however, does not forbid the exposl're of errors into which these gentlemen have ruI in their
hasty zeal to discredit tlleir neighbors. We suppose we ought
not to complain, as this is onlly the way they treat tile old
English Bible. Take an example. It will be sufficielt to put
the candid reader on his guard, and suggest the grains of allowance with whic!l their statements ouglht to be rcceivcd,. 7The,




80           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TH'E
lhave not thought it unworthy of themselves or their cause to
charge us with an ignorance which is their own, forgetting the
Divine caution, which they love to quote when it suits them,
concerning the mote and the beam.
It respects the number of the persons engaged in the transIlation of the Bible as we now have it. We had said - perhlaps incautiously, for we did not:at the moment think of an
exact precision — "fifty odd."'These gentlemen insist with
great confidence, and with seeming derision, which we trust
was in the appearance only, that there were but "forty."  TWe
invite their attention to a work already cited by us, "; TIfI
TJRANTSLATORS REVIVED." Perhaps it has escaped their notice,
having been only afew years before the world. Neither its
research nor its fairness will be called in question by such as
are competent to'judge of either,  Its author, having given
long time and great, labor to his inquiries concerning the
translators, to ascertain everything that could be learned about
them, and enjoying the benefit of the researches of all who
had gone before him, may be safely relied on for the information which he has gathered.  He says, page 66: "The King
was for appointing fifty-four learned men to this great and
good work, but the number actually employed upon it, in tAe
first instance, was forty-seven." On page 77: "Of the fiorItysevenz who acted under King James's commission, some are almost unknown at this day, though of high repute in their own
time.'  He proceeds to record the names of these forty-seven,
with a biographical sketch of each, and then he says, page
208: "It remains for us to add a brief account of some, who
are known to have assisted in different stages of the work. It
has been shown that two or three of those who were named in
the King's commission, died soon after their appointment. At,least two others appear to have taken their places, and therefore require our notice." Concerning one of these two, he
quotes from Anthony Wood in his Athanam.
"What he hath published I find not  however, the reason




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 81
why I set him down here is, that he had a most considerable
hand in the translation of the New Testament, appointed by.King James I, in 1604."  Concerning the other, also, he says
it is expressly stated by Wood, that "he had a hand in the
translation of the Bible." And then he adds (p. 212). S" Several other persons were employed in various stages of the
work."  In a letter from the King to the Bishop of London,
dated July 22, 1604, the monarch says  "'e hZave acrppointed
certain learned nen, to the znumber of four ctnd ffty, for the
translation of the -Bible."  As the authentic lists contain but
forty-seven names, it is presumed the others were certain
"'divines" referred to in the fifteenth article of the royal
instructions as to the mode of prosecuting the work.  In this
fifteenth article it is provided, that besides the several directors or presidents of the different companies, 6three or four of
the most ancient and grave divines in either of the universisities, not employed in translating, be assigned by the Vice
Chancellor, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to be
overseers of the translation, as well Hebrew as Greek, for the
better observance of thle fourth rule."  That rule required,
that among the different meanings of any word, that one should
be adopted which is most sanctioned by the Fathers, and is
most'"agreeable to the propriety' of the place and the analogy
of faith."'It is not known who those supervisors were; but
if one of the universities designated three of them, and the'
other fou'r, it would make out the requisite number.
We have given far more attention to this question of "fiftyodd" or "forty" than it deserves on its own account. But
we have thought it proper to vindicate our statement, and not
unbecoming to show, as we have now done, that thle,t1enilemnt e
who have so confidently impugned our accuracy are very far
from being well read in the history of the good old translation.
Had we any desire to retort on them, we might indicate:
their ignorance on a point which every well-informed gentleTman ought to understand, especially such as desire to enlighten




8i2          -FIDELITY TO -GOD  IN T'1H-1E
the world on theological and ecclesiastical sLbjects.  We confess, that notwithstanding all that we had observed of the
inaccuracy of their knowledge and the want of:precision ina
their statements, we were surprised to read from them, March
4: "And the Church of England, recently, at a meeting of
both HIouses of Convocation of Ca nterbiry,  at. Wrestminstcr~
has given notice of a motion for all the objects announced by
the Bible Union for a revision of the Holy Scriptures."  The
"'Convocation" has near about as much life in it, and as much
influence in affairs, eithler civil or religious, as the -Order of
the Cincinnati.  If these gentlemenln, as it would seem, suppose it to be the real and eflci.eiet embodiment of the Church
of England, we have no Inmre to say   "W Vlere ignorance'is
bl.iss,'tis folly to be wise."  Baut if the Convocatlon -were, to
all intents and purposes, the CIarch of England, tle balance
f tIlhe stateiment would be very far from the truth of the case
which is, that one member of one. Hlouse gave notice of his
own intention to propose that the other House be requested to
take into consideration the propriety of calling the attention
of the Queen to the subject!  We do. not remember that we
ever healrd of a story that swelled in the rolling more tharl
this.'We take the following representations of it from  the;Episcopal Recorder, whose fairness, intelligence, and interest
in looking into the mnatter, will hardly be questioned by any:
II"And -the following reference was made to the Bible: Canon
Shelwym gave notice of his intention to propose a petition to
the Upper House, requesting'his grace and their lordships to
take into consideration the subject of an address toI the Crowln,
praying that Her Majesty might be pleased to appoint a body
of learned men, well skilled in the original languages of the
HT-oly Scriptures, to consider of such amendments to the authorized version as have been already proposed, and to receive.Isuggestions' from all persons who may be Nwilling to offer them,
t::o comm'unicate with foreign scholars on difficult passages whlen
it, ma7y. be deemed -advisable, to examine th-e -marginal readinlgs




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                    8
which appear to have been introduced into some editions since
the year 1601, to point out such words and phrases as have
either changed their meaning or become obsolete in the lapse
of time, and to report from time to time the progress of their
work and the amendments which they may be prepared to:recommend."
These instances will sufficien l!y expose the inaccuracy which
pervades -the argument for "Revision" with which we are
fivoreld.  The candid reader must distrust the whole.  W
pass without other remark the incivility which charges us with
"insinuating' that the revisers are actuated by mercenary motives, " and with'   "insulting"' the, Reformers by saying that:they are sometimes, for distinction, called Catcmpbelites. -Con-scious of no unkindness or want of respect towards any, and
willing to be distinguished ourselves as Calvinists or Arminlans, we cheerfully allolw.such shiftls to those who need them,
while we argue out th-ie case.
It has been asserted w:.,ith great confidence that we seriously
mistake the position of the eminent 3Baptist ministers to whom
we have referred as being opposed- to the revision scheme;  and
particularly, that the Rev. Dr. Fuller is a firm  and active
fiiend of it.  In addition to all else thatwe find in various
quarters explaining the opinions of these distinguished persons
<as- we have statemd themnl, and of Dr. Fuller in particular, we
have before us a publication for jTwhich many of the leading
Baptist;s of New York, ministers and others, 1are responsible,
setting forth tIhe measures in opposition to the "Revision"
iwhich were adopted by: t:esebretre1n at tthe beginning of the
movement, in which measures sulch nmen as Dr. 3Magoon, Dr1
)Dowling, Dr. WXelch, iDr. TVilliams, anld others toook partl. In
this publication we fincld tle L'llowing parag-aph, headed
i"VIEW OF Dn. FULuLiM.-iWe can not:ldoubt that the project for the publication of an altered version of the English
Scriptures, by the Amlerican allnd   oreign Bible Society, will
strike the mnnmds of' tle grS-eai: body of its adlerents and sup,



84            FIDELITY 1'O GOD IN THE
porters in the same light in which it is viewed by Dr. Fuller,
of Baltimore. In a communication just received, he presses'ithe question,''whether a society, which has secured the con.
fidence of a denomination on the implied pledge that there
would be no new version, ought to depart from that pledge.'
Again he says, 6This project I deplore.''The Society will
inflict upon itself a deep and lasting if not fatal injury.'"
We know not whether Dr, Fuller has changed his " view.':
But we think there can be no question that he was utterly
opposed to the whole scheme at the beginning.  We are no
further concerned about the nmatter than to establish the accuracy of our statement, the substance of which simply was, that
he and. many other of the wisest and best men in the Baptist
churches had condemned, as uncalled for and mischievous, this
lattempt at an "altered version of the English Scriptures."
It has been urged, apparently with great satisfaction and
selifcomplacency-we suppose to swell the dignity of "Revision"-that there are five hundred thousand of the best Christians in the world now supporting it. We do not pretend to
know the number of them, and we are very far from disputing
their goodness.  But we would like to be informed w/zethzer'
they are not nearly all imznnersioznist.?  Not that all Baptists,
by any means, sustain this scheme.  We are not much mis.
taken, however, if almost all persons who do are not immersionists, and such as attach to the whole question of water baptism
an importance which sound orthodox evangelical Christians all
over the world, Baptists among them, have ever agreed in
condemning, because, as they believe, it far exceeds all that is
due to an ordinance or a sacrament in its mere form, and thus
involves the great danger of putting the outward sign in the
place of the inward grace, which is signified thereby.
For ourselves, we believe that this is a dangerous error, and
we are sure that the great body of the Church of Christ, holding the truth as it is in Jesus, is now and always has been of
t:.e same opinion.  And if nearly all these hllf million of




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 s5
people are desiring a new Bible under the influence of that
error, and because the old one does not sufficiently sustain
them in'it, what would it amount to, as an argument, in thle
eyes of dispassionate and reflecting Christian people, to say
that there are many whole millions intent upon mutilating the
Word of God in such a spirit and for such an end?  The
greater the number of persons so misled, and the better their
character as citizens and Christians in all other respects, the
more is their error here to be deplored, and the more steadily
ought all other men to frown upon this design.
There is one feature of the managemlent of this enterprise
which  we are not able to reconcile with candor, fair-dealing,
and that confidence in the friends of the Bible, whether professing Christians or not, which we think due to the Church
of Christ, and to all who value the W'ord of God; we may
add, which is due to scholar, as such.  We allude to the sedulous concealment of the names of the t~ranslators.  ~We perceive no worthy and honorable reason for this secrecy.  We
think it lays the griund for a. just suspicion that there is something in the matter of which those who manage it are conscious
that it can not bear the public scrutiny.  We think t-1hatt
people are not in the habit of doing things secretly, exceptsuch as tley are ashlamed to be seen doing.
Here is a work of the utmost importance, one of the least importanrt paitts of which is, that it requires vast sums of money;
and for this money, and for general confidence and support,
earnest and persistent appeals are made to the Christian world
and to "'a generous and enlightened public.'  Now it seems
to us that all who are thus appealed to have a fight to know
who are the persons engaged to conduct the most important
part of this great enterprise, that is, the translation of the
Bible.  If we were not asking too much, we would be glad to
be favored with their names, or at least an explanation of that
secrecy which seems to us unsuitable to an honest and fair
design in a matter of this kind.  We can image nothing




8  FIDELITY TO GOD IN THEI
which more clearly demands that all be done open]ly and il
*the face of the sun, than a scholar-like and faithful rendering
of the Word of God, intended to take the place of the accepted
English Bible; and when the chiefest part of the work is done
in a corner, away from the light of day, it is- very natural to
think of the Word which- tells us why men love darkl-ess
rather than light.
There is another'point on which we' crave information.  -It
is constantly insisted that the received version is not only inmperfect, but wholly inadequate, and, as we have lieretofore
shown, one of the steady aims and constant efforts of revisionists is to descredit it.  Now we would like to knowv whether it
is really held that any of the doctrines of the Gospel are not
capable of easy and exact discovery out of the common English Bible. Is it held that plain common sense people, not
scholars -understanding no tongue but our own - can not.
get out of this old English Bible a just and clear sense of the
Gospel in every doctrine, in every promise, in every precept
of it? If such people can easily, and upon the face of it:,
find in this old Bible a plain and fair statement of the Gospel
of Christ, by which they can be truly religious:, truly happy
in religion, and truly acceptable to God while they live and
when they die, then, where the need of this ado about revision?
Tf they can not, then we desire to know what are the religious
character and condition: oi all the plain people, not: scholars,
now speaking and reading only the English language in any
part of the earth, who suppose themselves, by the grace of'
G-od, to know and to enjoy the true religion?  And we desire
to: lknow what has become of all such people, of xvhom we have
rejoiced to believe that they adorned the doctrine of God our
Saviour in their respective generations, and now, having gone
the way of all the earth, we had hoped are in glory?  But if
these questions bhe: too hard to answer, and yet it is still insiste-d that the English Bible does not fairly and fulhly give thle
mind of the Holoy Spirit, then we crave to know, in a clear




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                87'
statement, WHAT ARE THE TRUTHS THAT ARE CONCEALED IN
THIS VERSION?  If the Bible, as the common people read it,
does not make them all plain, WHICH OF THEM ARE COVERED
UP OR CORRUPTED BY IT:?
We say respectfully, but- we say distinctly, that it seems to
us unworthy of the people who are engaged in this movement
to clamor against the old Bible, and yet not show that ONe
PRINCIPLE of the Gospel, on which hangs the- experience of
heart religion, or the hope of the recompense of the reward, or
the daily practice of a Christian life, through the merits anl:
grace of our Divine Redeemer, is either perverted or obscured
in this translation.
We find a great deal of this clamor in the writings and the
published speeches of revisionists, but when it is analyzed it
sinks to the insignificance of a complaint about baptism.  To
the water it comes st last, forgetful, it would seem, of gPaul's
sense of his high calling, in which he said, " CHRIST SENT
ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE C-OSPEL,"  A single
example will illustrate a class.  gWe have before us the
"5 Proceedings of the Trhird Annual Meeting of the Bible Revision Association, held at St. Louis, April, 1855.  Second
Part.  James Edlnunds, Corresponding Secretary," &c.  At
page 20, we find an'"Address by Elder J. Creath," a Vice
President of the Society, and for many past a leading man
amZong the Reformers; that is, with all respect, the friends
and adherents of Alexander Campbell.
BMr. Creath offered the following resolution: R"]esolved,
That the American Bible Union deem it wise, important, and
imperative to have a revised version of the Scriptures in all
languages, for tlAe zuse of t/ke comzmon people."  In its support, lie said: "6The first argument in favor of a revision of
the English Scriptures is the imperfection of the common version.  No person pretends to deny that there are numerous
mistranslations in the present received version; many errors,
some great, soime small, some 7materia lly afeting t~he fait4h




88            FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
and practice of Ch,ristiaz.':' n  No tongue of man or of
angel can tell the injury which the souls of men have received
from the presenzt fEpiscoycal, sectarianz, and Pedobapctist version.:':if we should succeed in establishing the charge
of our enemies in making a Baptist Bible, we shall do no
more than was dlone by the revisers of the present version.
2They did, to call iteWnts anzd puiposes, nmake a Pcdoba)tist
Bible, as far as they dared to do it, &c.      N *- Now, if we
should give the people of the earth a Baptist or immersionist
Bible for two hundred and forty years to come, we shall do
no more than they did.'
The reader will perceive that AMr. Creath fairly surrenders
the argument concerning baptism, if the appeal must b~ to the
present version,  HeI gives it up that he can not maintain his
views by the old Bible, and so he must get a new one.  But
what is more to our present purpose, it will be seen that Mr.
Creathl's complaints against the present version and its mistranslations as materially affecting the faith and practice cf.Christians, and causing such vast injury to the souls of men,
dwindle down to questions about baptisml   And so it ever
is, as far as we have seen, when you get at the real sense of
what is urged by this party against the present version.
" The head and front of its offending hath this extent, no
more."  It does not teach, and it can not fairly be made to
teach, what they choose to hold concerning baptism'
It is propes to say that this subject has been pursued already
quite as far as was expected at the beginning.   We entered
upon it with no intention of following these gentlemen whithersoever they might lead.  We did not undertake to show that
the received version of the Word of God is free from imperfection, nor to dispute the right of any to make a new translation.'We rejoice in every contribution that true scholars make to the
elucidation of the sacred writings, prompted by the love of
truth, or even by the love of letters; nor are we unwilling




T R ANESLATIO N T OF TIHE SCRIPT URES.            89
that errorists and pretenders should give their opinions to the
world.  We believe, however, that the old English Bible i.3
about as good a translation, take it altogetller, as is likely to
be made.  We see no reason to expect that a new version, by
whomsoever produced, would be better than this.  WAAe believe
that this is so far correct, that every principal doctrine lwilnch
God intended to reveal to men, and every command which I'e
intended to impose, are fiairly exhibited to thle comrmon rleader.
Persuaded, then, that this translation clearly'"teaches what
we are to believe concerning God, and what duties Hi-e requires
of man," we think that the Church at large is justly satisfied
with it as a fair rendering of thie Word of God for common
use.  Nor should we, nor those who requested this service
of us, interfere with any others who chose to offer a new
translation, if they would fairly represent a just desiogn, to bc
pursued in a right spirit, searching after truth as becomes,,
Christian men, to be executed by scholars of acknowledged
learning and abilities for the work.
Instead of this, it is intended, as we believe, to make a
version for a party- that party wrong on the questions on
which it is determined to force the Word of God.  Let men
do even this, if they please, but let them  not attempt to
beguile others into a confidence which they will abuse-by
representing that as CATHOLIC which is INTENSELY SECTARIAN.
Such is the spirit of this enterprise, and as such we expose it.
We undertook to show that this  "revision movement, sectarian
in its spirit and aims, and not called for by the Church at
large, or required by the actual necessities of the subject, is
not entitled to the public confidence and support" which it is
soliciting  on the plea of an unprejudiced and catholic design.
The reader must judge how far iwe have succeeded.
And now, in conclusion, we invite the public attention to a
new and significant feature in this subject. It has been proved
beyond all fair denial that the RALLYING POINT Of the revision




90             FIDELITY.TO GOD IN THE
enterprise has been ITIMERSION, substituted for baptism. Now,
as we understand, the principal organ of the revisionists is the
New York Chronicle, a leading religious paper in the interest
of the Baptist churches of this country.  We have not the
pleasure of receiving that paper, but we findc it quoted in variw
ous quarters by the religious, press, within the last few days,
as follows:
" We doubt whether, as a sect, we should not lose more
than we gained, by translating the word bap)tizo.
* EWe deprecate the idea of any organization getting out a
version, with its own imprint, and then instituting a system
of out-door agencies, through thle press or otherwise, to give it
currency.  By the same rule that one society may do it, any
other society may repeat the experiment in reference to a version otf its own, and thus the people will become divided up
between belligerent Bible organizations, each contending witll
stentorian lungs, and a vigorous systemn of agencies, to drawi
the public within the whirlpool of its own' influence. A battle
of Bibles would ensue more terrific than that of sect, and feud
and faction would be eternal"."
It is impossible, we think, to mistake. the sense of all tlls.
Thel first dissatisfaction of the public mind with the sclleme,
the stern condemnation by the Church at large, by reflecting
mnen of the world, and by true scholars, of this sectarian tampering with the Word of God, can not but be felt, and the
ilmpression is beginning to show itself in this change of position,  But obsgrve how this fiank statement is the mealns of
nailing tfhe colors of sectarianism to the mast of this. Revision
Association: thle A.Azeican B]ible Uzion, through its Secretcry, has publzicly stateed tat tlhe CUvronicle 2S not thze oregan,
and net not ot be hzeld to sp)ecak tthe sentiznents of that xSociety;
the plain meaning of which seems to be, that the, Union adlheres to the purpose of making the new  Bible call baptism




TRiANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURPES.                  91
immersion, notwithlstanding all misgivings of its friends anc
defections from its party.
W. L. BRECKINRIDGE,
Of the Presbyterian Chur/zh.
H.  iM.  ENISON,
Of theo Protestant Episcopal Church.
SAM UEL LowRY ADA1LS,
Of the Iethodist Episcopal Church, South.
E. C. C. TIMB1LE,
Of the Cumberiand Preisbyteriau Church.
G. GORDEmN,
Of the Associateo RCefrnied Presbyterlian Church.
P. S.-Since: the above was written, we have seen the: last
discourse with which the public has been favored by the ggentlemen who are writing against us and for "revision."  We
perceive nothing in it that meets the argument we have urged,
or the testimony we have offered against their designs as purely
sectarian, while the bitterness of its spirit and the rudeness of
its terms show that its authors are writing for a party.  A-nd
thus we excuse that contempt of truth and fairness, and that
ignorance of good manners, which charge us with forgery in
ascribing to Dr. Cone "sentiments which he never uttered by
mouth or pen, and which nobody but these clergymen ever
reported on them."
The gist of their labored reasoning seems to be that their,association ought to be judged only by its written constitution
and laws.  To all which we deem it sufficient to reply, that
mien's true spirit and their own sense of their constitution and
laws are to be learnedl fiom their practice under them.  The
way to know a tree, as the old Bible tells us, (periaps the new
one will give a better,) is by its fruit.  The people who are
acting under this constitution, fair as it may be, make it perfectly plain what they are doing.  " OUR ONLY business is to
u1phold IMMERSIONIST versions, and to give THEM  as large a
c:irculat.ion as wte can; and this is our business because all the




92            FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
rest of /the Christian world have thrown thJem away.  Tirs
SINGLE OBJECT IS OUR RALLYING POINT."  So writes the'" accomplished secretary" of the Bible Translation Society of
England.  "IN THESE SENTIMENTS WE CORDIALLY UNITE,"
says Dr. Cone.  This is the spirit which has betrayed itself
in every step of this nmovement, and which shows the true
nature and design thereof~  How far the counter influence,
which has begun to show itself, as appears by our quotation
from the New York Chronicle, may change the whole subject,
it not for us to say. Ir  e s/all see in the ftture wlo will do
justice in the mailter OSf Dr. Cone's stateMnets.  WET ArE
RIGHT, THEY WRONG, AND THEY ARE NOW AWARE OF IT.
N1UvIBEERL VII.
THE FTVE CLERTGYMEI'N ABOUT REVISION.
VWE are exceedingly sorry that our clerical friends have permitted their angry passions to get the nlastery of their reason,
and cause them to make such a display as they did in thle.
Journal of last week.  The )ublic have a summary way of'
dleciding questions between clisputants, on just such displays
of temper as those in which they indulge thellselves.  It is
considered quite a fair rule thlat the disputant who gets angry
in conducting a logical discussion, and who resorts to abuse
and invective, is on the losing side.  It was no fault of ours
tlat these clerical gentlemen undertook to meddle with matters
that did not concern them,  and that they entered upon thet
work thorougbly unprepared.  It is rather their lmisfortune
than our fault that they have gone continuously through a
series of blunders, marking each stage of their progress with
wild assertions, false logic, blundering statements, and sophtstlcal argumentation.  AVWhly, then, display an evil tempelr




TRANSLATION OF TITE SCRIPTURES                93
toward u7s?  WVe know  that these gentlemen  have some
excuse for being angry.  When men are bruised from head
to foot, when pains rack then in every joint, it is scarcely to
be expected that they can always exhibit, in its most exemplary light, the virtue of Christian patience; but then they
need not be unjust in their irritability, and ascribe their sufferings to innocent parties.  Nor need our clerical friends feel
ally extraordinary surprise that their lectures upon courtesy
and good taste, uttered in the midst of illustrative qluerulousness, wrath, and invective, fall still-born from their pens.
Wrill they pardon us for saying: that not only we, but the
public, would greatly prefer examples of courtesy, good taste,
and pleasant manners from them, than didactics on those subjects without examples?  Their course is not very impressive,
but we wish them more success as teachers of manlners and
the general proprieties of life than they have been able to command in their efforts to put down a revision of the Bible.
We confess that our clerical friends have great reason to be
sick of their attempts upon the revision cause.  It has been a
losing business to thllem from the moment they appeared in the
arena of public debate until the present time.  It is not a
matter of marvel, therefore, that they are now anxious to quit.
But they are the John Gilpins of lebate, and ride they must
iwhlen there is no opportunity for dismounting.  These gentlemen determined, as John Gilpin did, to take a -merry little
jaunt; and since their Rosinante has become as restive and
lunianageable as that renowned horseman's did, they must
follow his example and hang on to their steed as best they
can.  iAll England is engaged in a laugh at this time at thle
Archbishop of Canterbury, who is called the Episcopal John
Gilpin, because in an ill-advised moment he was indiscreet
enough to jorder an investigation of the sermons of an archdeacon, in order to see whether there was any heresy in them.
The committee reported that it was a case for further proceedin2gs, But just at that point the zeal of the Archbishop cooled




94 A            FIDELITY TO GOD) ISN.TIoff.  tllus far the process was a cheap one; but futhler steps
were to be attended with a horrid bill of costs without -n:y'
i-ncrease of happiness or reputation to the Ar.clhbishop..ftl.:
l2iimate did not feel that lie was called upon to nurse orthodoxy by the expenditure of his Episcopal rcvenues, and he
t.lherefbre resolved to permit the archdeacon and his heresies to
remain in the Church.  But alas for his wishes! 1he was in for
it!  The inexorable Mr. IDitcher, who had drawn him into the
difficult.y, who had, in the language of the London press,
"'placed him on the inclined plane of a parliamentary act,"
resolved to keep him moving..Mr. Ditcher appealed to the
Queen's Bench for a mandamus requiring the Archbishop to
prosecute the archdeacon.  The Archbishop resisted the court,
hlie wrung his hands in anguish, and asked lugubriously, wh1at:
it was to him  if the archdeacon had ten thousand heretical
crotchets?  Why was he to expend fifty thousand dollars to
ascertain their existence?  But the Queen's Bench made their
rule absolute against his grace of Canterbury, and despite of
hiimself lie must go on with the case and foot the bill of costs.
Non:e of the London papers estimate the law expenses at less
tlhana fifty thousand dollars; and this sum the Archbishop will
have to pay merely because he started on the hunt of heresy'in his archdeacon, and could not stop when he wished to do
so.  Like our five clerical. friends, "when le had his discretion, lie would not be discreet, andv when he was anxious to be
discreet, lie had no discretion."  For our clerical friends are in
quite as dlisagreeable a predicament as the Archbishop.  They,were willing to take a little journey into the revision question,
provided they could have everything their own way; but they
a.re sickened and disgusted in -finding that they have reached a
place where blows can be given as well as received.  They
seemed to adopt the idea that they could stigmatize what.and
whom they pleased, lampoon all who stood in tlheir way, and
no one was to say a word in answer to them.  The momentli
they are routed and:driven from  every point they assumed,




TRANSLATION  OF THlE SCRIPTURES.                95
they commence delivering homilies upon good taste, courtesy,
pleasant manners, and such matters.  When we need any
instructions in such things, we shall claim the privilege of
choosing our instructors.  If, like His Grace of Canterbury,
our clerical friends Ihave found heresy-hunting neither a profitable nor a pleasant pastime, they may profit by the lesson,
and be carefull Iow they begin -the hunt next time   Forty
millions of Bibles have not been -wasted upon the people.
M3en and women are learning everywhere that Christianity is
an individual matter, demanding the exercise of personal judgmlent and the personal action of each individual.  They are
cutting themselves loose from the dicta of those who usurp the
right to think for them and to lord it over their consciences.
The time has come now for us to turn upon these five clerical gentlemen and demand of them why, without reason, right,
authority, or provocation, they undertake to mleddle with the
inalienable rights of others; why they undlertake. without a
shadow even of right or privilege, to dictate to fiee people
who are at least, their equals; why -they presumptuously attempt
to manacle and bind these over whom they have not even a
ikncied overseersrhip'? NIeither the minds nor souls of an intelligent free people are in their Ikeeping or under ltheir control.
Nor have they any the least right to interfere with the acts
of any body engagced in a revision of the Bible.  Each mnember of tle body of Jesus Christ is clothed with every Christian
authority on earth that belongs to either of these five gentlenmen.  Yet they' have undertaken, by a most extravagant
assumption of authority, to meddle  with a great plublic enterprise, over which:they lhave no special stewardship.  These
five clergymen would. think it extremely presumptuous in the
Bible Union to declare that neither themselves nor their people
should read any thing, as the Holy Scriptures, but thle revised
Bible: is it less presumptuous on their part, to attempt to bind
i1he free and enlightenedl mind of the American people to King
James's version?  What eaIrthly  antbloity is possesse  by




Do             FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
these gentlemen, in these matteors, that is not in full possession
of the lhumblest soul on God's foot-stool that has been re.
deemred by the blood of Jesus Clhrist?  The time has passed
for clerical dictation to paralyze the faculties of the soul; they
belong alone to Jesus Clhrist.  Yet these five clergymen tall;
as though they had the custody of thie Hebrew and Greel;
Scriptures, and seem to claim  that they can shut and no man
shall open, and opon and no man shall. shut.  If these five
clergymen imagine that King James's version, which they
revise and alter at pleasure, is good enough for such people as
give them the keeping of their consciences and taculties, the
Bible Union does not arrogate to itself the authority to distufl
lhat enjoyment.  Surely these gentlemen can retain King
Jamies's version without meddling, with the rights of other
people.  Thlle question of translation  of the Scriptures is,ole!y between the translators and the Author of the inspired
-text; and in no possible way can these five clergymen show
tlhat they have any righllt to imake themselves third parties to
thel question.  Three of these clergymen have solemnly,subscribed to a Confession of JFaait-h, which, in thle eighth division
of the first chapter of the copy fiom which we quote, says,
that I"the inspired text is authentical, and may be appealed to
in all controversies of religion."  Th'-is proclaims in unmistak-.able langruage that King James's version is not a reliable stan(lard, since an appeal may iginore its very existence in the
Churches that adopt that standard of faith.  If it is a fair and
faitlthf;l version of the, inspired text, by which all the nations
of the Carth are to be mrolded, why not use it for "appeals in
all controversies of religion"?  If it is not a fair and fithful
version of the Word of God, if it is not a proper standard fbr
appeal, what do the three clergymen who subscribed that Confession of Faith mean by trying to force the people of this free
country to hold to it alone?  Do they mean to say, that thougll
unauthentical, it is good enough for the masses of the people?
If they mean that, Twhy not say so and not dodge the questionl?




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 97
But admitting that these gentlemen had some rigiht to med-a
c1le with the established and indeieasible rights of others, was
it not due to themselves, to the community, to the eternal
principles of justice and truth, to that golden rule — " do unto
others as you would have them to do unto you" — that a sense
of decorum, of clerical dignity. of common civility should have
restrained these clergymen from unprovoked and inexcusable
insults?  Was there any propriety in the exhibition by these
clergymnen toward the Bible Union of those ideas of Christian
ethics in which they have indulged themselves'? With an utter
perverseness and gross inconsistency, for which these gentlemen
can plead no other excuse than that of the man who swore a
certain horse was seventeen feet high, they persevere in the
parrot-like i-otes that the object of the B1ole Union is to make
a sectarian Bible.  We have nailed that base (oin to' the counter -too firmly to be removed by these gentlemen. All their
iterations and reiterations can do nothing toward strengtheninlg
iheir original statement - that was a wild and gratuitous assertion, and all its repetitions are of the same character.  But
these are full-blown teachers of good manners, ethics, courtesy,
and decorum!  Stripped of its verbiage, this charge means
that the Bible Union's constitution, laws, and organization, its
requirements of its translators, its contracts for fidelity in transation are a mass of falsellood, and that all the aiders and
abettors of the work are liars, knaves, and villains!  The
language of these clerical worthies admits of no other interprefation.  And this is the language which these clergymen dare
to use about thousands of people at least their equals in reputation for truthfulness, fidelity, righteousness, and holiness
before God and manl!  This is a specimen of clerical politeness,
gentility, and decorum with a vengeance!.  And when these'
clergymen have heretofore been brought to the bar of public
opinion to answer for this foul wrong, this deep offence against
good morals, the people will bear witness with us how completely they broke down in all their attempts at proof. Invec



93g8   ~     IIFIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIlE
tive against Spencer Cone, and Alexander Campbell, seem to
constitute the sum  total of their ideas of testimony.  Such
conduct can do these gentlemen no good; it can do the cause
of revision no harm.  But when did these five clergymen get
sick of sectarianism? If it is lawful to be a sectarian, it is
lawful to have a sectarian Bible; if it is wrong to have a sectarian Bible, it is just exactly as wrong to be a sectarian; for
an apostle has declared that whatsoever is not of faith is sinful,
and if a man has a Bible that is not sectarian and is a sectarian
hlimself he is living in open and confessed sin.  Yet these
five gentlemen, who are so shocked at the idea of getting a
sectarian Bible fiom  the Bible Union, are recognized in this
community as intensely sectarian.  Their daily labors and
nightly thoughts are devoted to sectarian pursuits,  Their
avocation is to build up five varying  sects, which differ from
each other so widely that some of them would consider their
pulpits degraded by the presence of their anti-revision coadju.
tors in them.  But they are awfully sellocked at the idea of a
sectarian Bible!  INow they themselves know that they are
intensely sectarian; this whole community knows it as positively as it knows that the sun gives light and heat to the earth.
And, since they are steeped in sectarianism, the natural inquiry
is, where did they get it?  If not from King James's version,
firom whence did they obtain it?  If from that, then these five
clergymen have the very thing that they are lustily crying
tgainst in the papers, and which they are trying to saddle upon
the community!  Verily, gentlemen, you have brought yourselves to a pretty pass before the intelligent people of Kentucky.
Do you flatter yourselves that the honest common sense of the
people cannot see through such transparent cobwebs as you
spinl?  No wonder these clergymen seek to dismount from the
animal on which they dashed into this arena. They must have
well-founded fears that their necks may be broken in any
plunge that lie may make.
Let us try these gentlemen on sonme other points of their




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                 99
attitude before the sovereign people. They seemed some time
ago to consider in their first ramble before the public, that it
was a matter for their investigation and invective, that two
denominations differing, as they said, on "fundamental " points
had united for a revision of the Scriptures.  Now, it should
have touched the reason of these clergymen that these two
denominations in being willing to submit whatever differences
existed between them to the college of revisers, expected then
and expect now to give up any practice, doctrine, or tenet that
is not clearly taught in the revised Bible.  To people even of
ordinary understanding this looks like good and commendable
conduct.  It precisely resembles that conduct of the Bereans,
which won from the pen of inspiration the praise that they were
vore -noble than. those of Thessalonica, in that they searched
the inspired oracles in order to ascertain truth.  We doubt
whetller the Bereans would have ceased their laudable labors
on account of the taunts of exasperated leaders, nor shall we,
while ave are in the line of their example.
But since our clerical friends thought proper to awaken
public attention to this combination, they will pardon us for
looking into their extraordinary coalition.  The sound public
sentiment of the English race has always looked with strong
jealousy'upon all coalitions of exceedingly discordant materials,  And when five clergymen, whose lives are devoted to
hostility to each others' denominations, who, though enjoined
by the Saviour of the world to maintain the unity of his body
inviolate, as an essential element in the conversion of the: nations, scorn and reject the Divine injunction which cries from
the garden of Gethsemane in stronger terms than the blood of
Abel did from the ground, but who zealously seek and readily
find a temporary bond of a qucsi union il a common animosity
against a work, which the pure-minded, the hbly, the righteous,
the pious, and the learned of every Protestant denomination
for the past two hundred years' have declared is a heavenly,
hloly, and ncedled work, the people have a mfull..rir %  to know




100           FIDELITY TO GOD IN; TI1E
tile annimus that brought then- together into such a remarkable
coalition.  It is made up of very much such material as the indignant eloquence of Edmund Burke immotalized immortalized,
because the eloquence was the echo of the popular sentiment.
Burke described that coalition as  an an administration so checkered and speckled; it was a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically dove-tailed; a cabinet so variously
inlaid, such a diversified Mosaic; such a tessalated pavement
without cement, here a bit of black stone and there a bit of'
white; of patriots and courtiers; king's friends and reptublicans;
whigs and tories          *    *    *'    *    *
that it was indeed a curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch
and unsure to stand upon.  The colleagues who were thus assorted at the same boards stared at each other and were obliged
to ask —' Sir, your name?'' Sir, you have the advantage of
me.'' Mr. such-a-one, I beg a thousand pardons.' I venture
to say it did so happen that persons had a single office divided
between themn who had never spoke to each other in their lives
until they found themselves, they knew not how, pigging together, heads and points, in the same -truckle bed."   But
IBurke's cabinet coalition was not more of a surprise-party than.
our five clergymen were when they first found themselves combined in a common object, the hunting down of Spencer Cone
and Alexander Campbell in the columns of a newspaper. They
probably felt that it was a piece of good fortune that they had
found one thing on which they could unite and form a brotherhood.  How much of a reward they will get for springing such
unions, while they utterly neglect the Divine one enjoined uponr
theml, is a matter for future adjudication.  That special unior
was the choice of these clergymen, and they must abide the
award of an intelligent public who are abundantly able to make
a discriminating judgment in all such matters.
Having thus disposed of this cabinet picture, we turn to
some other features which these clergymen present for exhibition.  The7,y kpust themselves see the adroit dodge by which




TRANSLATION  OF T-HE SCRIPTUIRES.             101
they attempt to relieve themselves of the truth we have pinned
upon them in relation to their ostentatious display of knowledge respecting King James's revisers. WVe showed that they
did not even know how many men were employed on the work.
In a loose and rambling way they said there were fifty odd.
We produced conclusive authority to show that there were
only fort.y. After weeks of labor these gentlemen have at last
made a fint effort to sustain themselves.  They uttered a
loud bosanna over Anderson's Annals of the Bible when they
wished to use that work against us; but when we turn its
truths against them, and shiver their statements into shreds,
they -find it very convenient to disclaim all further acquaintance
with Anderson's great work.  In order to try and find a prop
for their fatal blunder about the " fifty odd translators," our
clerical friends hunt up a poor miserable work called M'Clure's
"4 Translators Revived,"7 and attempt to pass that off as an
authority against the highest authorities in this matter.  But
even I3'Clnre does not sustain them beyond the number fortyseven, and our clergymen ingeniously pieced out the fortyseven into fifty four by a little imagination of their own  And
they endeavor to palm off this guess-work as history! Now
we shXall make the matter very plain. Anderson's "Annals of
the English Bible' is a standardc authority, endorsed by these
five clergymen in their first article. Anderson thus distributes
King James's workmen:
He gives the names of the TEN at WVestminster, engaged on
Genesis to 2dcl Kings, inclusive; ait Cambridge, the EIGHT engaged on 1st Chronicles to Ecclesiastes, inclusive; at Oxford,
the SEYVN employed on Isaiah to Malachi, inclusive; at the
same place, the EIGHT employed on MIatthew to the Acts, inclusive, and the Revelations, at Westminster again, the
SEVEN employed on Rornans to Jude.  Anderson gives the
names and position of each one of these revisers.  If the
reader will add together the figures we have placed in small
capitals, he will see that they make forty instead of the fifty




102           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
odd which these clergymen have been looking for so anxiously
and fruitlessly.  And Thomas Hartwell Horne, in his great
work, gives precisely the same distribution that Anderson
does, and makes the number just forty, as we stated it.  Our
clericals might as well submit; they can not get out of that
blunder.
Again, these gentlemen undertake to make capital out of
what they call our mistake about the motion of Canon Selwyn
for a revision of the Scriptures. The highest dignitary in the
Episcopal Church of Kentucky communicated to one of the
undersigned, last week, the information that Canon Selwyn's
nmotion embodied the sentiment of his Church.  The Church
of England thus intimated its sentiment through one of its
own members.
These gentlemen feel that they are so lame that they can
not get along without Dr. Fuller.  They once more claim him
on the ground that he once spoke of the impropriety of another
organization engaging in the work of revision.  He was not
speaking of the Bible Union, for that body was not then in
existence.  Ile is now actively engaged in assisting the Bible
Union.  These clergymen should try their hands at proving
that Paul never was a Christian because he held the clothes of
those who stoned Stephen to death.
Our clerical friends seem to be fairly frantic on the immersion question.  They appear to think that there is no other
question under the sun. We have never said a word about it
except in answer to them, and with rare coolness they talk of
our clamor about immersion! Anti-revisionists have written
ten lines about immersion where the friends of revision have
written one, as may easily be verified, in our case, by comparing our articles with those of the clergymen.  Our Bible
Union treats baptism as it does all other words-by requiring
all to be translated so as most clearly to express the sense of
the original.  And these five clergymen seem horror-stricken
at the operation of such a law in the hands of the learned, but




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.              103
the horror is only about one word in the text of inspiration.
Verily, gentlemen, you are in a trouble that will command but
little sympathy.
Again, as if determined to vindicate their title to be considered the most consistent mortals in all inconsistencies, these
five clergymen talk grandly about "attaching too much importance to an ordinance or sacrament in its mere form."  And
yet each of these gentlemen has solemnly subscribed to a
Confession of Faith that boldly and plainly teaches baptismal
regeneration even for unbelieving infants.
These gentlemen merely pass from one slough to get into
another.  Until we observed their work we had supposed that
human nature might be fatigued even in blundering, but the
endurance of these gentlemen is almost beyond the powers of
faith. They now raise a clamor because the work of revision
is, as they say, in the hands of immersionists. It is a sound
maxim in law, as in all sound morals, that no man can justify
himself by a plea founded on his own wrong-doing.  If this
cause is in the hands of the immersionists, it is the fault of
such gentlemen as these five clergymen.  The Bible Union
opened its doors wide enough to admit every honest-minded
man or woman on earth. Its platform demands no more than
that God's Word shall be translated faithfully into all languages. These clergymen were not excluded, unless they are,
opposed to the faithful translation of that 5Word. And wiy
not come in now?  The doors are still open.  The gentlemen,
widely mistake the truth. There are great numbers of persons
in the Bible Union who are not immersionists.  But what if
all are imnmersionists?  Are the constitution and laws good
and suitable for carrying on the revision enterprise? Is the
work needed?  God has ordained that "ALL THE WORDS- OFr
HEIS LAW SHALL BE WRITTEN VERY PLAINLY."  Do the five
clergymen feel disposed to give a counter ordinance to that?:
We have shown so clearly that even the five clergymen
do not dispute the fact, that many things in King James's.




104;FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
version are obscure, many others are very erronzcous, some are
palpable and universally acknowledged.perversions, and some
are conztradictory.  But the five clergymen choose to defy
God's ordinance requiring plain speech for his laws!
Our clerical friends utterly refuse to meet any question at
issue with any sign of fairness.  On a certain occasion some
Jews undertook to entrap the Saviour.  He told them. that he
would tell them what they desired to know, providced they
would answer one question-was John's baptism from heaven
or from men?  They reasoned among themselves, that if they
said from heaven, He would corner them by asking, why then
did you not receive it?  And they were afraid to say fromil
men, because of the danger of being stoned. They concluded
not to answer.  The five clergymen closely imitate these
Jews. We have put the question to them repeatedly, Is King
James's version faithful in all respects to the inspired original?
They are afraid to say it is not, because then the public demand
would be, why not revise it? They dare not say it is, because
then -we could overwhelm them with all their scholars and
with one another of the coalition.  Instead of answering that
honest, fair, and vital question, they cry out, at the top of
their lungs, immersionists, Spencer Cone, Alexander Campbell, and sectarianism, and complacently think that they are
logicians! They work in sectarian harness day and night, and
occasionally seek each other's company, not for the promotion
of the Gospel of Christ, not for the conversion of the world,
not fobr the union of Christians, but to abuse Spencer Cone,.Alexander Campbell, and the Bible Union. Are they afraid
that, if the Scriptures are made intelligible to the masses of
the people, they will find it difficult to maintain the attenuated,threads of their sectarian distinctions?
The gentlemen are greatly troubled about some of Elder
Creath's opinions, uttered in St. Louis.  Have they not yet
learned that the Bible Union fetters no man's opinions?
Whatever is founded in reason, and is consistent with truth,




TRANSJLA TION   F THE SCRIPTURE'S. 1S053
is respected.  Is not that the way that these clergyTmen get
along in their coalition?  Are all the members of this i-me1ons
coalition to be judged by the opinions of any one mnember of'
that immortal quintuple alliance? Now, in order to show these
clergymen how free the Bible revision cause is, we hereby
tender a public invitation to any one of the alliance, to attend
the Annual Revision Association, which assemlbles in this city
on the 10th of April, and makle a speech.  It shall be published in our proceedings, and scattered among the frienCds of
revision.  The speaker may take his text on any one of the
fklvorite topics of the coalition —immersion, Spencer Cone,
Alexander Campbell, or sectarianism.  If they have not exhausted themselves on these entertaining themes, we hope that
some one of the body will avail himself of tills opportunity for
distinguishing himself.
The coalition scenes steadily bent on finding out- the names
o- the college of revisers.  They speak of the "sedlulous concealment."  Gentlemen, do be patient.  Some of your friends
have declared, that if any names in their cldeomvinations can
be discovered, they shall be expelled.  But the names of
numbers of them  are widely known.  They have been given
to thousands in public addresses, and to several of the five(
clergymen, by one of the undersigned.  When you cool down
and get through with your decorum letters, you shall have mnore:names.  After all, may we not enquire whether these five
clergymen are not more worried about the names they already
know than concerned about thle remainder?  The fiiends of
revision have all the information on this subject that tUley
desire at present.
Our clerical friends are much more devoted to asking qunestions than to answering them.  They ask us solemnly, "Is it
held that plain, common sense people, not scholars, can not
get out of the old English Bible a just and clea.r sense of
the Gospel in every doctrine, promise, and precept?" And wev
ask, does not each one of' you teach that thlese can. be foutl-.




106          FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
either in the Thirty-nine Articles, the W~estminster Confession
of Faith, or in the Methodist Discipline?  If there is any
sense or logic in your question, why print Bibles at all, or
why preach from them? 9Why not print and circulate the
little formularies, why not preach from them, why not teach
in the Sunday-schools from them?  Will not your question
apply to the Douay version?  Why does each one of you
denounce that?  Will not your inquiry apply to the Swedish
and Portuguese versions, not one fourth of which is correct or
intelligible to the common people?  God declares, that "ALLL
Scripture given by Divine inspiration is PROFITABLE."  DO
you call that in question? God denounces those who shall
ADID to the words of His Boolk, and those who shall DIMINISH
fiom His words. Many letters, words, and sentences, that do
not belang to the Word of God, are added in King James's
version: many that belong to the inspired text are not to be
ibund in the authorized version, and many expressions are unintelligible that should be plain.  How many of the ablest
and best of scholars have we already quoted upon these clergymen on these points?  But, in good season, we shall give
more.
As specimens of what these gentlemen understand by courtesy, good manners, decorum, &c., we beg leave to call attentlon to the following  We are charged with "acting under
false pretenses," with' attempting to force the.Word of
God;" "to beguile others into a confidence that will be
abused."  These beautiful gems of politeness, we suppose,
are the choice morceaux of clerical courtesy to which we poor
laymen  must submit in humble gratitude to these dispensers
of blessed words!  Although the reader may search all the
articles of the undersigned without finding the least semblance
of such language, yet these gentlemen not only indulge in the
most insulting inuendoes and criminations, but with the coolest
complacency lecture us upon good manners, civility, and courtesy! But they say that they "would not interfere with us




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.              107
if we would represent a just design."  We shall feel obliged
to the clergy if they will translate that into intelligible English. But this much we can say: we challenge these gentlemen to place their finger upon a single instance in which we
have failed to fully express our true designs and objects.  An
iljustice by inuendo is rather worse than an open wrong.
Our clerical friends are exceeding fretted on account of our
aIllusion to the wrong they perpetrated on Spencer Cone. The
charge is true, just in the terms in which we expressed it. We
answered them from their publication in the Courier; and in
their article in that paper the grievous wrong was done to
Spencer Cone of which we complained.  And the wrong has
never yet been amended. The Rev. Mr. Adams has pointed
out the fact that the publication in the Journal was correctly
printed. But why did not these gentlemen see that their
publication was correct in both papers? They are responsible
for both.  We charged that the wrong was perpetrated by
quotation marks; and so far as the article of the clergymen
in the Courier is concerned, the wrong is still unredressed.
These clergymen owe it to themselves, and to a sense of
justice to the memory of Dr. Cone, to correct their error for
the readers of the Courier. When they do that, they may
consider themselves relieved of our charge, but not until
then. When a man discovers that. he has committed a wrong,
even by a typographical error, he is in common honesty bound
to correct it.
Our clergy talk about judging a tree by its fruit.  They
should be careful about awaking too much public attention to
that rule just now; we question whether it will benefit them
a great deal. But we are willing to be tried by that rule.
What better first-fruits of an organized body do they want
than its constitution and settled rules of procedure? And we
call upon the gentlemen now, as we have often done unsuccessfully, to point out the least flaw in them, or the first instance
in which we have deviated from them.




L08           FIDELITY TO G-O) IN TIlE
WTe beg leave to say to our clerical friends that these articles are extensively republished; and the friends of revision,
in all cases, publish the articles of the five clergymen.  Preparations are in progress for the republication of the whole correspondence in pamphlet form for distribution in Europe and
America.  We shall be happy if our clerical friends will try
their hands once more, and produce something that Awill do(
them credit.  We pray them, before they abandon this field
of fane, to try and state ONE fact on revision that will bear
scrutiny; to make at least oNE argument that will pass cur
rent in the realms of logic.
JAMES EDMII.TNT.),.
T. S. 3BELL.
N U M BBEIt V II I.
THE AUTHORS AND FINIStIEPRS OF TIITE COMMON VERSION. -- ITS
REVISERS AND TIIE1R OPPONENTS.
WNTl have heard and read a great deal in relation to t:lhe
remarkable merits of the forty gentlemen, who, by a stretchll
of courtesy, are called the translators of King James's version.
The period in which they flourished is called, very curiously,'"the golden age of learning,," a phrase which can have no
force of tru'th to those acquainted with the history of that.
epoch.  What are the golden fruits of that period?  What
are the products of the learning of that age?  In what quarter of the earth may any man seek for any evidence of the
truth of the statement that the learning of King James's times
was either comprehensive, accurate, vital. or able?  It is easy
enough to manufacture fine phrases-quite easy, in the looml
of an active imagination, to weave tissues at once gaudy andl
glaling and attenuated.  But in matters that concern t'ile




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPT'iURES.               10D
Welfare of humlan beings, that are connected with their Jhig!lest
interests and their eternal rights, that bind them to the throne
of Omnipotence and to an inheritance that is undefiled and
that fadeth not away, fine phrasing and a tesselated mosaic of
pompous words, that speak more of sound than of sense, ar(
not tlheCproper food for the immortal mind.  At thle judgmentbar of God each individual must answer for himself; neither
priest nor clergy of any kind, nor church institutions made by
men, nor human formularies, can be of any avail.  Each
mortal must answer for himself, upon the Word of God,  and
by that alone will each one be measured.  Hence the value of
-the labors of the Bible Union towards that glorious consummatioin which. the English language so much needs-a translationl of the Wordc of the Eternal, faithful in all respects to the
inspired original.  Battle after battle has been fought upon
the principle involved in this work.  In all ages, privileged
orders have felt that among' their dearest privileges was tliat
which protected the masses of the people fi'om  too clear a
comprehension of the WVord of God.  Thus, when Cra-lmer
attempted to revise Tyndale's translation  of the New Testainent, and divided the work out among the most learned men
of' his time, the answer of Stokesly, bishop of London, is not
a bad type of myria.tds of established errorists of that age and
of all suceeeding ages.  This clergyman, to whom  Cranmer
Ilad sent the Acts of the Apostles for revision, said: "I marrel what my lord of Canterbury meaneth, that he thus abuseth
tihe eople in giving them liberty to read the Scriptures, which
dothl nothingl else but infect them with heresy.  I have bestowed never an hour upon my portion, nor ever will.  And
therefore my lord shall have his book again, for I will never
be guilty of bringing the simple people into error."  In plail
terms my lord bishop of London could see nothing but evil in
an attempt to make the Scriptures of Divine Truth intelligible to the masses of the people.  When the early reformers
endeavored to translate language of this kind into sucll a;s




110           PIDELITY TO GOD IN TIiE
expressed good honest thoughts, they successfully spake, according to Hume, in these terms:'"Nothing can be more
absurd than to conceal, in an unknown tongue, the Word of
God itself, and thus counteract the will of Heaven, wlich, for
tile purpose of universal salvation, had published that salutary
doctrine to all nations, that if this practice were not very
absurd, the artifice at least was very gross, and proved a consciousness that the glosses and traditions of the clergy stood
in direct opposition to the original text, dictated by Supreme
intelligence; that it was now necessary for the people, so long
abused by interested pretensions, to see with their own eyes,
and to examine whether the claims of the ecclesiastics were
founded on that charter which was on all hands acknowledged
to be derived from heaven, and that, as a spirit of research
and curiosity was happily revived, and men were now obliged
to make a choice among tle contending doctrines of different
sects, the proper materials for decision, and, above all, the:Ioly Scriptures, should be set before them; and the revealed
will of God, which the change of language had someuwhat
obscured, be again, by their means, revealed to mankindl"
The Bible Union of the present time occupies the very ground
occupyiel by the reformers of the troublous times of HIenry
VIII., Edward, Elizabeth, and Janmes I.; the opposition to
the Bible Union stands preciselywhere all opposition to giving
the fullness and purity of the WTord of God to the people has
ever stood.  And this opposition now is doomed to meet evenl
a more disastrous fate than its kindred types have ever experienced, for the Bible Union occupies a territory of truth, of
fidelity to God and man, and of capacity for its noble objects,
never before occupied in any attempt to make a perfectly faithfill version of the entire Word of God.  Burnet's "H History
of his own Times" and Neal's "'istory of the Puritans,"
amply confirm the truth of Hume's picture of the opposition
to a faithful translation of the truth of God; and a modern
artist might draw a similar picture from living models.  Even




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTUIlES.              I1.
those forty gentlemen who revised the Bible in King James's
time, and who are now canonized and sainted among Protestants to such an extent that a Presbyterian clergyman, in the
Independent, recently said that some Protestants bestowed
upon their work an " idolatrous reverence," felt a great load
of the evils which their reverers attempt to heap now on others.'WNAe have now before us the preface of these forty mirrors of
"the golden age of learning of King James's times" to the
first edition of the Bible revised by them.  In that they thus
speak: "VWhosoever attempteth any thing for the public (especially if it pertain to religion and to the opening and clearing of
the IWord of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to
be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself
headlong upon pikes to be gored by every sharp tongue. for
lie that meddleth with men's religion, in any part, medclleth
with their costume, nay, their freehold, anzd thoung/ they fXin
no content in that wohich t/hey have, yet they can not abice to
hecr of alterizg."  The italicized portion of this word-picture
hias all the fidelity of a perfect daguerreotype.  WTe have
among us those who are not conZtent wit/h what/ they have, but
can not abide to hear of altering.  Take, for example, the
practices and connections of 66the five clergymen" who have
recently immortalized themselves before the people of Kentucky in their attempt to crush out life from the revision cause.
All that portion of the five clergymen who know any thing
of the Greek language industriously revise the Scriptures in
their pulpits and in their theological polemics; and three of
the five utterly condemn King James's version in whllat are
held to be important and essential parts.  King James's version sets up an establishment called Bishops, which three of
these clergymen, with all their brethren, utterly repudiate.
With two of these'"harmonious clergymen" bishops are a
divine order, set forth m the Holy Scriptures; but the othler
three harmonies reject the divinity of bishops, refuse to acknowledgce their existence in their church government, and




-112           FIDELITY  TO GO1D iN TIlE
declare, that although such an order is taught in King James's
New Testament, tile tIoly Oracles in the inspired text teach
nothing of the kind!  Verily, these are gutides for the people
to the pure light of God's truth!
But we turn to a consideration of King James's packed jury
of revision.  It is a great stretch of the truth to call them
substantially by the name of translators.  The real translator
of a la.rge portion of the English Bible was William Tyndale,
who gave ample evidence of the possession of more learning
than we have any evidence was in possession of the entire
forty gentlemen called King James's translators.  Tyndale
really translated the Old Testament firom the Hebrew, for he
no had English tratnslation fiom  -those tongues to guide him.
That noble martyr to truth determined, even at the risk of his
life, which he lost in the cause, to furnlish the people with as
faithful a version  of God's word as hIe could make; and his
trutll-ful nmircl foresaw the results.  In a conversation with a
reputed learned divine, lie uttered the remarkable words' ".f'
God qlw1sae m')y'ife, evie man2y yeaCrs, I will cause a loy that
clrivet/ th e plIow o to  zow more of' t/e Sc?'p.tur'c.s Nz.z ia'yo,
dox."  The light of that truth shines now upon tlle labors of
the Bible Union.
To return  Kinr James's revisers had before thenm thle labors
of Tyndale, Coverdale's translation, John Rogers's coimpilation of Tyndale and Coverdale, with improvements of his own;
Cranmer's Great Bible; the Genleva Bible; the Bishop's Bible;
and the Latin Vulgate,  All testimony of any weight concurs in supporting these facts.  A great deal of labor is spent
by persons, who scarcely know what they are talking about, in
glorifying the learning of King James's "translators."  If
these parties were called upon for proof of their statements,
they would necessarily be dumb, for the record is vacant in all
the matter of proof. Those I" translators" have not left a single
monument of their learning by which its character can be ascer.tained.  M\en of science, of leanling, of arts, and of philoso



TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                113
phy are known by the works they protuce, and can be known
in no other way.  Where is the lexicon, the grammar, any
editions of the classics, ally treatise in any one department of
teaLning, prepared by any one of King James's board of forty
revisers, to which men may look in order to learn something of
their acquisitions? All history stands dumb to these questions.
There is not a particle of reliable evidence that any one of the
forty could read and translate with skill either Hebrew or
Greek.  It requires no great amount of scholarship to detect
their frequent visits to the Latin Vulgate for such improvements as they made upon previous versions; but their improvements were more than counterbalanced by their numerous
blunders and palpable corruptions of the Word of God. The
preface, to their -first edlition of the Bible was full of the lowest,
vilest, almost profane adulation of one of the most wicked,
profane, and outrageous beings that ever wore a crown; one
who spent his time in burning Presbyterians and Baptists, and,
in the language of Neal, in "6 wounding the Protestant religion
and the liberties of England."  And they carried this adulation where it became profanity, into the text of God's word.
In'order to assist the tyrant James in riveting a yoke upon
the necks of the people, these corrupt revisers, holding appointinents under James and seeking church benefices at his hands,
did not hesitate to ma. ke holy writ utter repeatedly, God save
the King —a phrase not only never written by the Holy Spirit,
but at war with all of God's revelation on kingly governments.
In former articles we have shown the enormity committed by
these men in placing in the word of inspiration a Saxon female
idol Eostre or Ea.ster, ill lieu of the Divine institution ordained.
by Jehovah.  And'we might go on and fill column after
column with specimens of such work, which not one scholar
on this earth would attempt to defend. King James's servitors
wvarped the Word of God to suit their employer or to suit their
own theological notions.  Their business was with philology
n.ot theology.  Take a single case of their unscrupulousness in
llC3L I~llt~S




l 1 t    ~     FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
their department of theology,  The word ilfinee means a bed
or a couch.  From  that word the English language has obtained all such words as decline, recline, incline, and clinical.
Throughout the entire Bible, indeed throughout all English
literature, wherever the word occurs, it is always translated a
bed or a couch, except in a single place. It has no other meaning than that which we have mentioned.  But in Mark vii, 4.
King James's 1" translators" had tlhe hardihood to translate it
/aables.  They might as well have translated it horse, cow, or
sheep, for it means either of them  quite as much as it does
table.  The word JIlinee or its derivatives occur ten times in
the New  Testament, and nine times King James's revisers
translate it bed.  Why then did they forge a meaning for
Jflinzoz in 3Iark vii. 4.?  Simply because in that place the
Saviour used the word bacyrtismzou.s and a forged meaning  was
given to a7linoen in order to obscure the common meaninog attached to baptismous.  The common meaning of that word
-perfectly applies to the immersing of beds; the intention was
to make it difficult to apply such washing to tables!, Is there
a pious or an honest man any where who would hold a tenet
erected on such tampering with the in[spired text as that?
-Let us return to a consideratio-i of the character of King
James's "translators."  7We learn friom Dr. S. E. Shepard
that a M3r. 3I'Clure has published a work called "The Translators Revived."  I-e felt anxious to do honor to these men.
but he says, that where he expected to satisfy himself without;
difficulty, /e ofoundcl zimEsel sorely cZicsppoinecl. He searched
public libraries and found sonme little about all the forty save
two- Fairclough and Sanderson.  They are in hopeless oblivion, We know more of Tynd.ale and RPogers, who preceded
them, than we do of all the forty.,lr.:aM'Clure, although
earnestly bent on doing them honor, acknowledges that their
labtor was but a revision of the 1rr,?sltWonzns of Tyndale and
-P]ogers.:As the end of Mr.,M'Clure's twenty years':labor to
do them honor, that is thfle result.  Upion Clark, the author




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTUltES.             ]1 5
ldevotes twelve lines of biography, upon Peryn and Brainthwaite each eleven lines, iRadcliffe, Laifield, and King each nine
uiles, R. Andrews and Ward each eight lines, upon Ravens
seven lines, Hutchison and IM. Sanderson five lines, upon
IBurleigh four lines; Spalding three and a half, upon Rabbet
two and a half lines.  And. to such celebrities as these the
English mind is called upon to bow in humble servitude for all
time to come.  There is not the least evidence that any one of'
the body was a good scholar and a pious man.  They praised.
the King's remarkable piety, and he swore like a trooper ixn
their presence, and was guilty of the most awful abominations
before God and man. Bancroft, in attempts to drive' the Puri-:tans, Baptists, and others into conformity to King James's
notions of a church, drew up three hundred ministers, and
suspended, or deprived, or excommunicated, imprisoned, or
exiled the whole number. HIe was King James's chosen churchman, his agent in religious matters.  IHe chose the "translators,'" and it requires no very great conjectural power to understand what kind of tools Bancroft chose for the work in hand
-a Bible shaped for a despotic King who avowed that his
throne rested not upon Christianity nor upon freedom, but
upon a despotic church establishlmeint,  And the Puritan descendlants of' Paynolds, of Sparks, Chadderton, and Knewstubbs, of the hampton Conference, are now standing before
the people ofi Kentucky, glorifyicng  Kiing James, Bishop Bancroft, and their allies, and spitting upon the graves and the
memories of their martyred Puluritan progenitors!  Verily, the
Tworld moves after a fashion of it[s own.
But the -five clergymen attempted, sone time since, to show:the remarkable glories of King James's times in biblical learning
ftor a'"translation" of thle Bible that must never be disturbed,
Yet that "'translation" has never commanded the confidence
or approbation, in all respects, of the learned.  In the seven
years that succeeded its publication, ten editions of the Geneva
Bible, and four editions of the Ge.neva New Testament, wvere




1IDELITY TO  -0) IN Tr1tIIE
printed in England.  And for twenty-one years'the GenevBible was the popular one in England; and that bitter hater
of dissenters, Bishop Laud, made it a high commission crime
to import, print, or sell the Geneva or the Presbyterian translation.  We can now place our hand on more than one hundred learned works upon the Bible, extending from 1632 down
to our day, each of which condemns King James's version, and
proposes amendments in it.  And in relatirn to the relative
capacities of the bibllcal science of King James's age of bitter
theological controversy and fiery persecutions, and of our
peaceful age of freedom and popular sovereignty, we quote the
authority of the ablest Presbyterian scholar in this country.
Edward Robinson, in his "Greek Harmony of the Gospels,"'
says  "In the lapse of centuries, and even of years, there is
a constant progress in the observation and discovery of new
facts and circumstances, belaring upon the social and also the
physical history of the Hebrews and other ancient nations.
They all serve to enlarge the circle of biblical knowledge;
they add to the apparatus and means of the interpreter and
biblical harmonist, and often shed new light upon topics which
be-fore were dark or doubtful.  It cmay clso be truly sait,
that in no formzer persioc, pevrhaps, has there been accumnulaled
a greater acmount of sutch ficts and such progress thazn durig
thke half centzry which has closed6."  That is the testimony
of a biblical scholar whose pre-eminence is universally acknowledged.  It utterly refutes the gratuitous statements,
which, in the absence of any thing that can be called proof,
assert the superiority of King James's age, opportunities, or
desires, for a faithful version of the Word of God.  At least
nineteen-twentieths of the merits of the common version are
due to Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers; a large mass of the
blunders, corruptions, and perversions of that version are due
to the jury of revisers packed by the relentless persecutor of
dissenters, Bishop Bancroft, under the orders of the blasphemnous and wicked head of the Stuart race of English kings,




TRANSLATION OF THEII SCRIPTURES.              117
Tl'he Bible Union has scholars in its board of revisers who
have built up monuments of learnino g that will be honored
among men wnIlie biblical science has a friend upon the earth;
anmd there is not a man in it whose personal character has a
stain upon it.  The principles of the Society we have amply
and clearly developed, and they commend themselves to all
men.  Presbyterians, -Methodists, and Episcopalians have, ill
this city, since the five clergymen commenced their opposition,
rallied under the banner of the revision cause, andcl they cheer
us forward in that glorious work which animated the noble
heart of Tyndale-to make the lWord of God, in English, so
clear, so intelligible, and so palpable to -the understanding,
that an enterprising plowman may in three weeks know more:of it than a lazy clergyman.
JAMES EDDMUNI)S.
T. S. BELL.
NUMR F   IX.
TESTTIMONIES OF SCHIOILARS ON REV[SION.
WHEN the Bible Revision Association appointed us to performn the duty of explaining before the public the principles,upon which the revision of the Bible has been undertaken by
thle Bible Union, we had no reason to suppose that any one
would undertake to get up a controversy with us on the subject.
Aind we could not have conceived, that under any circumstances, any one would deliberately undertake the wholesale
aspersion of the moral characters of the hosts of pious men
and wnomen engaged in this cause, whose characters are not
called in question in any other matter. All the parties engaged
in tle enterprise of the Bible Union are recognized as persons
of.unblemished integrity, of pume morals, of thorough iruthfull



ItST$         FIDELITY'rTO GOD IN TIIE
hess in matters of veracity.  All these parties are endeavoring
to procure what no man of learning any where will say the;
English language now possesses-a Bible faithful in all respects
to the inspired texts. They have secured fidelity in this work
by all the guarantees known to them, and they have pleaded
-with their opponents to suggest a better plan or an improvement
upon this.  Nao man has challenged a single prinzip)le of the
Bible Union.  No one has said that thre is c single defect
in the constitution, the organization, or the contracts of the
-Bible Union.  There is not one Christian man or woman on
the earth who can give one good reason why he or she may
-not stand on the platform of the Bible Union.  That platform
is, that all the inspired text shall be faithfully translated.
Yet notwithstanding these substantial and incontrovertible
-truths, we have been assailed.  We have been virtually told
by those who adduce no proof of their statement, that the
constitution, the organization, and the contracts of the Bible
Union arefalse in every respect, and that people whose integrity is commended in all communities wherever they are known,
are persons who are so steeped in falsehood that they are not
to. be believed in any thing they say. Can any person, in any
state of case, be justified in making such wholesale denunciation of honest, virtuous people?  Is there any Christianity,
any ray of a holy spirit, in such work as this?  Yet every
person who says that the revised Bible is to be a sectarianm
work, is guilty of this remarkable deed of wrong.   lad there
is not a person any where, who is guilty of this deep offence,
who is not himself steeped in sectarianism.  There is not a
more perfect criterion by which any person's intense sectarianism may be kno'wn than by his resort to this sweeping denunciation.  We exceedingly regret that Christianity has not yet
been received enough by men to purify the moral atmosphere
from such poisonous influences.  We regret that instead of
those pure, gentle, holy, truthful, loveable traits of cl-iaracter,
which Christianity intended to lntroduce, even men who




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.              1:19
profess to be under its influence display the same sectarian
bigotry, deep-seated prejudices, and reckless tongues, that
hunted the Saviour to the cross, and tracked the footsteps of
the apostles with unvarying misrepresentation and unrelenting
persecution.  When the Saviour was among men, he asked,
"When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the
earth?"  The condition of things we have described does not
look much like it.  The souls of believers desire the pure oil
which Zachariah saw emptied from the two olive branches,
through two golden pipes-those two olive trees and two candlesticks which John, in the Apocalypse, saw "standing before
the God of the earth;" but the intense sectarianism which has
usurped the province of Jehovah, declares that we shall not
have it.  It dares to declare -to men and women, that though
its oil is impure, they shall have no other.  This intense seetarianism, while admitting that there is not one English version
of the Word of God, faithful in all respects, dares to assume
that a defective representation of God's revelation is quite as
useful as a faithful one.  The common version has crowded
English Christendom with sects that are almost as innumerable
as the sands upon the sea-shore.  These sects are the legitimate fruits of that sectarian version from which they all pretend' to draw their sustenance; they could not have been produced by the inspired oracles.  All the promises of God are
based upon Hlis Word, not upon unfaithful versions of it.
But we turn from these contemplations of the subject to
legitimate sources of evidence.  There are scholars in the sectarian establishments of the day, who can afford to be truthful
and honest, and who remember that gentleness and truth are
among the graces of Christianity. The cause for which we
plead is sustained by the testimony of the entire Word of
God, and by the criticisms of every biblical scholar living,
and by every one that has lived.  And even those influences
which occupy positions antagonistic to the cause of revision
are now beginning to bear witness to its excellence. AWe




120           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
begin with the WVestern CIhristian Advocate, a Methodist
paper published at Cincinnati.  In answer to a correspondent
as to the fact that a prominent M5ethodist doctor of diviniity
was engaged by the Bible Union, the editor says,
"After all, no one may be disconcerted about this matter.
The new translators must be very incompetent and unfair men
if they do not furnish a better translation of the Scriptures
than our present English version, which, though the best that
could be made at the time-and it may be better than the
new one —may be greatly improved for the better, in accordance  with the original Scriptures.  Wesley gave a better
translation of tuhe Newv Testament.  Campbell and Doddridge
also improved.  No one need be frightened on this subject, as
the Bilble is quite safe in almost any of the English versionsthe Douay not excepted —if you reject the gross sectarian
notes, 
Thie YNew York Independent, a leading Presbyterian paper,of the city of New York, thus speaks of one of' the revisers:
"The Rev. John Lillie, D.D., is a clergyrman of the Scotch
Presbyterian Church in this: city, eminent alike for his learning
and Christian integrity. D.   L. is at present engl aged profess,sionally upon the new version of the Bible, a service for which
his sound scholarship and his critical accuracy admirably fit
him."  A number of other revisers are known, and no one has
questioned either the scholarship, piety, or integrity of any,one of them.  Does not this fact speak trumpet-tongued in
behalf of the excellence of the Bible Union's efforts to employ
none but faithful, competent men?   iMay not something be'conjectured as to the character of tlle eunknowtnz revisers from
ithose who are known?  Does any one imagine that such men.as Ruttiger, Forsyth, Boys, Lillie, Conant, and lMYorton would
be associated with incompetent, unfaithful men, engaged in:perverting the Word of God?  Shame upon the heart that'
can be guilty of such evil imagining!  Shame upon the peil.that can utter such injurious statements 




TRANSLATIONT  OF TIHE SCRIIPTURIES.            12I
Archdeacon THare, of tl-lhe English Church, a man of profound
learning and evangelical piety, says:
"This notion that slilght errors and defects and faults are
immaterial, and that we need not go to the- trouble of correcting them, is one main cause why there are so mllany huge
errors and defects and faults- in every region of huLman life,
practical and speculative, moral and political. Nor should any
error be deemued sliglit which affects thle meaning of a single
word in the Bible, wlhere so much weight is attached to every
single word, and where so many inferences and conclusions are
drawn -from the slightest ground, not merely those which find
utterance in books, but a fGar greater number springinrg up in
the minds of the millions to whllom our English Bible is tlhe
code and canon of all truth. For this reason, errors, even the
least, in a version of the Bible, are of far greater moment
thian in any other- book, as well because the contents of the
Bible are of flr greater importance, and have a far wider inqluonce, as also because the readers of the Bible are not only the
educatedl and the learned, who can exercise some sort of judgmrient on what they read, but vast multitudes who understand
whlt they read according to the letter.  Hence, it is a main
duty of a Church to take care that the version of thie Scriptares whicll it puts into the hands of the members shall be as
faultless as possible."
The ].Rev. John Stock, of Patmos College, Longwood, HI-uddersfield, in reference to the American Bible Union, says:
"'  look on the work in which you are engaged as the noblest
of modern days, and trust that your Union imay be enabled,
eventually, to supply every tribe of men with a faitllful and
complete translation of the -whole Word of God in their own
tongue.  Remember me kindly to that man of God, Dr.
MIacly.  Our people collected for him nearly -i)40."
Of that po'rtion revised by a Presbyterian clergyman  of tlle
city of New York, tlme Chturch of England Quarterly M3iagaznac says:




1^22         lFIDELITY  TO GOD  iN TIHE
6" If this be the conclusion [i. e., of the revision of the New
Testament], then we must congratulate our American brethren
both on their translation and on their notes.  We certainly
wiant a work of the kind here, and if this be not a conclusion,
we hope there will be sufficient encouragement -to go on with
so good a work."
The Nonconformist, published in London, is the chief organ
of tile dissenters in England, and is edited with great learning
and ability.  It says.' The work before us is an installment of what we hope
may prove speedily a complete revision of our common English version.  The Amnerican Bible Union. is unknown to us;
but we, on tlhe evidence of this thin quarto, must regard it as
ta most valuable association for the promotion of tile best of
purposes; and we trust its labors may be adequately sustained,
and accomplish the great ends proposed.  The special instructions given to tile revisers of the English New Test-ament, and
observed by the author of tile portion now before us, are, to
retain the present version as the basis of their revision, and to
make that version from the received Greek text, critically edited, with the known errors corrected, to cite all authorities
for alterations made, and to give the views of the reviser as to
the translation of the same word or phrase of the original, not
only in the place before him, but in every other place in which
it occurs.  Should this plan be carried out, provision is more
effectually made for gaining the concurrent authority of the
biblical scholars for the revised version than existed among
the fifty-four translators of King James; and the result could
scarcely fail to be successful and to secure public confidence.,'
Rev. Samuel H. Turner, D. D., of the Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York:
", It is only necessary to examine your work in part to be
satisfied that you have devoted much care and labor to it, and
that the result is, in very nmany places, a decided improvement
on the authorized version."




TRANSLATION OF THEI SCRlIPTURES.               123
Samuel Davidson, LL.D., Professor in Lancashire Indelen)-lent College, Mlanchester, England, author of "'An Introduction  to te New Testament," &c., a biblical scholar of the
lgiglhest reputation both in Europe and America, says:
"There is no doubt that the revision is very well done.
WiVhoever the unknown writer be, hie has done Iris work extremllely well.:His scholarship is varied and sound."
The Clerical. Journal and Church and University Chronicle,
published at Oxford, Eng1land, thus speaks of tile last revision:
"The American Bible Union has tile merit of putting forth,
in a book now before us, the first attempt at suchl a revision of
the text as is required.
"The conscientious minuteness with which every slight departure from the authorized text is noted, and every autlhority
of value collated, is highly creditable to the editor or editors.
The style in which'the book is printed, and thle price at
vlich it is offered to the public, are highly creditable to the
publishers."
FROM AMERICAN PERIODICALS.
The Biblical Repository and Princeton Reeview says:
"This volume is understood to be the Work of a Presbyterian minister, in full communion with our own Church.  As
we have not his permission to destroy the incognito maintained
thllroughout the publication, we content ourselves wvith saying
that lie has no reason for concealment, if the most extensive
aznd exact acquaintance with the text, theology, and exegesis
of the New Testament, as well as with the niceties of English
liction, and the utmost tenderness in dealing with the venerable English Bible, even while correcting it, can give a man a
place among the biblical critics of the age and country."
From  Waymarks in the Wilderness, we extract the introdu:lctory sentences of different paragraphs:
"Thlis is one of the most important works that has ever
i-:suecd from -the American press."




124A            FInDELITY TO GOD  IN TIIE
4"The chief value and primary design of this work is ilfs
excellence as a translation."
" On1 e of the:great excellences of this version is its faithfulf
ald-leirence  to the original."
"This new translation  also throws great. light on many doctrines of Scripture."
"Another excellence of this revised version is the rectification of the Greek text of Revelation,"
The Home and Foreign Journal says:
"We are prepared to give it a thorough examination, &e
IHere is'the book itself,;ivowedly given to the public to be
cziticisec1.  Let it'be subjected to the seve'e.t  philological
tests, and if s7'iowz to be imperfect, the Bible Union will make
changes accordingly.  What could be fairer than this?"
All these witnesses as to the pc'actiics of the Bible Union
are Peldobaptist authorities of eminence.  TWe lhave heretofore
p)ubisled in full tle pl?';c'ij:leS of the Bible Union a-s developed in  its  constitution, organization, contracts Awith  the
revisers, and professions of its filends.   No man  has  elt
himself strong enough to question any one of the principles
of the revision organization.  Those principles have recently
run the gantlet of five clergymlen, who were aboundantly able,
willing, and zealous to attack theem, had there been one vulnerable point in them; but those gentlemen did not challenge.a single principle of the Bible Union.  A. more just, fair, and.
truthful organization for carrying forward a holy work never'was made upon this earth.  And as there is but one other
method besidle.the principles of an orga.nized body, of judging
the motives of men, and that is in seeking to find how ti~
tlieir practices conform  to their principles,  -e have to-d"a
show1n the testimony of indepenlent scholars and authorities
to the fiLc-t tlihat the p2cLt'dicCS  of the Bible UTl ion are in stritw'
confibrmity to its 29rinzc' lJes.  Indeed, suchI has  been the we-i
come given by scholars and hiigh authorities amonog  the varicelo;
sects, to the  specimenos of revision s'_re. ady mnade, tthat 1i:(




TRANSLATION OF TIIHE SCRIIrTURiS. ]            2 5
friends of the cause have anmple reason to anticipate a mauch
more general and cordial welcome from thetn than was originally hoped for.  If the revision movement be of God, mortal
power can not arrest it, if it be of men, it will come to naught
of itself.
We close with these testimonies for the present.  We shall
continue to show the voice of the learned upon the absolute
necessity of a revision of the H:-oly Oracles, and upon the success in fatithfulness thus far achieved by the Bible Union in
revising the Holy Oracles.  There is not a more momentous
question to mortals than is contained in that which asks, What
has God said to man?  There is not one version of the Bible
in the English language that gives a complete answer to this
all-important, all-pervading question.  But the Bible Union
intends, that so fair as human powers can accomplish a great
-and an essential result, this crying sin shall no longer mar the
progress of the masses of the people in the attainment of bibhical truth.  VWe shall therefore devote our labors, hereafter,
to an exposition of the resources of the Bible Union for securing the great objects contemplated.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T  S. BELL.
N U M BE E tR X.
KING JAMES'S VERSION COMPARED WITH TIHE WORK )F
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
WHEN the Arch-enemy of mankind undertook to prove Him
to whom the Holy Spirit and the voice from Heaven had just
borne testimony at the Jordan, one of the answers given by
ttle Founder of Christianity was, "It is written, man shall
u;A live by bread alone, but by evenly word that proceedethl




i126          FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE,out of the mnouth of God."  And this is the answer now of
every faithful, truthful heart; it is the answer, too, not only
in words, but in every action of life.  In the ear of every
true and faithful follower of Jesus Christ rings the Eternal
voice, uttering, " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but ny
wOvr8~s shall not pass away."  "The word that I have spoken
the same shall judge him in the last day."  "If you continue
in mzy zword, then are you my disciples indeed."  These are
the declarations of the Holy Spirit, and the testimony of every
biblical scholar who has ever spoken on the subject is, that
there is not one version of the Word of God in the English
language that, in all respects, represents faithfully  "the.
words" that are to survive the destruction of the heavens'amnd
tLne earth —the wzord that is to judge each one of us at the last,
day -the word, by our continuance in which our discipleslhip
is to be ascertained.  If -wTe have not the fullness of these
words, how are we to prepare ibr the judgment?  If we have
not t1e wviord to begin with, how are we to continue in it?  No
scholar any where pretends to say that we have all the words
of God in King James's version.  Such a man can not be
producedl in all the records of biblical literature.  Yet even
fbr the temporal blessings promised the Jews, the utmost patinps
were taken to make known, in a plain and intelligible manner,
every word that God had uttered throughl Moses.  In Deuteronomy the mandate is given more than once: "You shall not.
add unto the word which I command you, neither shall yoen
diminish aught from it."  And when Joshua, after the destruction of Al, stood with 3Aount Ebal on one side and Mount
(.erizim on the other, lie read the words that had been uttered
by Moses, and we are told that "'there was not ca word of Zl
t/iat 2lfoses cormnanzcded lwhlich Joshua read not before all the
congregation of Israel, with the women and the little ones and
the strangers that were conversant among them."  Now, if all
this was necessary to the Jews, how much more necessary t1o
ns are all the words of the TIoly Spirit in the new dispensa



T RA,NSLATION OF r  THE SCR IPTI..           127
tion, in their proper places, and faithfully rendered into intellible English?  Inspiration asks a question on this subject that
should sink deep into the mind of every human being, a question intimately connected with the whole principle of revision:,"For if they escaped not who refused HIim who spake on
earth, much more we who turn away from Him who speaketh
to us f'aom Heaven."  Each individual has to settle this matter
for himself or herself; and if they do not do it satisfactorily in
this world, they will be likely to do it unsatisfactorily in the
world to come.
In view of the fact that all men who are capable of reading
Hebrew or Greek concur in the declaration that the English
language has not one version of IHoly WVrit in it faithful in all
respects to the inspired originals, we should have supposed,
that upon the first attempt to procure such a desirable, such
an essential work, all lovers of Divine truth would have hastened to the effort, and assisted in the great undertaking.  No
one, Ca prioi,  would have supposed that clergymen would
have announced fiom their pulpits that they know that IKing
James's version is defective as a translation, but that it is
good enoughll  It would have been difficult to imagine that
the most intense sectarianism  could have thus insulted the
majesty of Heaven; yet we see and hear such things as ordinary occurrences.  We see the intense sectarianism  of this
age raising its puny arm to assail an effort to secure a faithfiul
transfer into English of the ideas expressed by the Holy Spirit
in Hebrew and Greek.  If the learning, the piety, the fidelity,
and the holiness, that stand pledged before God and man to
spare no efibort within human means to procure a fithful tranxslation of the revelation of God,. had undertaken acts of impiety, of dishonesty, of faisehood, of treason against the King
of Hieaven, they could scarcely have been assailed with misrepresentations more groundless, calumnies more unfounded.
abuse and virulence mnore unstinted.  These things are a -,sad
commentary upon the awful sectarianism  of the age.  Jesus




128           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
Christ said"'"lIe is free indeed, whom the truth makes free."
JAnd no one of that cl:aracter ever lifted his finger against a
well-devised organization for a fiull and faithful trarnslation' of
tlhe inspired text.  Not one of all the hosts whose freedom
rests or rested upon truth, ever uttered an objection to the correction of a contradictory, incomplete version of the }Word of
God.  There is not a Hebrew or Greek scholar in the world,
who can read any one chapter of King James's version without
seeing the absoliute necessity of corrections.  And in order to
show that the appeal that the Bible Ulnion has made to tle
world is recognized by  Catholic scholarship, as wre have
shown it is by ALL thle 1Protestant scholarship that has ever
spoken, we quote the following clear, divinely truthful, and
righteous sentiments of Bishop Kenrick, of Miaryland.  In
Bishop Kenrick's preface to his new translation of the Acts,
Epistles, and Apocalypse, lhe says: " If there be a single passage in whiclh the meaninl  of the sacred text is wilfilly perverted,' it is enough to involve the whole work in condemnation.
A jot or a letter must not be taken from the law.  The YWord
of God must be preserved in its integrity. It is treason against
the Supreme Majesty to change a word in a charter under the
seal of the Great King.  Not without a special design of
Providence, the closing book of the Sacred Volume denounces
woes to the man who shall take away from or add to the words
of that prophecy-a threat which extends to all who adulterate
the Word of God, changing that which should remain inviolate though  heaven and earth pass away."  There is not a
fiee Protestant on this earth who will call in question these
sterling truths uttered by Bishop Kenrick.  To their excellence all the prophets of Israel, all the Divine agencies of the
new  dispensation, bea!r testimony.  How  tar King James's
version can stand a measurement by those truths, we shall
presently see.  We pause in thattrial only to bear witness to
the fact, that although Catholics are derided for their attalch



TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.    129
mient to the Vulgate text, and to the Rhemish version of the
New Testament, Bishop Kenrick has made "a new version
of the New Testament from the Vulgate, and diligently compared it with the Greek text, being a revision of the LRhemish
translation."  This excellent and commendable work is open
to the purchase of Catholics and Protestants; and although
Bishop Kenrick and his clergy are accused of a desire to hide
the Word of God from the laity, there is nothing in all this
version that breathes any other thought than a solicitation to
make the Word of God as clear, full, and intelligible as possible to every human being. The notes, critical and explanatory, are in the. main instructive and valuable, and they do his
learning, his piety, and his love of truth, a great deal of credit.
And the world has seen neither Pope nor council nor conclave
of clergymen hurling anathemas upon the head of Bishop
Kenrick for thus endeavoring faithfully to make the Word of
God plain and complete to the most ordinary reader. Bishop
Kenrick did not hesitate to enrich the Vulgate version with the
copious treasures of the Greek text; but Protestant sectarianism rouses its forces against the enriching of King James's
version from the ample resources of the inspired text, as
though it feared that what was the Word of God in the hands
of the apostles and the early saints in Christ Jesus, and what
is now the Word of God in the hands of scholars, might
poison the common version in the hands of the masses of the
peoples who have been imperfectly taught in the ways of God
by the sectarian teaching of the age. Nothing, indeed, can
show more perfectly the innate sense of weakness on the part
of sectarianism than its dread of a faithful rendering of the
Word of God. Whoever expresses a fear of a faithful translation of the Words of eternal life, whoever manifests a dread
of a revision of King James's defective version, shows that he
needs some/ Aquila and Priscilla to teach him the way of the
Lord more perfectly. How badly have the people been taught,
9




i30               FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
when, in the nineteenth  century of Christianity, there can be.
found such weak  religionlists in  the world.  Let them  hope
-that they are not infallible.
We now  ask the reader to look at King James's text, which
some Protestants are accused  of worshiping  idolatrously, and.
compare it with the Divine original as we call up a few specimens in appropriate classes. The reader will please understand that those we publish are not all the specimens of their
kind in King James's version.   What we give are mere evi..
dences of an ample quantity of their kinds.
In the nature of things it is impossible that the Holy Spirit
can ever contradict Himself, and in the inspired  text nothing
of the kind is ever seen.   Let us compare the Divine Word
with King James's version:
CONTRADICTIONS.
Exodus xx. makes it sinful to covet.   1st Corinthians xii. 31 orders Chris.
See also Romans vii. 7; xiii. 9. 1st Cor- tians to " covet earnestly the best gifts."
inthians v. 11 places covetous persons in  In 1st Cor. xiv. 39 the Christians are
the same category with idolators, drunk- again ordered to covet. "Delight in the
ards, railers, with whom Christians are best gifts," in the first instance, and " denot to eat.                           light to prophecy," in the second, would
1st Cor. vi. 10 declares that covetous be accurate, and removes all appearance
persons shall not inherit the kingdom of of contradiction. Is there no revision
God. Ephesians v, 3 -' "but covetous, needed of these palpable contradictions,
nesS, let it not be once named among  purporting to come from the pen of in.
you. i                                spiration'. The inspired oracles are correct and true in all these places.
Genesis xxii. 1 —"God did tempt Abra-   James i. 13 —" Let no man say whea
ham."' You shall not tempt the Lord  he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for
your God.' Denut. vi. 16. This language  God cannot be tempted with evil, neiis repeated in many of the Prophets and  ther tempteth he any man. " God did try,
in the New Testament.                 or prove, Abraham. God does not tempt
any man, would be accurate, and remove
the contradiction.
Exodus xxiv. 10 —"Then went up Moses   John i. 18-" No man hath seen God.'
and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and  1st John iv. 12-"No man hath seen God
seventy of the elders of Israel; and  at any time."
they saw the God of Israel," &c.        Thompson translates Exodus xxiv. 1(
-" They saw the appearance of the God
of Israel," which is in accordance with
the Sep-tugint and the Chaldee version.




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.    131
Proverbs v. 15-18. 15. "Drink waters    Correction.-The mistranslation of the
rut of thine own cistern, and running  16th verse makes a contradiction of the
waters out of thine own well  16. Let 17th and makes nonsense of the whole
thy fountains be dispersed abroad and  passage. The 16th verse should be transrivers of waters in the streets. 17, Let lated as an interrogatory: —" Shall thy
them be only thine own, and not the fountains spread abroad, channels of
strangers' with thee, 18 Let thy foun- water in the streets?"  This removes
tain be blessed- and rejoice with the the contradiction and makes sense, viz.,
wife of thy youth."                    Shall thy fountains (when thou seekest
pleasure) be public fountains to which ail
have access? The 17th verse answers:
"let them be only thine own and not
strangers' with thee."
MIISTRANSLATIONS.
Genesis ii. 5 —'C Tn the day that the    This is absurd, for it represents that
Lord God made the earth and the hea- plants of the field and herbs before they
vens, and every plant of the field before  grew were made because there had been
it was ill the earth, and every herb of no rain. The true rendering is: "In the
the field before it grew, for the Lord  day that the Lord God made the earth
God had not ( caused it to rain upon the  and the heavens and before any plant qf'
earth," &c.                            the field was int the earth and before any
herb of thefield grew; for the Lord God
had not caused it to rain." This is cor.
rect, and has a meaning,
Genesis xxxvi. 24-" Anlah that found    Correction. —" Anah that found tho
lhe mules in the wilderness."          warm or medical springs in the wilderness " — a discovery of some note.
Genesis xxxi. 35 —"And Jacob sware by    Tyndale's version had this correctly
tihe fear of his father Isaac."        rendered, "And Jacob sware by Him
whom his father Isaac feared."
2d Samuel i. 17, xviii. 19-In the ac-   Correction. — " Use of" in this place is
ecount of David's elegy, we have this in  an interpolation,and conveys a false idea..
parenthesis: "(Also he bade them teach  Its insertion is uijaceountable. David
the children of Israel the use if the  bade them teach the children of Israel
bow.)"                                the Bow, that being the name of the song
or elegy which was to be sung as a tribute to the memory of Saul and Jonathan. The parenthesis is an interpolation. Coverdale hbad long before trans.
lated it correctly:;' And David mourned
with this lamentation  over Saul and.
Jonathan, his son, and commanded to
teach the children of Israel the Bow.
Behold it.(the Bow) is written," &c.
Rogers, the proto-martyr, also, long before the tine of King James, gave the
same correctly, but not so literally as
Coverdale.




132              FIDELITY  TO -GOD  IX  TIHE
2d Samuel xii. 31 — " And he brought   Correction.- Dr. Adam Clarke sayse,
forth the people and put them under "It is surprising, and a thing to be de-.iaws, and under harrows of iron, and plored, that, in this and similar cases,
Utnlder axes of iron, and made them pass our translators have not been careful to
through the brick-kiln."           sift the sense of the original records, by
which they would have avoided a profit.
sion of exceptonable n eeanzngs with which
they have clolhed mzany passages of the
sacred writzngs."  The errors in the
passage before us have made many infidels. David put his prisoners to saws,
to harrows of iron, to axes of fron, ta
brick - kilns.  He made them  work.
Charles Thompson, the American translator, was the first to correct this blunder,
and he has received much credit friom
European critics for this correction.
In our former articles we referred to the defective original
text in the times of King James; and we stated that some of
the passages marked as doubtful or spurious texts by IKing
James's revisers are now known to be among the best sustained
genuine readings that we possess.  Yet, under the authority of
King James's version, these genuine texts of inspiration have
been under a cloud of doubt for more than two hundred years,
in the English version of the Bible.  And after the illustrious
labors of Mills had established these facts in but little over
fifty years after King James's version was made, no effort was
attempted by Bible societies, nor by the sects by whose hands
those societies are wielded, to purify the common version fiorn
these uneasy doubts, until since the Bible Union commenced
its labors.  Take an example of this criminal and inexcusable
neglect: In 1st John ii. 23 we have, "Iwhosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father; [but hAe that acklnowledgeth  the Son hath the Father also.]"  The passage in italics
and brackets was not in the received Greek text at the date of
the common version, though it was found in some manuscripts
and ancient versions.  It is now  in the Greek text on the
authority of the most ancient manuscripts, after having been
marked as doubtful for more than  two hundred years.  In




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.               133
1853, the American Bible Society, which, through. its committee, revised the printed editions of King' James's version for
the purpose of restoring the integrity of that text, removed
the brackets from the above passage, and printed the words ill
iRoman letters, as a genuine portion of the inspired text. Now
we ask, and we call public attention to the question, if it was
right in this instance to correct a time-honored blunder of
King James's revisers, which had grown quite as venerable
by age as numerous other errors in that version, why is it not
right in a great many other cases of the same kind, when the
original texts have been corrected on the authority of ancient'and autlhoritative manuscripts, and when the common version
requires a corresponding correction?  If it takes the Bible
Society upwards of a century to correct one error in the com1mon version by a purified Greek text, how long would it take
to correct the multitudes of others that require the correction
quite as much and in the same way?  And if such societies
prove themselves unequal to their duties, are parties who
know their duty and privileges to shrink away from  their
responsibilities?  The American Bible Society was commended for doing in onze instance what the Bible Union is
abused for trying to do in ALL SIMILAR CASES.  All scholars
know that there are a great many spurious readings in the
Book of Revelations; why are they not corrected by the
Bible Societies?  For instance, in Revelations v. 14, "H im
that liveth forever and ever," is condemned by the critical editions; it has no ancient manuscript authority, and is not in
tle Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, or Ethiopian versions.  But we
shall recur to this department of our subject in another article.
We close with a few more palpable examples of the errors,of King James's version. In Acts v. 3, Peter is made to say:
"4 Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree," meaning that the Jews
first killed the Saviour, and then hung Him on a tree!  And
those; venerable revisers, who flourished in that golden age of
LiblicM learnin_,' adorned   by the presence of Kinog James, not
gernn  adone




134           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIHE
content with making Peter talk thus absurdly before the
Jewish council, made him repeat the absurdity at the house
of Cornelius, as the reader may see by turning to Acts x. 39.
Yet the original says: ",Whom you did kill, hanging Him on
a tree," as Wickliffe rendered it in 1380, and as the Rhemish
version made it in 1582.
In Ephesians, iii. 14, we haver  "For this cause I bend
my knees before the Father of otzu  Zord Jesuzs Ci8st,."  The
italicized words are in our version, but are not in the Greek.
Romans viii. 1.  "There is, therefore, no condemnation fi
those who are in Christ Jesus, whfo wtalk Znot crfter the Jlesh
butt acfter the Spirit." The italicized words are in our common
version, but are not in the inspired text at that place.
We think that we have said enough to-day to show that
there is not one duty on this earth, not an obligation, due alike
to God and man, that is more imperative than a revision of the
Bible.  God will not hold him guiltless who shrinks from the
work, and the platform of the Bible Union is broad enough
to hold every honest Christian on earth.  If our anti-revision friends think that we are incompetent for the work or that
there is danger that we may fail in our fidelity, why not come
in and take the work out of our hands and manage it themselves?
The door of the Bible Union is standing open for all who wish
to enter, and we invite them to come in. If they can outwork
us, and outvote us, they may guide this revision enterprise.
They have only made it grow apace by opposition; now let
them try friendship for the cause, and see what they can do
with that. By the time the revision is ready to go to press,
the Bible Union and the Revision Association will not only be
a revision organization, but is bound to be one of the largest
and most efficient Bible Societies that the world has ever seen.
They have all the elements of that great position now, and
will inevitably reach it.  One of the very least of their difficulties will be the introduction and circulation of their faitlfiul
crs3ion of the Word of God.  They can not now begin to




iTRANSLATION OF TIlE SCRIPTURES.            135
supply the demand for their publications, and the demand is
increasing at a rate far beyond all our anticipations.  The
faiithftul will find themselves harnessed in Bible Union and
Revision Association duties for the remainder of their lives;
and each one who performs his duty will find that he is aiding
in the destruction of the "Man of Sin" by ushering in "the
bright appearing of the Lord,)" through his faithful Word, andl
the consuming of the Apostacy by "the Word of his mouth."
That is the Divine appointment, and will as certainly be fulfilled in that way as the promise to Abraham, and that respecting the coming of " the Word in the flesh," were in the literal
words of their promise.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
NUMBER XI.
EARLY TRANSLATORS OF TIlE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH AND THEIR
ENEMIES COMPARED WITH THE PRESErNT REVISION
MOVIEMENT AND ITS ENEMIES.
iMERLE D'AUBIGNEC draws a very truthful picture of the
condition of Christendom, in comparing it with two strange and
curious camps, one consisting of priests in all the highi places,
the other of timid, submissive flocks, each of the latter hearkening to the voice of its own shepherd, and too many of themn
deaf to the voice of the Great Shepherd.  A single mandate
of that Great Shepherd makes a frightful commentary on the
present condition of Christendom.  He said. "Call no man
on earth your master, for One is your master, and all ye are
brethren."  The great commission recorded in the 28thI chapter of MIatthe-w- "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them into the name of the Fathller, and of the Son, and




13.3          FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIHE
of the H. oly Spirit, teaching them to o)serve all tllings mwhitsoever I have commanded you" —was not given merely to tie
eleven apostles, but to upwards of five hundred disciples, on a
mountain of Galilee.  But both its letter and spirit have been
wrested for the purpose of keeping up the two camps which
apostate Christendom presents to the world.  Clergy and laity
are household words in these camps, but they were utterly
unknown to the Apostolic Church.  In that there was one
body and one Head, now there is every diversity of tody and
every variety of head.  The office of the Holy Spirit as an
instructor has been usurped by the clergy, and we are taught,
that we are to feed on such pasture as they may select for us.
They measure out the Word of God by measures of their own
manufacture, and tell us that, even if we hlave not the full
measure of God's truth, unto them is given the power to say
how much is necessary to our salvation, what is essential and
what of the-, Word of God is nonessential to the people.  And
thus it has been ever since the "Man of Sin "-the great Apostacy —comumenced his career, and tlhus it is now.  The selfconstituted guardians of the Word of God have ever been the
enemies of faithful translations of the inspired text, and are so
now.  Let us glance at the character of the men to whom the
whole Engllsh race is indebted for the Bible, and at the conduct and principles of those who waged a fierce warfare against
the labors of those who have endeavored to make the Wi ord of
God plain and clear to the masses of the people.  When
Wickliffe undertook the great enterprise of enlightening the
minds of the people with the riches of the Holy Oracles, he.saw his path of duty, and he clearly perceived the danger of
the way.  He said m words that should never be forgotten:
"All Christians should be the soldiers of Christ.  But it is
plain tlhat many are cMargeable with great neglect of this duty;
being prevented by featr of the loss of temporal goods and
worldly friendship, and apprehensive about life and fortune,
from faithfully setting forth the cause of God, from standing




TRANSLATION  OF TIlE SCRIPTURES.              1.7
manfully in its defence, and, if need be, from suffering  deathi
in its behalf."  And after showing that fidelity to God's truth
was a certain means of bringing down the wrath of a'perverted
clergy," Wickliffe says: "Hence we Christians need not visit
pagans, to convert them  by enduring martyrdom  in their
behalf; we have only to declare with constancy the Word of
God before Caesarean prelates, and strai/ghtway the Jlower cf
mzartyrdomn   will be ready to our hands."  A contemporary
writer of Wickliffe's times, a distinguished clergyman too, used
this language respecting Wickliffe's effort to give the people
the Word of God in their vernacular: "The gospel which
Christ committed to the clergy and doctors of the Church, tAtl
they nigyht sweetly dispense it to the laily, according to the
exigency of the times and the wants of men, this Master John
Wickliffe has translated into the Anglic (not Angelic) tongue;
thereby making it more open and common to the laity, and to
women who can read, than formerly it was to the best instructed
of the clergy. And thus the gospel pearl is cast forth and is
trodden under foot of swine; and what was one time revered
by clergy and laity is become, as it were, the common jest of
both; and the jewel of the clergy, their peculiar treasure, is
made forever common to the laity."
Thus error constantly reproduces itself; its substance is
ever the same.  What difference is there between this contemptuous language about Wickliffe's faithful labors and that
which the present generation hears from a religious partizan
press and from sectarian pulpits?  Portions of the clergy still
arrogate to themselves the exclusive control of God's Word;
they denounce now such faithful efforts for clearing the English
Bible of obscurities and errors as their antecedents denounced
in the days of Wickliffe, of Tyndale, and of Coverdale. Suc1h
of the modern clergy as possess learning for the work of revising the Scriptures, regularly revise themn from the pulpit; but
they denounce all attempts to do this for thie masses of the
-people.  There is not a Hebrew or CGrcek sclholar on earthl




138  FIDEI.TY TO GOD IN THE
who will say that the English Bible does not need revision;
hundreds of the most learned men that have adorned the history of English learning have shown their faith by their
works; they have revised various portions of the Word of
God, and have thus borne their testimony in favor of the
work in which the Bible Union is now engaged.  It was not
-among clergymen, nor doctors of divinity, nor in the priestly
camp, that the Word of God first came to light in the English language. It was among the humble, despised, contemned, but faithful disciples of Christ, called Lollards, that
the English Bible found its only friends; it was among the
people, Rot the clergy, that that goodly tree was planted which
has done so much for the start, progress, advancement, and
prosperity of the English race. And the masses of the people
have ever been the friends and the supporters of the efforts to
speak the words of Jehovah faithfully, clearly, plainly, and
filly to the human race.  Even Sir Thomas More, who used
all the power that he possessed against the faithful labors of
Tyndale, made this acknowledgment: "I would not, for lmy
mind, withhold the profit that any one good, devout, unlearned
layman might take by the reading [of a vernacular Bible],
not for the harm that an hundred heretics would fall in by
their own wilful abusion."  May not the enemies and revilers
of Bible revision learn a useful lesson from this principle?
NAgain, in the early efforts of the faithful to translate the Holy
Oracles into English, the royal proclamation, procured by the
clergy, set forth, "That having the whole Scripture is not
necessary to Christian men, and that the divulging of the
Scripture at that time, in the English tongue, to be committed
to the people, should rather be to their further confusion and
destruction than to the edification of their souls."  And have
we not heard language akin to this quite recently?  I-Have we,
not heard clergymen admit that King James's version is not
nfaithful in all respects to the Word of God, and then declare,
that though thus defective, there is enough in it for the use of




TIRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.              139
the people?  But again: The royal decree, brought about by
clerical devices in the time of Henry VII., declared, that
L"the Scriptures in English are books of heresy, and shall be
clearly exterminated and exiled out of this realm of England
terever."  And does not this principle live now in the efforts
to prevent a faithful translation of the Word of God, and is
the proud and confident vaunting that this faithful translation,
guaranteed in its fidelity by the learning of the world without
respect to party, shall not be circulated?  Vain and impotent
boast.  All the military, legal, and ecclesiastical powers of
]England were unable to prevent the circulation of the Englislh
Scriptures among the people; and there is not enough ecclesiastical power and influence in free America to curb the circulation of the revised Scriptures among the people now.  The
poor old Bishop of Norwich, in the days of Henry VIII., in a
weeping appeal to the Archbishop, said: "I am accumbered
by such as keepeth and readeth these erroneous books in English [the English Bible], and who believe and give credence to
the same, and teach others that they should do so. My lord, I
have done that lyeth in me for the suppression of such persons;
but it passeth my power or of any spiritual man to do it;"
and he feelingly adds, "' if they are not speedily checked they
will undo us all."  And may not our clergy claim that they
have warred upon the Bible revision cause in all conceivable
waays?  Ha.ve they not warned the dear people that their souls
were about to be lost by a faithful rendering of the WVord of
God? And have not the people turned a deaf ear to all their
labors?  That the revision cause has been strengthened by
ill-jaldged opposition, we have abundant and most substantial'::'fascns fcr knowing. The Revision Association now contrib1tes one thousand dollars a-month to the Bible Union more
easily than it did one humndred two years ago. Large masses
of people in the West and South have recently come up to the
help of the cause, to which, a few weeks since, they were indifferent  And tlhus it was when fire and fa.got awaited alike



140           FIDELITY  TO GOD) IN THE
those who translated the Scriptures and those who read them:
the people sustained the Bible cause in opposition to the. "perverted clergy," as Wickliffe called his clerical opponents.
But let us catch another glimpse of ancient teaching, and
compare it with our times.  Sir Thomas More, Chancellor to
lHeilry VIII., was sorely distressed, that "all through these
two hundred years, during which the Holy Catholic Church
has possessed so many learned and virtuous doctors, not one
of them has been moved by the Holy Spirit to undertake this
work;"' he begins to be in doubt whether the wishes he has
indulged are in harmony with the will of God.  Heretics alone
seemed to have their minds inclined to Bible translation.  A
New Testament translated out of the original Greek into clear
and vigorous English had already appeared, and had commended itself widely to the popular mind.  It was the first
effort of the kind by any English scholar, and, as a literary
work, might well have been an object of pride to English
scholars.  But, as the work of a heretic, it must be prohibited, and wherever found, burned to ashes by the faithful guar-.
dians of the fock.  Better ft-r that the people should never
have a Bible than receive it from this poisoned source.
But unfortunately the notion had gone abroad among the
people that these measures were attributable rather to personal
and selfish considerations than to any concern for their welfare.
The visible contrariety between that book and the doctrines
of those who handled it, was the popular solution of their zeal
for its suppression, an opinion which did not tend to lessen
their eagerness to read it or their prejudices against the clergy.
To counteract this impression and to persuade the people to
wait patiently till Providence should send them  a Bible, prepared by the right men on the right principles, More put forth
all the power of his pen.
And thus it is at present.  All the learned are dissatisfied
with Ping James's version; all the sects are dissatisfied witht
it, but century after century rolls awayS year rushes after year,




TRANSLATION OF T11HE SCRIPTUItES.           141
and the evil grows.  The sects will not attenipt to amend the
wrongs of ages; a body of people at length determine that
they will do all that faithful, righteous, holy men and women
can do to secure a faithful version of the Holy Oracles; they
employ the highest philological authorities in the world, without
respect to sect or partyism, and bind them to translate the
word of God faithfully; they commit the whole business to
that learned tribunal, belonging to twelve sects, a majority
of whom are Pedobaptists, and for these efforts they have been
abused, reviled, and calumniated, and traduced in every evil
way.  The entire sectarianism of this age, like that of Henry
VIII., says  " Better far that the people should never have a
Bible than receive it from this poisoned source." And this intense sectarianism, after folding its hands for centuries over the
wants of' the people, still cries: "WMTait till Providence moves
all my jarring, discordant materials into a homogeneous mass,
and then you shall have a bible prepared by the right men on
the right principles."  The ancient cry against Tyndale was,
that he had translated ecclesiastical terms, and thus disrobed
them of those mystical garments which the clergy had woven
around them. And Tyndale nobly replied:'"In which all he
[Sir Thomas Morel can not prove that I give not the right Eng.
lish unto the Greek word. But it is a far other thing that
paineth them and biteth them by the breasts. There be secret
pangs that pinch the very hearts of them, xwhereof they dare
not complain. The sickness that maketh them so impatient is,
that they have lost their juggling terms."  It is to Tyndale
mainly that the English race is indebted for all the good it has
derived from a Bible mn English. The praise lavished upon
King James's revisers belongs to him.
There was among the clergy of the days of W~ickliffe and
Tyndale, an idea that they had exclusive control over the
oracles of God, and that the people must submit to such dispensations of those oracles as the clergy pleased to bestow
upon them.  And there was, among the whole body of the




a1,q2         FIDELITY TO GOD IN TILE
clergy of that period, the utmost horror at the idea of a Bible
in the English language. A bench of bishops declared that
the translations of the Evangelists contained " divers erroneous
and damnnable opinions cand conclusions of heresy."  C. Shoomaker was burned at Newbury for reading to John Say, "The
words which Christ spake to his disciples."  Seven persons
were burned at Coventry, in 1519, for having taught their
children and servants the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in English.  John Thatcher was tried for teaching
Alice Brown, this saying of Jesus —" Blessed are they that
hear the Word of God and keep it."
When the Greek Testament of Erasmus made its appearance a terrible hue and cry arose among the clergy. Priests
used their influence at the confessional to warn young students
against it, and a college at Cambridge forbade its introduction
within its walls. Standish, afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph,
kneeled to the King and prayed him to put down Erasmus.
The monks made themselves especially conspicuous by the zeal
of their opposition, declaring from the pulpit that "there was
nov a new language invented called Greek, of which the
people should beware as the source of all heresies: that in this
language had come forth a book called the New Testament,
which was now in everybody's hands, and was full of thorns
and briars. that there was also another language started up
which they called Hebrew, and that they who learned it were
turned Jews."
These portentous signs in the clerical atmosphere were certainly ominous affairs, but not more so than the Revision
movement of our day is to the perturbed imaginations of some
of our clergy. They seem to feel sufficient horror at the
thought of permitting the Hebrew and Greek texts of the
Holy Oracles to shed a ray of light upon King James's version, for the use of the people. At the first effort of the Revision Association to frankly explain itself before the public in
the daily papers, sectarianism took the alarm and aroused itself




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES,                1 4
for a contention against as clear and as palpable a Christian
right as the sun ever shone upon.  A historiographer of' that
eventful scene informed his waiting readers, that "the five
clergymen" were sent into the newspapers in pursuit of the,
"two laymen" of the Revisiop Association by one of the
largest assemblages of the kind ever gathered in this city. Of)
the place where this immense assemblage was convened, anl
of the persons composing it, and whether it still holds its conservative meetings, both the public and ourselves are profoundlyr
ignorant. It is strange that so large art azssemblage, animated
with so much religious zeal, could have been held in this citr
with such profound secrecy.  The historian of that mysteriois
convention, who gave out the swelling hlints we have quoted,
has never informed the public of the finale of the meeting, of
its course toward the five champions who issued forth to battle
under the behests of that immense fassem:blage, nor whethler
they were crowned with chaplets of wil.iow or laurel.  W5r
know not whether they have been pliaced upon furlough, or
honorably dischlargecd fiom  further service.  In either view it
looks strange to see so much apathy, while the heresy which
was to be crushed by the chosen. clhati)ions of thlat large
assemblage, yet runs at large, rejoici:.g in youth and vigor,
and growing in power, in public confidence, and in influence.
So large an assemblage, swelled with suchl) intense zeal, should
not have cooled off so suddenly.
We turn finom this comparison of an.cient sectarianism with
its modern types to present further examples of the mistakes of,
the common version when measured by the inspired original.
In Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7, in the common versioln, is the
sublime declaration of Jehovah: "'The Lord God is merciful.
and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness anCt
truth, keeping mercy for thousands, 1forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin, and THIAT will by no m eans clear 1iA,/
guilty."  The italicized part contradicts the rest of the pva..;sage, which the inspired text does not contradict; the Hfeb-.:-\t




- -    -i —    FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
original says, " and ACQUITTING hi/m twho i8 nOt inznocenLt," the
very reverse of the translation in our common version.  Is
t:here no need of revision of that perversion of the original?
A distinguished Methodist scholar has pointed out the foltlo-wing mistakesl
In Matthew xx. 23, we have: "But to sit at my right hand
and on my left is not mine to give, but it 8/tall be given to
th/erf for whom  it is prepared of my Father."  The italic
words are not in the Greek, and contradict all the claims of
Jesus Christ, for they virtually say that the distribution of
rewards in the last day shall be given to some other person
besides our Lord.
Ist John iii. 6 - "Hereby perceive we the love of GoZ, because he laid down his life for us."  "Of God" is not in the
original, and the addition destroys the emphatic expression of
the inspired text.
Hebrew xii. 2 says: "Looking unto Jesus, the author and
finisher of our faith.".  " OCr" is not in the Greek, and it
destroys the sense of the original, which here presents the
Saviour not as the perfecter of our faith, but'as the first and
last example of faith in God, the most perfect model that we
can have before us.
In Exodus xxxiv. 33, we have: "And till M/oses had done
speaking with them, he put a veil on his face."  "Till" is not
in the Hebrew, and its introduction conveys a false statement,
for Moses took the veil off while speaking, and put in on when!he was done.
2d Kings xi. 2 reads; "Took Joash, the son of Ahaziah,
and stole him from among the king's sons, which/ were slazn,
and they hid him; even him and his nurse, in the bed-chamber,
from Athaliah, so that he was not slain."  The words "which.vwere slain," supplied by the translators, convey a false idea.,
Such as the original could never have done.  The king's sons
wvere not slain wlhen Jehosheba, the sister of Ahaziah, stole
Joash from among tlhem, because the purpose of AthaliabI to




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES,                   145
destroy all the royal seed was not yet accomplished.  The
translators would have us' believe that Joash was picked up
among the slain, which is plainly contradicted by the whole
history of the case.
2d SamIuel xvi. 15: "Hushai said unto Absalom, God save
the king."  The original reads simply,  6 SUve th/  king."  The
translators affixed to the exclamation the term "C God," for the
Dpurpose, doubtless, of making it more emphatic, and to convey
the idea of the special protection of the Almighty as extended
over kings, that inasmuch as they ruled by Divine right, so,TCe they the special objects of Divine protection.  This addition may be pardoned, as done by king's translators; but it
will hardly be adopted as the AWord of God by those who
believe in a church without a bishop, and a state without a
king.  The same addition is made in 2d Chronicles and 2d
Kiingss.  Various other chances have been made, particularly
in the New Testament, favoring the idea of a monarchy, which
are without any authority.
In Luke xx. 16, we have this translation: "I And when they
ieard it, they said, God forbid." The word "God6 " is not found
in the orioginal.  Dr. Clarke says, "Let it n ot be answers
pretty well to the meaning of the Greek, but it is no translation."  -lTow a reading can be no trcnslatioz, and yet answer
1well to the original, is something we confess that we do not
exactly comprehend.  But the translators "seized the very
soul and spirit of -d1e original," and we presumi e this was sulicient to answer for any mere literal defects.  The same translation of the above Greek expression is given in Romans iii. 4,
5(, 31, vi. 2, 15, ix. 14, xi. 1, 11, 1st Cor. vi. 15, Gal. ii. 17,
iii. 21.
Johln x. 24, the common version, reads  "IFow  long dcost
thlou make us to doubt?"  The Greek reads: E"How long wilt
tlou keep our soZ.ls in suspense?"  Here the word "'souZs" is
omitted.  Though the omission does not destroy the sense of
t}:e passaie, it evidently weakens its force, as the ori-ginal does10




146           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIli
not leave the Jews in doubt only, but intensely excited, as
-though,? in the language of Dr. Clarke on this passage,: 6their
very life was taken away," in the extreme anxiety they had to
know whether Jesus was the Christ.
Similar to the above is the translation of the passage in 2d
Corinthians xii. 16:'.,"And I will very gladly spend and be
spent for you."  The Greek reads  "'And I will very gladly
spend and be spent for yotr sou18s."  This omission takes
away the entire force of the Apostle's mealning.  The Greek
shows us the object for which hie was willing to spend his
strength and life, namely, their souls. It was for the salvation of their souls that, following in the footsteps of his
Mlaster, he lived, labored, and died.  As the English reads,
one might infer that his labors were for their temporal good —
for their bodies,. and not for their. souls; and a very learned
commentator seems to have, so understood it, when le says,
in his exposition of the passage:, -' I will continue to act as a
loving father, who expends all he has upon his children, and
expends his strength and life in providing for them the things
necessary for their preservation and comfort." iHe even goes
further, and founds it on the observation that Christian parents
are under obligation to lay up in store for their children at-least
as much as is necessary, and makes them sin against God and
nature if they neglect it.  He who would take the same liberty with the Confession of Faith, or the Thirty-nine Articles,
or the Doctrines and Discipline, as the translators have taken
with the Word of God, would be held guilty of a species of
sacrilege for which excommunication would be a small punishment. And yet if any thing is said about correcting the work
of these translators, a holy horror fills the minds of some, and
they are ready to exclaim, " Touch not the Lord's anointed,
and do the translators no harm."  It seems that they make
ever so sad work with the prophets, apostles, and evangelists;
but wrapped up in the vestments of regal and ecclesiastical
sanctity, their performances must not even be called in question.




TRANSLATION OF TIHE SCRIPTURES.              147
In Acts xxiv. 25, the translation reads: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgmenlt to come."
Properly translated, it would read: "And as he reasoned of
righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come."  This
rendering would make the judgment definite, and shows that
it was not the decision of a Roman tribunal, which may as
readily be inferred as any thing else from the reading, which
caused Felix to tremble, but the decision of the last day.
7TWhere a reference is made to the judgment in Matthew sii. 41,
which reads, " shall rise up in judgment," the definite article
should be inserted.
Acts vii. 20, the English version reads: "-Moses was born,
and was exceeding fair."  The Greek reads: "Moses was
born, and was unblemished cinto Gocd," or was fair unto God
-fair in the estimation of God. A man may be exceedingly
handsome in the estimation of his fellow men, and yet not be
so in the estimation of God.  The translators make the opinions identical.
OBSCURE READINGS.
Ist Cor. xii. 7: "6The manifestations of the Spirit are given
to every man to profit withal."  Can any one make sense of
this?  The original says: "The gifts whereby the Spirit of
God becomes manifest are given to each for the profit of all;"
Job iv. 19; " Which are crushed before the moth."'A-ie
the mnoth,, makes the meaning clear.
James ii. 4: "And have become judges of evil thought.",The true rendering is, "and have judged after evil thoughts."
M3att. vi. 34: "Take no thought for the morrow."  This
would be sinful improvidence.  "Be not anxious for the morrow," is a correct rendering.
Ileb. xi. 1: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."
This is sheer pedantry of "the golden age "-"Faith is corifidence in things hoped fbr," is correct.
We had marked many other passages, but our allotted space




148            VfIDEILITY TO  GOD IN' THE'
-s waning.  WeTC call attention to a small list of the obso00ie
words which abound in the common version. and no hones-f
man can give one reason whby a single word, unmeaning lo,
each intelligent reader, shall remain in a Bible for the people.
VTe have almug, algum, chlode, as the preterite for chide, charashim, chapt, earing for plowing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab,
klub, ligure, leasing' maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, scarcely
a sacred word for head, pilled for peeled, rabboni, raca, ri'ngstraked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples,
ouches, tatehes, brigandine, ambassage, occurrenit, purtenance,
bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, tabi-,
tha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, qluaterni1on, delectable,
sanctum sanctoruln, carriage for baggage, let for obstruct, when
it now means to permit, pitiful for full of pity, when it now
means contemptible, prevent for anticipate, when it now means
to obstruct, wot once mearnt know, trow to  think, sod was
once the preterite of seethe or boil, but these words in their
ancient meanings are dead in the English language.  Why
hlould such words encumber_, mar, and obscure the Word  of
God, in which, of all other books, every word should be clear,
direct, and as a palpable in its meaning as possible.? Can those
Iwho oppose a revision of the Scriptures be fully aware of what
-they are about?  If they cannot stand before the judgmenlct of
intelligent people, how will they stand before their 3Maker in
their warfare against these palpable paths of duty.
)Te close this article with the following seasonable and
_rational remarks from an able English paper, the Freeman, of:31arch 12.  After a glowing eulogy upon King James's revision, for many excellences, the Freeman says:-'"As children we lisped its words of grace and truth standing at our mother's knees-as wanderers from  the ways of
pleasantness and peace we were reclaimed by its words, tremulons with tenderness, or awful as the thunders of Sinai - as
penitents our burstigl hearts fountd utterance in its confessions




TRAi SLATION OF TIHE SCR1IPTUIRES                149
and prayers —-its promises restored our peace by their assurance
of pardon — it has been our guide in perplexity, our joy in
grief, our hope in despondency, our strength in weakness.  Its
very words have thus acquired a sanctity and preciousness
apart fi'om the meaning they enshrine, just as- a casket gainls
and retains a fragrance from  the perfulme it has held.  Dear,
therefore, to  every English  heart is our venerable version.
whIichl has guided our tathers to heaven, and has led us thus
far on the read thither.
" On these grounds we should strenuously resist any attempt
to supplant our ancient translation, but it does not therefore
-fellow that revision may not be desirable or even necessary.
it is the dotage of antiquarianism to prize the rust more.than
the coin.  It is not true conservatism which refuses to admit
the changes needful to bring our ancestral institutions into
harmony with modern times, for, in the pregnant words of
Burke,' reform delayed is revolution begun.' There is a wise
love of antiquity which seeks to retain lwhat is really good by
consenting to the requisite modifications, and there is an insane
dread of innovation which resists all the changes till the good
has become evil or worthless."
The revision cause is now progressing in a ratio beyond all
its former success,  From  all parts of the country we are
receiving abundant evidence that now, as in all former times,
the people have taken the translation of the Scriptures into tleir
keeping, and their devotion to the cause can not be checked.
For the historic sketches of early Bible translators and their
enemies, used in this paper, we are indebted to a new History
of English Bible Translation, by Mrs. Conant, of Rochester,
New York.  It is by far the ablest work that has appeared
on tthe subject, and we commllnend it to all who feel any interest
in that exceedingly important portion of English history emBraced in this work.
We shall continue our custom  of calling the attention of




HI O         FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
the public to tile progress of revision, to the means of tile
Bible Union for'l faithfill version of the Word of God, and to
the uses made of those means.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
NUMBER X II.
THE BIBLE UNION'S MEANS FOR REVISION.-THE FIVE CLERGYMEN.-STATE OF THE GREEK TEXT. —THE IMPERAiTIVE
DEMANDS OF TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS.
IN the course of that discussion of the claims of the Bible
Union which the contentious spirit of intensified sectarianlsmi
thrust upon the Bible Revision Association, we promised to say
something respecting the means of the Bible Union for making
a Revision of the English Bible.  The fulfillment of that
promise has been delayed by the absence of one of the undersigned from the State, and the unwillingness of the other to
commit him to anything that had not received his sanction, and
by the delay in getting out the book containing the articles prepared by ourselves ior the Revision Association and those
published by the five clergymen.  Circumstances over which
neither the publishers of the book nor ourselves,.had any control
hlave deferred the publication far beyond the time at which we
liad hoped to have it before the public. While this hinderance
remained, we did not deem it necessary to hasten the present
article, which we design to makethe closing one of the book,
but as that work is now nearly ready for the binder, we turn
our attention to the redemption of the promise to which
we have referred.  We feel that it is very important that
the subjects of the present paper shall appear, as all the
others have done, in the Journal and Courier, because as the




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                151
champions of King James's Bible made to order will appear
in all the fullness of their labors in the book published under
the auspices of the Revision Association, it is proper that they
should have an opportunity of replying to the statements which
we now make about King James's Bible. Those sturdy champions of what they call the settled convictions of all the
churches, those hardy defenders of King James's Bible with all
its errors, its spurious readings, its Apocryphal forgeries foisted
into the text of the Holy Spirit, will surely not permit our present statements to pass unchallenged, and suffer us, in their own
civil and courteous phraseology, to 1" beguile others into a confidence that will be abused," and let us act, as they charge,
6"under false pretenses."  If the statements we are about to
make are true, all the enemies of the revision enterprise must
stand covered with confusion.  The man who is in possession
of the facts we are about to state, who sh0all undertake to say
that there is not an imperative call for a revision of that Bible,
must do so under a full knowledge that he is committing treason against the King of Heaven, and doing grievous wrong
and crying injustice against his fellow men.  If what we say
is vulnerable anywhere, it is the bounden duty of the five
clergymen to find the vulnerable points, for if they do not, their
cause is hopelessly wrecked.  Stand to your posts, gentlemen,
and defend your banner -- your own chosen banner.  If these
champions were acquainted with the state of the text froom
which Kingo James's version was made,; if they knew the
multitudinous sources of error that prohibited accuracy in the'
-attempt of King James's men to give the English race a fair
and honest version of the Word of God, if they knew' that a
defective, erroneous, and, in many particulars, a false text was
the sole guide of those revisers in their effort to utter the voice
of inspiration, these five clergymen have not one excuse under
the heavens for daring to attempt to perpetuate the work of
King. James's revisers upon the unfettered minds of the American people.  If they did not know the facts connected with




152          FIDELITY TO GOD IN TlIE
the apparatus by which those revisers undertook the solemn
and vital responsibility of giving the W/vord of Inspiration to
the English race, these clergymen must then admit that they
embarked in a business of which they knew scarcely the elements, and on which it would have been prudent for them to
be silent.
Every Christian who has been cast in the Apostolic mold of
doctrine, holds that it is of the utmost importance that the
world shall have the written revelation of God as nearly like it
was when originally uttered by the Holy Spirit as possible,
and that the attainment of this object is worth all it will cost,
no matter what that may be.  The accomplished La Croze
said. 66 I firmly adhere, indeed, to the Nicene Creed and orthodox faith; but God forbid that I should ever employ fraud in
its defense" WiThat can be a more heinous, a more flagrant
and unpardonable fraud than to palm off on men as the VWord
of God, that which the Holy Spirit never uttered, and translations even of what the Comforter did utter, that are universally admitted to be perversions?  All the forgeries of earth
are venial in comparison with these deeds.  And yet the five
clergymen of Louisville, in the face of multitudes of such
examples in King James's version, had the temerity to stand
in the presence of the people of Kentucky and publish such
sentiments as the following.' If such people can easily, and upon the face of it, find in
this old Bible a plain and fair statement of the gospel of Christ,
by which they can be truly religious, truly happy in religion,
and truly acceptable to God while they live and when they die,
then, where the need of this ado about revision?. If they can
-not, then we desire to know what are the religious character
and condition of all the plain people, not scholars, now speak-.ing and reading only the English language, in any part of the
earth, who suppose themselves, by the grace of God, to know
and to enjoy the true religion?  And we desire to know what
has become of all such people, of whom we have rejoiced to




TRANSLATION  OF TI-IE SCRIPTURES.                153
believe that they adorned the doctrine of God our Saviour in
their respective generations, and now, having gone the way of
all the earth, we had hoped are in glory?  3But if these questions le too hard to answer, and yet it is still insisted th;at the
English Bible does not fairly and fully give the mind of tile
Holy Spirit, then we crave to know, in a clear statemenLt9 w/crt
are tie trutis tazt are concealed iz this version.?  if tlhe
Bible, as the common people read it, does not make thlem al1
plain, which of thenz are coveredl z  or coirzpted by it?
4 "We say respectfully, but we say distinctly, that it seems
to us unworthy of the people who are engaged in this movement to clamor against the old Bible, and yet not show thatl-'ONE PRINCIPLE of the gospel, on which hangs the experience
of heart religion, or the hope of the recompense of the reward,
or the daily practice of a Christian life, through the mlerits and
grace of our Divine Redeeler, is either perverted or obscured
in this translation."
Thus these clerical gentlemen plainly declare. that if a portion of the Word of God that suits them  is correctly given,
the rest may be looked upon as rubbish or trash!  And these
are teachers in religion; these are champions, par excellence,
of the Bible.  BMfay not that Book ask to be saved from  its
fiiends?  Bloomifield, whose critical labors on the Bible, inthe main, can scarcely  be too highly  appreciated, says:
"Surely, nothing dubtiotus ought to be admitted into'the
sure worl'd' of' the Book of Life.'"  That is a truth by whichl
every Christian mind on this earth will stand.  But if it;i
true about matters merely dubious, what should it be in thin g',
that are undoubtedly spurious?
In answer to the grave questions we have just quoted fronm
our five clergymen, we present the deliberate convictions of
the British and Foreign Bible Society.  That society is made
up of Presbyterians, Church of England men, and Methodists.
It must be, in the estimation of the five clergymen, exceedlingly evangelical and orthodox, for it refused to circulate




164            FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIE
Carey's translation in India, because it expressed bcqptizo by
a term corresponding to immerse.  In the annual report for
1839, of this society, thus composed of Presbyterians, Church
of England men, and Methodists, the following judgment on
King Jalnes's version was rendered:
"No version is perfect; no version is to be found but what
contains acknowledged error, and in a great many instances,
error that might be corrected. Your committee are persuaded
that if even the Engl72ish3 authorized version were dealt wit/h
in the same manner as the Portuguese, an amount of indivaciucal gmistranslations night be presented which would, with
eDual justice, give rise to the guestion, (an such a version be
called the WTord of God?"
That is the language of "6 evangelical orthodoxy" assembled
fro-m all parts of the British Empire.
In the nature of things it was impossible that our English
BSible could be any thing else than exceedingly defective.  It
is a revision of Wickliffe's translation, and there is no probability that Wickliffe ever saw a Greek text of the New Testament.  lIe translated from the Latin, and of course fell into
1ll the errors of that text. The Latin has no articles, and can
not, of course, be as definite as the Greek or English, both of
which possess articles.  So far as Wickliffe was concerned,
tlle Scriptures miTght as well not have been written in Greek,
Tor the Latin could not definitely express all Greek ideas, and
they were lost to the English reader,  The occurrence of the
ord testazment in Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii.
20)  1st Cor. xi. 25, 2d Cor. iii. 6, 14, IHeb. vii. 22, ix, 15,
6, 17, 20, Rev xi. 19, is conclusive as to the Latin origin of
the English Bible.  In no one of those places does the word
testament even approach the Greek idea.  And the revisers of
the English Bible under King James do not seem to have
corrected by any Greek text, for we can trace them  by Wickliffe's version, the Vulgate, and by Erasmus, but rarely by
any Greek text.  Innumerable instances of these facts might




TRANSLATION OF TIHE SCRIPTURES,    155
be given, for the merest tyro in Greek cotld never have made
the blunders that disfigure the authorized version.  Take a
single example: Almost invariably scanclcdizo is translated
by the word  oifend; and George Campbell truly says, a worse
word to convey the meaning could scarcely have been found.
Erasmus had so translated that word into the Latin, whlere tile
translation is passable.  Our English revisers borrowed the
word very improperly from him, and failed to convey the meaning of the Holy Spirit.  c6ause to stuamble is the correct one
for almost every place where the word ofnjzi occurs in what
is called the  Tew Testament.  Cardinal Ximenes, Erasmus,
Stephens, and Beza had each published a Greek edition, but
the best of them were very defective.  The first edition, by
Erasmus, did not enjoy one Greek -manuscript older than the
tenth century.  The first Elziver edition of the Greek text
was not published until eight years after the authorized version was issued. And thle testimonies are strong, th-at the
Eng'lish Bible has never yet felt much benefit from even the
meanest edition of the text in the language used by the Holy!Spirit. This is a most humliliating statement, but it is a truthf'll one. But since the Elziver edition was printed, between
six and seven hundred Greek manuscripts of either the whole
Bible, or portions of it, have been discovered, not one of whichwas known in the age of King James.  And the received
Greek -text is not supported, in all its utterances, by one manuscript, ancient or modern. Erasmus, Canter, Stephens, Beza,
iontfaucon, Sabatier, Semler, Griesbach, WVroide, Holmes,
Birch, Matthie, Mlarsh, Walton, [Mill, Wade, Bengel, Bentley,'Wetstein, Blanchini, Scholz, Schulz, and others, by their
labors upon the Greek text, have rendered inestimable service
to Bible truth.  Under these labors, biblical science has continually advanced; and as errors in the received Greek text
are thus pruned off by ancient manuscripts, the Word of God
stands purer, firmer, and more invulnerable.  Granville Penn,
to whose invaluable investigations we are indebted largely,




156            FIDEILITY TO GOD IN T'lE
says of the times of the latter names: " From this last period
a compound mass of new light is become diffused over the
sacred volume, imparting a spirit of exact and punctilious
criticism  to direct and apply it; and these new and powerful
succors have been destined, in the order of Divine Providence,
to be the portion of this late age of the Church, by a wise and
wonderful economy, administering light in a ratio increasing'with the distance of time from the first effulgence of the gospel,
as the remoter planets are provided with multiplied means of
collecting and reflecting light in proportion as their distances
remove them further from  the solar fountain.  Now, as the
whole of thlat light could not have been drawn and concentered
into one focus until the present age, so no reasonable objection
can be raised against it from the'lateness of its occurrence; and
it is only by obtaining a knowledge of the true state of the.scriptural text that we can be able to apply and derive the full
b1enefit of that light."  But there is one spotted, obscured,
erratic planet upon which the five clergymen are determined
no ray of -this light shall shine, except that which scintillates
friom the starry orbs of their own pulpit revisions. That planet
is King James's version.
The learned men whose names we have given spent a large
portion of their lives in collating the most ancient Greek manuscripts — in weighing, exploring, comparing, and scrutinizing
every word and point of these transcripts.  Great alarm was
felt whllen those labors commenced, lest the ifith of men should
be unsettled; but Bentley disregarded the clamor, and predicted that faith would grow and fatten upon these efforts.
The various manuscripts not only show the sources of error,
but enable us now to purify the text.  Some of the sources of
error may be classed under the following heads: tampering,
with the text in transcribing copies; errors of negligence, of
design; omitting pronouns and writing proper names; additions, omissions, and borrowing from one New Covenant writer
to fill up the text of another.  Origen, in the third century,




TRANSLATION OF THE SC1IUPT  RESl. I5S
and Jerome. in the fourth, loudly complained of the manner
in which Matthew, M3ark, Luke, and John were mixed up.
Another source of error is found in the influence of partyism in
making omissions of the sacred text.  Take an example —
Matthew xxvii. 50:  Origen had a crotchet that it was a derogation from the character of the Saviour to suppose that lhe
died at the hands of men.  Matthew's plain statement in the
chapter and verse we have named, refuted that crotchet. The
inspired text, as written by Matthew, said: I"But another
taWking a spear, pierced his side, and there came forth water
and blood; and Jesus crying out again with a loud voice,
expired."  It stands thus in  " the Vatican and Ephrem
man-uscripts, the two oldest in the world; also in the copies
of Diodorus, Tatian, and various holy fathers; in Chrysostom's copy; in the ancient Jerusalem - Syriac and Ethiopic
versions; in some of the most ancient Latin versions; in one
YUncial and five other Greek manuscripts," according to Granville Pelnn.  In the fourteenth century, this passage was excluded fiom the inspired text by Pope Clerment and by his
suecessor, John XXI., on the pretense thfat it contradicted
John xix. 34.  If the reader. will look at the 50th, verse of
tlhe 27th chapter of MIatthew in the common version, and
compare it with our quotations above, he will see how men.
have tampered with tlhe Word of God.  The Saviour died
from. the wound in his side, as 3Matthew records, according to
the only authorities in the world that can settle such a question.  Our version, which in that verse is Origen's, Pope
Clement's, anld Pope John's text, not M{atlhew's, teaches that
the spear was used after the death.  The Pope thought it
contradicted John xix. 34, wl1ich is not true. "6 fForl a SOLDIEP
pierced,, " is a correct translation of the 34th verse, for Parkhurst and Mlacknight conclusively establish the fact that thle
C:reek word alia, used causally, has the meaning of for; thus
John corroborates the genuine verse of Matthev, whlich 1has be11
omnitted fiom our version. No manuscript of the tenth century




158           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIE
can call in question a mlanuscript of the fourth ccntury  and
J. L. Hug has demonstrated that the Vatican manuscript was
written before the middle of the fourth century.  The Codex:
1Ephrem was written in the fifth century. They establish most
of thle facts we are stating and those we are about to state.
Ancl we may as well now state that all we shlall say on the
subjject is baseda upon the highest standard authorities.
Our subject is much -greater thail our space, and we can riefer
only to a few of the many spurious matters in our version.
For instance, the entire nine verses at the close of the 16th
chapter of M1ark; the Gethsemane scene in Luke xxii. 43,
44, John v. 4, the disturbance of the pool by an angel friom
53d verse of the 7th chapter of John to the 11th verse of the
8th chapter, the scene of the woman taken in adultely,  Luke
ix. 54, 55, 56; Luke xxiii. 24, are pronounced spurious passages that have not the least authority in the world to stand1
upon.  As proof of the spuriousness of the adultery scene,
for example, we have only to examine it.  The law requiredt
thlat both the parties should be accused; but, though, as her
accusers said, I taken in the act," the woman only is accused.
Again, the statement is, that 3loses said she should be stonecd
to death; but Mloses says no Such thing, as may be seen in
the 20th chapter of Leviticus.
In Matthew v. 22, we have, "6iWhosoever is angry with his
brother wilAout ca ca.se," &c.  "ati/zout a cause" is spurious, having been added by some one who wished to give men
an opportunity of being angry with their brethren without
( "danger of the judgment."  The Saviour makes no such
qualifying declaration as "without a cause."  The 4th verse
of the same chapter has a large amount of matter in it that is
spurious, being. unsustained by any authority.  In Matthew
vi. 13, the doxology is spurious, making a disagreeable break
in the instruction.  If thle reader will read. the 12th and 14th
verses continuously, lhe will discover that the 13th is an
interpolation.




TRANSLATION  OF TIlE SCRIPTURES.                 1159
Maltthew  xvi. 2, 3, xvii. 21, xviii. 11, are all spurious,
resting on no sufficient authority.  The clauses about being
"' baptized with the baptism," &c., in -Matthew xviii. 22, 23,
are spurious;  they are genuine in Mlark.  The 14th verse,
23d chapter of {Matthew, is not in any ancient malnuscript; it
is in Mlark xii. 40, and in Luke xx. 47.
In Matthew xxiii. 35, a probable iflse text and a false rendering make us lose a beautiful prediction and an important
historic fact.  We ascertain tile fulfillment of many of the
Saviour's prophesies through Josephus, ancd in this vwNay vwe feel
the influence of the correction we now suggest.  The declaration that all the righteous blood from that of Abel to that of
Zechariah, son of Barachia, who should be slain between the
altar and the sanctuary, was a prediction; and the Saviour's
statement respecting Zechariah was, " whom you will 8clay in
the midst of the temple."  This prediction was fulfilled during
the siege of Jerusalemn, when Zechariah, son of Ba.ruchias, a
man of great purity of chalracter, was slain in the midst of
the temple, when Titus and Vespasian were demanding of that
generation all the innocent blood that had been shed ]between
that of Abel and Zechariah.  All trace of this important
prediction is lost in our common version.
In Matthew xxi. 40, the disciples are made to reply to
the Saviour. in Luke xx. 15, 17, the Saviour himself is
made to reply to his own question; thus malking a palpable.
contradiction,
In 2d Corinthiallns iii. 6, Paul is converted into an egotist
by being made to say, 6 Who also hath made us a6cbe minmw-.
teers," &c.  This is one of the results of the Latin text. The
Greek says "~  Who also hath qualified us to be ministers. "
Another specimen of the beauties of the text of our common
version is found in the first General Epistle of Peter, 4th
chapter, 3d verse, which converts Peter into an idolater.  ITis made to say: " For the time past of ou2r li' maJy su1fflln  z16
to have wrought out the will of the genrtiles, when. c   l,e le




I6?           kFIDELITY TO  GOD IN TIIE
in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings,
and acbominable i(iolatries,"  There is no excuse for this renderin3g.  The Latin text was correct, and Wickliffe had it accurate
in his version.  But King James's men, in their remiarkable
proclivity to errors and blunders, were led by rash alterations
made in the Vulgate by Erasmus; and as King James's revisers apparently had no Greek text, they blindly followed the
unauthorized alteration of Erasmus.  In the genuine text there
is no "6;our,9" "2us," nor "6we," to make Peter an icdolateer,
which he never was.  The language of Peter is this: "6For
the time past of your life sufficeth to have wrougiht the will of
thle gentiles, walking in lasciviousness, lusts, &c., and abominable idolatries."  Can not our five clergymen take these facts,
and show, that as this statement is inll  the good old Bible,"
it makes no difference whether Peter is presented to his English readers in the truth which lihe wrote, or steeped in the
flsehood which King James's revisers immersed him  in by,altering his language?   fMay we not hear from the five clergymen on the important subject of the' ado about revision?"
We might thus go on and write a good sized volume on
therse blunders, contradictions, and apocryphal statements,
sipurious readings, and interpolations which so much disfigure
and mutilate the Aord of God in King James's version, all of
which scholarship is now about to correct.  One more specimene  must suffice, and it is difficult to imagine hlow it has
m-naintained its place, except on the principle of the five clergyymen, that the work of King Janmes's revisers is not to be
corrected, especially by Christians who have obeyed Jesus
Chlrist in immersion.
Mloses was divinely directed to make "6 the tabernacle after
t}he pattern shown hnim in the mount."  According to our clergymein this is not important, provided the Jews held "a plain
and ait statement of' -the law uttered by AMoses, by which they
(could be truly Treligious, truly happy in religion, and trul!y
faeecpta:ic to God while they lived and when they died," even




TRAKNSLATION OF THE SCItIPTURES.                I6G
if the tabernacle should deviate from the pattern.  Our clerical
friends seem to think that the Bible Union and its friends are
too particular and exacting, in requiring that the Bible shall be
an exact copy of what the Holy Spirit said, when there have
been so many good people under the defective, perverted, and
corrupted version of King James.  But neither AMoses nor
any other servant of God ever admitted such reasonings into
his mind.  Exactness in learning what God said, and exactless of obedience, were the vitalities of their holiness; and a
hloliness, to be of any account, must partake of those charact:ers.  Aioses made the tabernacle after the pattern God gave
hi11m, and did not vary it in a ring, a curtain, nor the color of
any thing,  That tabernacle was a pictorial illustration of the
heavenly places and of the Christian kingdom; and the 8th
a-ld 9th chapters of Hebrews contain some of the sublimest
thoughts ever uttered by inspiration on this very subject. Now
if lMoses did, not dare to deviate from his pattern in any, the
least particular, if he did not dare to change the position of a
single piece of furniture, who may have the temerity to do it
in its application to Christianity?*  Yet King James's version
is guilty, in Hebrews, of this very "'treason against the Supreme M/Iajesty," a.s the Catholic Bishop Kenrick nobly and
beautifuilly expresses the idea.  In the 9th chapter, 3d and
4th verses, we find this specimen.  We give the received
GCreek text, as it is called, and King James's versionIRECEIVED GRIEEKI TEXT.           COMMON VERSION.
3. jva t, ro 6ErVEpov faeae- and after the second veil (common,tcL, txrvI Iq xE7yo6t2, aya, versibo2), the tabernacle which is
h7~,wv,                        called the Holy of Holies,
4. xpvGovv fzovlo ov2laploov, whichi hlad the golden altar of in&c.                            cense,.c.
Now this statement is a positive contradiction of MIoses and
of the 9th verse of the 1st chapter of Luke.  The altar of
incense was not in the Holy of ITolies, but outside the veil of
it




162             FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
that apartment. Hence Zecharial is described by Luke as
officiating at it, which no one but the high priest could have
done, had it been behind the veil, and he could have done it
only once a-year.  Nor did the  Holy Spirit write the statement as it is in the received Greek text and in our comnmon
version.  The Vatican manuscript, among the innumerable
blessings it has given in purifying the Greek text, adds thiis
purification to its long list.'We give the Vatican text, as
written before the middle of the fourth century, and Penn's
version of it:
VATICAN MIS.                G. PE NN'S VER SION.
2.    v   yap  %a~xesvvao0 o    For first the  tabernacle was
apron,  v ~ are xXvvja af  q epca- formed, in which were the can-:4woth, om   v apoo0',4~w   uoJ p~ovY, a& dlestick and the table and the
t~o Zpv'ovv Ovlt~wptov, f'fs %'XEE2    shewbread, and the golden altar
&~yca'.;~for irtccuse, which is called the
3. LE~ SE t o Sivvepov, &c.  and secondly, after the veil, &c.
The Vatican is one of the highest authorities known in these
matters.  It is the Greek text that stands nearest the day of
the Apostles, and a million of manuscripts of the tenth century
could not shake any one of its foundations.  It makes Hebrews.
ix. 3, 4 synchronize with Moses and Luke.
Now let our clerical fiends try their hands at defending the
grievous wrongs done to the inspiration of God by the conmmon version, even in the matters we have shown on this occasion.  We can pile hundreds of similar expositions upon the
specimens we have given.  We have gone through the ANew
Covenant from the first verse of Matthew to the last verse of
Revelations, and with the aid of Granville Penn's work, have'
compared each challenged verse with the text of the ancient
Greek manuscripts, the Vatican, the codex Ephrem, and codex
Beza.  Jerome's vulgate is not an unimportant assistant in
these labors for: ascertaining the pure text of inspiration. And




TRANSLATION OF TIlE SCRIPTURES,                1a:G
we rejoice in being able to say, that the pure text passes through
this ordeal, cleansed from all that had marred its beauty and
weakened its powers.  On that pure expression of Jehovahf's
revelation, mankind can stand as upon an impregnable acropolis,
stable and immovable. Those who rely alone on EKing James's
version, are afloat upon uncertain seas, in darkness and doubt,
in fear and in trembling  That version has never feltthe offices,
even of the received Greek text, to say nothing of the lofty,
ennobling, exalting, and enlightening ministrations of thbse
higher sources of purity and light which Christendom  now
possesses in the Vatican and Ephrem- manuscripts and the
ancient versions.  The sole object of the Bible Union, of the
Bible Revision Association, and of the friends of revision
every where, is to bring the English Bible up to all the perfec..
tions that are possible, which shine with purity fromn the ancient
texts.  And to the five clergymen, to that "immense asseablage" which sent them into newspapers in the futile hope of
crushing the cause of revision, and to all who fight against the
purification of a defective and corrupted version, we answer as
Erasmus answered in his day those who undertook to hinder
his efforts at finding the true text of in'spiration: —
4"I heartily assent to those who maintain that the authority
of the Holy Scriptures is inviolate.  Whoever knowingly depraves them, outrages the Holy Spirit. this I acknowledge.
S) at thhat najesty resides only in t/he fountain-head.  Isaiah.
hras not erred, nor does any one attempt to alter what he wrote.
ML:[atthew has committed no error; no one corrects what hie
transmitted. Our business lies with his interpreters, his copyists, and his corrupters.  If all the authority of the sacred
Scriptures was to be shaken by some corrupt readings, the
Holy Spirit must needs attend the ucopyists, no less than the
prophets and evangelists.  The Spirit is nowhere absent from
tlemn; but He so discovers himself as to letve -for es a P)ortioL
Acf labor.  The inviolability of their authority resided in- thee
prophets, apostles, or evangelists. The hlighest praise of S, e.v




164            FIDELITY TO GOD INN THE
ture  is this: that, though so often transfused into other
languages, so often mutilated or depraved by heretics, so often
corrupted by transcribers, yet they retain the vigor of eternal
truth.  Thus the Church stands firm, though assailed by all
the storms of evil.  But he acts in the service of the Holy
8Sjpirit, who endeavors, with all his pozoervs, to restore to its
primitive integrity whatever has been cdeteriorated by mzez.
As there will never be wanting those who deteriorate, so we
ought never to cease from the task of correcti.g.  Thle iScrp)lure~
themselves, therefore, are one thinzg; what inlterpreters have
ill-rendclerecd, or transcribers have corrq)pted, are another.
Every knave can corrupt the copies of the Gospel; and shall
it be forbidden to restore what has been so corrupted?"
Whenever the five clergymen can refute or shake these stateaents and sentiments of Erasmus, the revisionists will abandon
their cause and leave the field to those who glory in the blunders, errors, corruptions, and apocryphal statements of an
English Bible translated from  a Latin text, and which has
scarcely felt the influence of a Greek manuscript.
We have now shown enough to exhibit something of' the
concdition of the English text of the Bible, and the imperative
iduty of every one who loves Christianity is to aid by all his
-means in securing an English Bible, that speaks froom the language in wiich the Holy Spirit wrote the text of inspiration.
The Bible Union is the only body of people that has ever
undertaken this holy, righteous, heavenly work.  It asks all
the world to join it, and it demands no other principle of action
than fidelity to God and man.  The Bible Union has armed
itself with the finest apparatus for biblical criticism and revision
of' the text of inspiration that has ever been gathered in this
country.  Neither time, nor labor, nor wealth, nor talent has
been stinted in the effort to obtain every thing known to be in
existence,' that can do the cause of revision any service.  We
designed to give some details of the treasures thus gathered,
b:ut as that has been done by a Methodist gentleman of high




TRANSLATION 0?' THE SCRIPTUlES,,    165
reputation for varied acquirements, especially in biblical literature, we prefer to use his remarks upon the acquisiftions of tile
Bible IUnion.  Of the Library of th/e Agmerican.BMble bU2io.J,
he thus speaks ---;The work of translation or revision of the Holy Scripture.s
is connected with whatever pertains to biblical criticism: and
the American Bible Union, duly impressed with this fact, lhas
availed itself of the labors of biblical scholars, not only i1n this,
but in every department connected with biblical literature.  1.i 
the library of the Union may be found the results of the labors
of biblical critics, fromn the time of Origen down to the present
day; and we doubt if the world can furnish, apart fiolm  the
manuscripts themselves (all tile various readings of which,
however, have been collated and published, and are in possession
of tile Union), a more complete apparatus. In connection iwith
Origen's ilexapla and Walton's Polyglott, are to be found the
most celebrated editions of the Hebrew and Greek text of the.
Scriptures, with the various critica sacras, thesauruses, synopses, digests, lexicons, grammars, and works on criticism, hermeneutics, archaeology, history, and in fact the leading iworlks
on all that pertains to the vast field of biblical literature,
embracing the most ancient and modern authors, with the
translations from  the Septuagint and Vetus Itala, Vulgate, to
the English versions, from Wickliffe to the present time; and
also the principal versions that have been made in the various
modern languages and dialects.  The library contains the
commentaries of greatest value, ancient and modern, that have
been written in the "various languages, from  the Targums of
the Jews and ancient Fatlhers, down to the present day; and
also copies of the Grecian, lomian, and English classics, toge-.
ther with the most valuable books of reference in the various
departments of literature, science, and art.
"The special object had in view by the Bible Union has led
it to procure without regard to expense, a.ll those works tlat
have any beaLring whatever upon the hist sry, plilology, clronZD.9-~vu    y    byr  L*~r-1~ed J




tr3I           FIFIDELITY  TO -GOD IN THE
ology, arch'eology, criticism, or exegesis of the Bible, that,
thus thoroughly furnished, its scholams may have every facility
afforded them for making such a revision of the English Bible
as the present age demands."
In addition to this, it may be well to say that the Bible
Union also, has the free use of rare and valuable works onk
biblical scieice in various private libraries, and we know of
nothing in this country that has any bearing on the subjecc
that is not at the service of the revisers of the Bible Union.
A.nd thus having this extensive apparatus for a thorough Re-vison of the Bible, an ardent, holy, and honest desire for a:faithfil one, scholars of the highest ability to do the work, and
the liberal support of the people in carrying it forward, the
Bible Union is secure in the possession of every thing that can
guaralntee a faithful exposition of the pure text of the holy
writings.
it is often said and has been much harped upon in this discussion tnat the great body of the churches are content withl.
the present version and wish no change made in it.  If such
were  the case, though we know it is not, for there is no one
church in Christendom that has ever been content with it, it
would betray in the presence of the truths we have now presented, the fact that the sectarian churches in Christendom are
-n as unsound a condition as the ancient Jewish Church of
God, which Jesus Christ and his Apostles undertook to enlighten and reform.  The great body of that church was content, and desired no change.  Its sectarian members put the
Saviour to death and martyred his apostlts, but the change was
made despite of the opposition.  And such success will be the
result of the efforts of the Bible Union  and of the friends of
Prevision.  The Bible revised under the auspices of the Bible
Union, faithful to God and man in all its details, will as
certainly command the approbation, confidence, and zealous
<co-operation of the American people as the triuths of the gospel commanded those qualities in the Roman world.  The Bible




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                167
Union has flourished amidst all the floodgates of calumny,
detraction, cruel injustice and wrong that sectarian Christendom has let loose upon it, and it has survived that which the
Apostles encountered-the malice of false friends. There is no
power on this earth that can stay the progress of Bible revision.
4e
Jehovah has declared that his word shall accomplish all whereunto he has appointed it; and if he has not appointed it to
purity and to the exercise of its own inherent powers, freed from
the glosses and corruptions of men, neither his character nor
purpose have been revealed.'The cause is beyond the reach
of the malice of its enemies.
We have spoken of King James's version as compared with
the ancient texts.  But let us not be misunderstood.  We
readily admit that Wickliffe, in giving the English people a:Bible adapted to the common apprehension, performed a remarkable work for his time; a work that first lighted the English
race toward civilization.  King James's revisers, wivth quite as
defective an apparatus, improved that version in some respects
and injured it in others.  Even in that form it has done great
good, for as Erasmus says: "The authority of the Scriptures
is not to be shaken by some corrupted readings."  But their
<acknowledged presence in King James's version, now il the
hands of such a race as the English, constitutes an excellent
reason why the wheat shall be Winnowed from the chaff, aind
that version be made fully worthy of all the admiration that has
been bestowed upon it.  And to that holy labor the Bible
Union are directing their purest and most righteous energies,
and, when their work is completed they will be acknowledged
as the true friends of " the good old family Bible."
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
P. S.-The foreman of Morton & Griswold informs us that
the work of composition for the book form of this discussion




108 ~FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
will be conpieted early next week;  but we shall keep it open
until July 26 for any response the five clergymen may choose
to make to this article.
N I M B ER  XIII.
BIBLE UNION-FATHER MACLAY'S PAMPHLET.
THE New York Times has recently published a notice of a
pamphlet purporting to be written by Dr. AMaclay, late President of the Bible Union.  The Times announces that the
Bible Union is in an uncomfortable position before the public
at this time, but we beg leave to assure all who think thus,
that the discomfort arises entirely from the fact that Dr. Maclay has been put to services, in his present condition of mind,
that are at war with all the services of the days of his intellectual vigor.  The old gentleman has been induced lately to
leind himself to purposes at direct variance with his labors and
proclamations of the past few years, and he has been carried
so far into the regions of wrong doing that his managers have
required that the pamphlet against the Bible Union, of which he
is'the putative author, shall be sedulously kept from the friend8
of that body, and placed in the hands only of the most violent
and virulent enemies of the cause, with injunctions not to permit any friend of revision to see it. Does truth or honesty or
honor ever require such services as these? The most earnest
efforts have been made by the friends of the Bible Union, for
two weeks, in the city of New York, to obtain a copy of this
pamphlet — this secret emissary, but even those who admitted
that they had a copy of the work, declared they were enjoined
not to show it. But an enemy of revision, the Philadelphia
Chronicle, has published the precious document in that paper.
We have been well acquainted, for weeks, with the matters




TRIANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTULTIES.              i 
of which Dr. MAaclahy complains.  We shall' not burthlen  ni::i
communication with their enumeration, but content ouisel s
with saying, that all of these complaints that have any tiu:t
in them, were as palpable to him, as open to view, as comnlo;l
to all the members of the Bible Union, when Dr. Maclar -as
an agent of the society, boldly proclaiming the siperlative
claims of the Bible Union to the confidence and support of all
true mIen, as they are now to the defected ex-President.  ie,
is made ridiculously to assert that he has just discovered these
wondrous secrets, and while every employee of the Bible
JUnion was perfectly posted in them, he claims that he was a
dupe for years!  And if he was thus duped for years, may
not some such work still be in progress?
At the instance of Father Maclay, a committee was organized by *the Bible Union to investigate every complaint made
by iim.  That committee labored long and sedulously and
patiently.  It gave the matter so much time that some complaint was made about the delay of the report.  The pamphlet
says that the committee has not reported, but we have the report before us and we quote enough of it to refute all the
criminations of Father Maclay.  It is as follows:
"' Your committee appointed to enquire into the present condition and practical working of the enterprise, respectfully
report, that, after a carefal examination into its affairs they
are satisfied that its executive officers have laboriously and
honestly discharged their duty to the Union, and they see no
reason to recommend any change in the practical working ct'
the enterprise.
W. COLGATE,
EZRA SMITH,
W. IL. WVYCiO0FF,
SAM'L BAKER,
S. E. SHI-IEPARD,
T. B. STILLMAN,
"T. W\U~l. SA R-1 J 1 jS.




117'0        ~FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
In addition to this, the Bible Revision Association, after a
I::horough inquiry, unanimously resolved that the Bible Union
13 a.cting in strict accordance with fidelity, and is abundantly
worthy the esteem and confidence of every honest and truthful
mind.  The attempt by a few ambitious spirits to make the
Bible Union subservient to thei'r 2uses has been promptly met,and put down, and the Bible Union is honestly, faithfully, and
nobly perfobrming all its duties to God and nian, which it
assumed in undertaking a faithful revision of the Holy Oracles.
There is not even the shadow of a foundation, in the management of the Bible Union, for the chalrges, the conduct, or the
dereliction of Fat.her Maclay, the infirmities of age are rapidly
pressing him down, and while we grieve over the fact that such
a. man has become a castaway from the noblest cause of the
age, we rejoice to know that neither his example nor his criminations have in tihe slightest degree affected the Bible Union,
or checked  its onward progress.  The great scholars of the
-Bible Union, Conant, Lillie, Schaff, and numbers who approach
them in scholarly attainments, know the revisers of the Union.
it is absurCd to suppose thlat the Baptist and Presbyterian
scholars we have named would be associated as co-laborers with
such scholars as -Father Maclay is made to say some of the
revisers are.
These facts will exptain what is called the "uncomfortable
condition" of the Bible Union, and will answer in advance,
whatever may be said by a partizan religious anti-revision press,
which unblushingly announces that it will publish only one side
of these matters, "because a different course (that of letting
both sides be heard) would not be just or fair to its readers."
If any words of admonition on our part would be of any use
to the enemies of revision, we would caution them to handle
-these affairs carefully, fbr we assure them that we have fullness
enough of information in all the premises, to enable us to say
that the Bible Union is anxious to court the largest inquiry
into its conduect, and that it will triumphantly come through




TRANSLATION  OF TI-I'SCIL11PTURES.            171
the ordeal, to the joy of its friends and -the discomfiture of its
enilemnes.
JAMES EDMIUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
libe Y]evision B2ooms, July 22, 1856.
P. S.-May we not ask such of the secular press as may
publish an account of Dr. Maclay's pamphlet, to republish this
response to it?
FOURTH LETTERti  0F TIlE FIVE CLERGYMEN.
TIHE BIBLE RtEVISION MOVEMENT.-FINALLY.
SOME months ago, tile undersigned were requested by a
number of their brethlrenn to male a1 suitable answer to certain
publications, at that time appearing in the newspapers of t-his
crity, in behalf of the Bible lRevision Association.  It was our
intention, from the beginning, to do no more than to show
t:lhat "this revision imovement, sectarian in its spirit and aims,.ndcl not called for by the Church at large, or required by the
actual necessities of thle subject, is not entitled to the publbi.
confidence and support.
Having done that, as we supposed, we declined all personal
controversy and all further argument on the subject, deeming
an. thing else superfluous.
T7-e gentlemen who still conduct the discussion on tile otlher
f;ie hxave repeatedly invited us tback to the field, which we
i oughllt proper to leave when our work was done, declaring
thleir intention to lay before the public, for wide circulation and
ial permanent forml, this whole discussion bound up together.
And now, again, what seems intended for their final commuJnication to the public, after many allusions to ourselves, closes
witlh these last words to us:




172           FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIIE
4 P. S. —-The foreman of Alorton & Griswold informs us that
the work of composition for the book form of this discussion
will be completed early next week; but we will keep it open
until July 26, for any response the five clergymen may choose
to make to this article."
Our thanks are due to these gentlemen for so great liberality; and, that we may not be wanting in courtesy, or any
other duty in the premises, we depart from the purpose which
we had formed of declining further discussion, and offer this
response.  We trust they will receive it as final, if they will
not accept it as sufficient.  We desire not to abuse the wide
liberty they give us, and will compress, as far as we can, what
we have to present.
Theyt will bear in mind, as the public also will, that our
single aim has been to answer their plea for the public confidence and support, by proving that their movement deserves
neither.  In every " response" we have made to any " article,"
of theirs, we have kept our aim in view.  In this, which they
have succeeded in drawing from us, we do so still.
in all that we have read of the writings of revisionists, or
leard of their talk, few persons have been so highly comnmended by them. as the Rev. Dr. Maclay.  None, we believe.
have been more trusted; none have really done more to promote their object.  Long their principal agent to recommend
it and to collect funds for it in this country and in Europe,
and a few months ago, after so many years of patient and
effective service in the field, called to the Presidency of the
Society upon the death of Dr. Cone, as the fit successor (1t
that eminent man, he has linked his name to this work as few
have done.  Indeed, lie may be called one of the fathers of
the enterprise to which lie has devoted the best years of his
life with the deepest interest in its success.  We may add,
that he has certainly enjoyed very fair opportunities of informdation as to the real character of it, the spirit and manner in
whichl its a8ffairs are conducted, and its claims upon good men.




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               173
Now, with every thing to attach him to it if it were worthy
of his regard, he has turned his back upon it with disgust.
Dr. Maclay has made public the considerations which influenced him herein. They are stated with simplicity and great
clearness, apparently without anger or malevolence, under
convictions of duty which compelled him to speak out, and
with the confidence of a man who knows that what he says is
true. These representations are made at great length, else we
would insert them here entire.  That, we suppose, would be
drawing too largely on the kindness of the gentlemen who are
waiting for this I" response," to put it in their book.
They will indulge us, however, in culling out a fe w paragraphs of this extraordinary testimony.  One shall be that in
which the witness sums up his evidence, to-wit:
"Being fully satisfied, from personal examination, that the
funds which I have done so much to collect, and which I
know have been most sacredly devoted, by the rich and the
poor, to one of the holiest purposes of Christian charity, are
being squandered; that a vast amount is expended for operations remote from the one great object of the institution, that
men are employed to translate the Word of God who are not
qualified for the work; that unwarrantable translations have
been made, which, if published, must bring into discredit the
most precious doctrines of my faith, sap the fundamental
truths of Christianity as indubitably revealed in the Holy
Scriptures, and shake the confidence of the people in the canon
of the sacred writings; that such revisions are likely to be
published for indiscriminate circulation, without the previous
precautionary examination provided for, and required, by the
plan and rules of revision, as originally adopted by the Board;
that the'controlling power of the institution has become completely centralized in one man, and that the exercise of that
power is not only such as to forbid tie hope of reform, but
al0so to blast the name and influence of every one who adlV ceates reform.  Feeling perfectly assured of all this, I am




1741           FIDELITY TO GOD iIN THE
compelled, by a stern sense of duty, to abandon the enterprise, and to free myself, as far as possible, from  all further
responsibility in its operations.  And I can not doubt that my
friends, when rightly informed, will justify me in so doing.",
Another extract will tell us something about the "revisers:'
"During the last six years, from  the origin of the Bible
Union till a few months ago, I labored as its agent, most of
the time at a distance from  the seat of its operations, so that
I had'but very littie opportunity to examine minutely the in —ternal management of the institution.  I relied mainly on'the
published documents of the Union, to which the official correspondence of the Secretary seldom  added any tlhing of import-ance.  I did not so much as know the names of the revisers,
vwith a few exceptions.  IIence the statements which I made,
publicly and privately, during my agency, rested for the most
part on the assurances of those forwhom I acted.
"But on being elected President of the Union, in October,
in 1855, I' found myself in a position of' nore direct and unqualified responsibility; and under these circumstances, I felt
the importance of becoming more particularly acquainted withl
the operations of the body.  I then, for ti.e first time,. ascert ained who the revisers were, and found, to my astonishment,
that instead of there having been about forty individuals actually engaged in translating  the New  Testament, as I had
understood from the Secretary, and often stated, there had not
been more than twenty —three or txventy-four.  Instead of all
these being competent scholars, as I had supposed, and as the
plan of the Union required, and as is often reiterated in thle
official documents of the Union, some of themn ulquestionably
lacked the essential qualifications of a translator.""
The bfollowing extracts will exhibit the marvelous beauity
and exact fiithfulness of some instances of revision:
" On resuming my examination in the revisers' department,
I found that numerous translations had been made, which,
tLhough not in all cases inconsistent with good scholarship,




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCiIPTURES.                175
iwere nevertheless calculated, on other grounds, to compromise
the character of' the Union, and to shake the confidence of
men in the truth of God's WVo.rd. Of these the following may
serve as specimens:
"John i. 1:'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God,: and CGod was the Word.'
"John i. 33':  He it is that immerses in a Holy Spirit.'
"John iii. 5:'If any one be not born of water and Spirit.'
"John v. 19:'The Son can do nothing of himself if rie
see not the Father doing any thing.'
" John vii. 39.' But this is said of the Spirit which those
believing on Ht]im were about to receive; for there was not yet
a Holy Spirit.'
"John x. 28:'And I give to them eternal life, and they
shalll not perish forever.'
"I John xi. 33:'Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping,
and the Jews, who canme with her, weeping, groaned in the
spirit and troubled hlimself.'
" John i. 13, 14: 6; Who were begotten, not of blood, nor
oLf a will of flesh, nor of a will of man, but of God. And tthie
Word became flesh, alnd dwelt among us (and we saw his glory,
"a glory as of one only begotten of a Father), full of grace and
truth,''"These are by no mncans the most objectionable renderings.
In this and other books are some which I woulld not disclose
to the public eye. And on a closer examination in the depa..tmnent of revision, I -ound, that in addition to the slhocking
translations already referred to, the misguidled hand of the
reviser had been rashly laid upon the original text, as it seemed
to me, without any authority of the Board."
The following  will show what Dr. Maclay found to be the
honesty of the policy which guides the executive department"The Secyretary urged me again to leave New York and travel
abroad as an agent. I informed him that, with the views wic t
I then enlertained, I could not conscienltiously act in l!he clapa



17$5         PFIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
city of an agent; that, among other things, I had assured the
people that we have competent scholars to translate the Scriptures, and that the funds of the Union were judiciously and
economically expended, but I could do so no longer; that I
hrad aimed to live an honest man, and I meant to die an honest
maln; and that if I were to go and publish my honest impressions regarding the operations of the Bible Union, I should
o nly damage its reputation, which, under existing circumstances,
I was not prepared to do.  One would have supposed that
such a statement would have precluded any further request
from the Secretary for me to go abroad as an agent of the
Union.  His subsequent repeated reiteration of this request,
besides the imputation of a disbelief in my own statement
vwxhich it conveyed, exhibited such a solicitude for the services,
and such an indifference for the conscientious views of an agent,
as equally surprised and pained me."
And finally, this will show at once how they use the money,
and how they treat this old servant of God for daring to object
Wt such expenditures.
I' know that Brother Conant, in that extraordinary letter
of April 23, 1856, which the Secretary got up and sent out
als a circular of the Bible Union, pronounces my dissatisfaction' groundless,' attributing it to mental imbecility, and this
judgment, though contrary to my own consciousness, would
have great wr-Teight on my mind, if he were not himself an interestled pa rty.But a man who has already received nearly six
tIhousand dollars before finishing the translation of Job, on a
contract  which secures to him, in addition to a salary of 81,200
frorl tlhe Theological Seminary at Rochester, $2,000 a-year
blr -the portion of time not required in his professional duties,
till lhe shall have completed the Old Testament, with a copyr1iht interest, and a per-centage on the future sales of his
tr'a.nslation, when published with notes; a man for whose pupils
the Hebrew school-book, with grammatical notes, was specially
di:signed, and the strereotyping of whose translation, in six




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               177
different forms, without any examination by other scholars,
according to the contract, and without any authorization of the
Board, was one occasion of my dissatisfaction, occupies a position in relation to the affairs under consideration which greatly
depreciates, if it does not entirely destroy, the admissibility
of his testimony. And I think that all well-informed, impartial
men will agree that he, who has such grounds for his own,satisfaction, is not sufficiently disinterested to sit in judgment
upon my dissatisfaction."
This is the way, it seems, they intend to put down Dr. Maclay.  A few months ago he was worthy of all they could give
him in place and honors.  Then he was using his influence to
promote their ends. Now he is in his dotage, for now lie is
exposing to the light of day that which cannot bear the light.
We think the public will say that such a taunt is equally false,
absurd, and cruel. We think the same public will say, as
they come to understand it all, that such a scheme of tampering
with the Word of God, and abusing the credulity of his people,
richly entitles itself to derision and contempt.
VW. L. BRECKINRIDGE,.
SAM'L LOWRY ADAMS,
HENRY M. DENISON,
G. GORDEN.
The Rev. Mr. Trimble is at present absent from the city,
which accounts for the absence of his name from this response.
Louisville, July 22, 1856.




178          FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
NUMBER XIV.
THE FIVE CLERGYMEN.-DR. MACLAY AND THE DISMISSED
REVISER.
WE published an article last week, on tile state of the Greek
text of the New Testament, on the apocryphal statements in
the English version in common use, on various omissions from
and interpolations in that version, all going to show the imperative demands for revision.  And in order to test the character
of the startling facts we then presented, we called upon the
five clergymen who had taken up King James's Bible as a
banner, to refute our statements if in their power to do so.
Our object is to know truth, to advocate nothing else, and to
yield allegiance to its supreme dictates.  In making the call
upon the five clergymen thus to meet the stubborn facts which
we presented as the result of a careful inquiry into the state of
the Greek textus reepytus, the overwhelming proofs which we
adduced, and which may be multiplied, that the version in
-common use is a translation from a Latin text, and not fromn
the text of inspiration, we had a hope that those gentlemen
would attempt some defence of the authorized version. If the
facts we presented are verities, no Christian acquainted with
them can hesitate as to the imperative necessity of a speedy
revision of the Bible. No man who owes allegiance to Jesus
Christ can feel that he is justified in palming off;n the, community, as the words of inspiration, statements which no
inspired pen ever touched.
The five clergymen have run their allotted time for aln
answer to the grave and startling facts to which we allude, and
they have not attempted a rejoinder, for, of course, they do
not consider the string of trashy quotations from a mendacious




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               179
pamphlet, written by a dismissed reviser from the service of
the Bible Union, which they published yesterday, as in any
degree an acceptance of our request. We therefore have a
right to consider that our article on the state of the Greek text
and the condition of the authorized version is unassailable.
Nothing can be clearer to the public mind than the fact that
these five clergymen can not defend King James's Bible. They
are ready enough to fight away upon all other matters, but
they have to admit that the deplorable condition of King
James's version is utterly indefensible.  What a position for
clergymen!  They cannot defend the text of King James's
work; they will not attempt themselves to procure a pure version of the Word of God, and they seem to feel that their
mission is to abuse, defame, and insult all. who honestly undertake this essential work for the people. Clergymen who occupy
this exceedingly awkward position before an intelligent peopie are not in the best possible condition to investigate the
moral atmosphere of the Bible Union.
In not denying before the public, with statement of proof
and illustrations, the necessity and importance of the revision
of the Scriptures while attempting to discredit and asperse those
engaged in it, the five clergymen may be compared to those in
Christ's time who, no't denying the necessity of his reform, yet
objected to his measures, and stood aloof from his cause and
Church; or those, acknowledging the corruption of Christianity
and the mlportance of its restoration, yet refused to co-operate
with Luther on account of some alleged incompetency or faults
of temper, or like the Tories of the Revolution. acknowledging the wrongs of the colonies and the justice of their claims.,
yet abandoning their cause and betraying them to their oppressors   Fault-finding with measures of progress is always an
easy as it is an ignoble task.  Men have found it easy to point
out faults in the methods of originating and carrying out all
good causes.  The reforming prophets were too rash and radical; Christ was too regardless of the established order of




180          F'IDELITY TO GOd'IN THE
religion; Luther impaired the public confidence in the consti-d
tuted ecclesiastical authorities; the founders of missions were
enthusiasts; the apostles of temperance were fanatics. Is it
strange, then, that tile advocates of revision are charged with
a grievous hallucination?  We hope our five clergymen may
yet see that they have stooped to a low calling, in devoting
themselves to the mlere depreciation of needed reform  and
blocking the wheels of progress.
In reference to the pamphlet called the Maclay document,'we present the following notice by the officers of the Bible
Union; and we make this additional remark, that as long as
the real author of that pamplet, the dismissed reviser, was
able to draw his salary from the Bible Union), he was silent
upon all the matters on which he is now expending, under the
name of A. Maclay, his vengeful malice. He never awakened
to "Iduty" until he was cut off from the treasury of the Bible
fUnion.  His pen is traceable, in what is called Dr. }Maclay's
pamphlet, from the beginning to the end of the work.  There
is not a man any where, who has known the condition of Dr.
3Maclay's mind for the past three years, who does not know.his incapacity to write.
We present the appeal of the officers of the Bible Union,
nand ask for it an honest reading.
AMERICAN BIBLE UNION- CONCtRINING ]DR. MACLAY'S PAIPIILErT.
AMERICAN BIBLE UNION ROOMS, 
No. 350 Broome st., New York, July 18, 1856. 
To tle EcZitor of tIhe _New'York Daily Times:
SIR:; We perceive by your issue of the 18th inst., that you
quote statements from a production purporting to be written
by Rev. KA }taclay, D.D., giving his reasons for resigning the
Presidency of the American Bible Union.  We have been
informed from other sources that such a document was in existence, and have seen what professes to be a copy in a news



TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               181
paper; and we have addressed the, most respectful letters to
Dr. Maclay and other persons, soliciting a copy for the use of
the Union. As yet, however, we have been unsuccessful, and
can but conclude that there are good reasons why it should be
circulated so secretly, and withheld so carefully from  the
Board of the Society, whose principles, plans, and officers it
attacks.
When Dr. Maclay sent in his resignation, it was unaccompanied by any reason whatever. Nor has he, at any time
since he became President, uttered a word before the Board
expressive of his dissatisfaction with it.  He has never submitted a suggestion to the Board, personally or in writing, for
any change in its operations, as he was in duty bound to do
if lie thought a change necessary, although he was importuned
privately to do so. In a committee appointed by the Board in
January last, at Dr. M3aclay's suggestion, "to inquire into the
present condition and practical workings of our enterprise," of
which committee Dr. Maclay was a member, he stated some of
his grievances.  But because the committee did not adopt
his suggestions, he threatened to resign as President, and to
publish his reasons to the world, which, he said, " would -uint.
the UnionS," and actually refused to attend any more meetings,of the committee or the Board, and did so resign long before
the committee reported.
We have good reason to believe that Dr., Maclay is not the
real author of this pamphlet, but that it was written by a
gentleman who has recently been dismissed from the service
of the Bible Union for the very best of reasons, and who, we
understand, has another publication against the Union in the
press.  We owre it to the public, in.this connection, to say,
that we have abundant evidence for disproving every material
allegation which the published document contains, in the form
it has reached us.  In due time the Board and officers of the
Union will ask a hearing.  They have nothing to suppress;
they have no information to iwithhold from the public eye;




182          FIDELITY TO CTGO   IN TIlE
and, above all, they feel conscious they have nothing to fear
from a thorough investigation of their doings. Measures have
already been taken not only to invite, but to demand, such an:investigation.
The document signed by Dr. Maclay attacks all the procedure of the Bible Union under the administration of his immortal predecessor, Dr. Cone, as well as under his own. And
as the Board has in no case deviated from the policy established by Dr. Cone —a policy which the Union itself has unanimously approved from year to year-we shall await the final
decision of the same body with the utmost confidence.
At the same time, we now invoke the scrutiny of all who
are interested in the cause of truth and the welfare of the
Bible Union.  We therefore invite all such persons to call at
the rooms of the Society, No. 350 Broome street, and examine
our affairs personally, and we promise them every facility we
possess for such an examination. Especially do we request the
representatives of the secular press to take advantage of this
invitation.  You, gentlemen, have always acted most honorably toward the Bible Union, and we believe that you still
desire to treat it in the same manner.  For this reason, wev
solicit you personally to make yourselves acquainted with our
plans and modes of procedure at your leisure, with the liberty
of stating friankly your findings to the public.
Respectfully yours,
THOMIAS ARMITAGE, President.
WM. H. WTYCKOFF, Cor. Sec.
E. S. WHITNEY, PeeC. Sec.
E. PARMLY, lTreasurer.
C. A. BUCKBEE, Asst. Treasurer.
SYLVESTER PIER, Auditor.
We regret that we have to close our book without such a
rejoinder as we hoped to obtain from the five clergymen. But
as we shall continue to call the attention of the public to the




TRIANSLATION OF TIHE SCRIPTURES.             183
subject of Bible revision, may we not indulge the hope that
our clerical friends will hereafter undertake that rejoinder?
They may rest assured, however, that whatever may be their
course, we shall hereafter honor them with an abundance of
just such biblical matters as we gave them in the Courier of
the 19th inst., and in the Journal of the 21st inst.; and if
they can stand such expositions, we can patiently make them.
They timorously plead for a finale: bult let them remember
that they came into this matter of their own accord; that they
undertook to meddle with what does not concern them, and.
-they must meet the consequences.  And now that they are
standing  before the community as the peddlers of the paltry
slanders of a dismissed reviser of the Bible Union, it is too
late for them to cry "enough."  They will regret the hour
they made use of the miserable calumnies which Dr. Mialay
has been made to father. We shall soon be at liberty to espose this whole business.
In the meantime we pray the public to bear in mind, that
up to the 22d inst., the date of our last advices from the city
of New York, not one friend of the Bible Union had been able.
to obtain even a sight of the 1Maclay pamphlet, and up to the,
present date no friend of the Revision Association has seen
one.  It is scattered freely among the enemies of those twobodies; but the most perfect safeguards are thrown around it
to prevent it from reaching the friends of revision.
Such conduct betrays unmistakably the animus of the parties engaged in this work.  It is conclusive that Dr. Maclay
is not under his own management, for even in his weakness he
is incapable of such unfair, unjust, and unprovoked conduct.
For our knowledge of the contents of the pamphlet, we are
indebted to what purports to be a copy of it, published in a.
violent anti-revision paper in Philadelphia.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.




184          FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
NUMIBER XV.
THE BIBLE UNION.-THE FOUR CLERGYMEN.-THE MACLAY
PAMPHLET.
No real friend of Bible Revision or of the Bible Union
can do otherwise than rejoice that, if any thing of the kind
had to be done, Dr. AMaclay has been placed before the public
as an accuser of his brethren.  The Bible Union courts now a
full exposition of all that Dr. Maclay and Dr. Judd can say
to its prejudice.  They have occupied positions that should
have opened all the affairs of the Bible Union to their inspection, and we know that even their profoundest malice can utter
no truth that will in any degree implicate the Bible Union in
wrong, except in one case, which implicates Dr. Judd very
deeply, to which we shall attend in due time.  The Bible
Union is in the hands of men who fear no scrutiny that may
be exercised upon their acts. We do not rejoice in iniquity;
but since it has come, we rejoice that it assumed the shape
over which a bigoted sectarianism is now rejoicing.  That sectarianism is more delighted when righteousness, purity, and
truth are kicked about through the public press, than.when
sinners turn from the errors of their way.  The Bible Union
is made up of men of unblemished character, men who fulfill
all Christian duties in every department of public and private
life, who live as ever in the Great Taskmaster's eye, against
whom no sentiment of any kind, except that of sectarianism,
ever breathed a word of scandal. We express but the voice
of all who know them, when we say that this continent holds
no men of purer, holier, or of more upright characters, than
the officers of the American Bible Union. Yet upon the mere
accusation of such men, purporting to be made by old Fathec




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURES.                185
A. Maclay, now eighty years of age, sectarianism is pr'pared,
not only to stop the greatest enterprise of the age, but to blast
the characters of numbers of men, each one of whom has as
much reputation for piety or goodness as DIr. Maclay, no matter how great his may be.  Surely lives of piety, of recognized
public virtue, of untarnished integrity, should always, among
people taught of God's Holy Spirit, be a shield against the
barbs of unproven charges. But the religion of men who claim
to be teachers of Christianity did not restrain them  from the
inexcusabile conduct of seizing upon mere accusations, unsustained as they were by a particle of testimony, any more than
a politician might have been restrained from seizing and using
any thing that he thought would injure an opponent.  It is a
frightllful commnentary on the sectarianism  of this age, that in
the nineteenth century of Christianity, four of its professed
teachers made such a display as the four clergymen did in the
newspapers of this city last week.  Among the mere moralists
of the world it is considered exceedingly unjust and unfair to
use unsupported charges against any one, until the person
criminated has an opportunity of answering; but to use
charoges of tIlis character in the presence of a full denial,
made by a committee of as upright, holy, and pious men
as can be found in this or any other country, and by the
Board of the Revision Association in this city, without making the least allusion to the fact that the charges were denied, is pronounced by all moralists - Christians and infidels,
a species of conduct for which neither Christianity nor morals
furnishes support or excuse.  Yet this conduct was exhibited
by the four clergymen.  On Wednesday, the 22d inst., the
undersigned published an extract from the report of the committee of the Bible Union (each one of whom is at least the
equal of either of the four clergymen), appointed at Dr. Maclay's
instance, to examine the very charges afterwards uttered to the
world under the cloak of Dr. Maclay's name.  This report was
si..aed by seven as respectable gentlemen as can. be found




186          F1IDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
ally where, and that report utterly contradicted the statements
purporting to be made by IDr. Maclay. In addition to this,
we announced that the Board of the Bible IRevision Association
had also investigated this whole subject, and were unanimous
in the conclusion that there was no foundation for the charges
nor any apology for an attack upon the Bible Union. But in
this state of things, in which every man's conscience, if not
asleep, would say, proof of the charges was imperatively demanded, the four clergymen, on the Friday succeeding our denial
on Wednesday, used the accusations as though they were established facts, and uttered no hint that the criminated party
denied the charges.  There was as much fairness and justice
at the tribunal of Pontius Pilate. Is this a clerical specimen
of I"that love which thinketh no evil," which Christianity was
designed to impart.  Is this the "love which rejoiceth not in
iniquity," without which, an Apostle affirms, he became as
sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal? The royal Psalmist of
Israel asks' "Lord who shall abide in thy tabernacle, who
shall dwell in thy holy hill?"  Among the characters who
are thus to abide and dwell, are those "who backbiteth not
with their tongues, oor doeth evil to their neighbors, nzor taket/h up a reproache against their neighbors."  We know not
what the casuistry of others may teach them, but with the
reflected light of the New Covenant before our minds, we
know that we would not have been guilty of such conduct as
that of which we speak, for the wealth of the universe.
We do not hold Father Maclay in any way responsible for
the pamphlet issued in his name, for in his unfortunate weakness he is not accountable for any thing he does. We all felt
how weak he was when he was made president of the Bible
Union, he felt it, and so expressed himself. But we knew his
goodness of heart, and never dreamed that any sinister influence would attempt to turn him aside from the few paths of
duty in which he seemed to be able still to walk. We do not
call in question the goodness of Father Maclay, but we more




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               1a7
thlan question the goodness of his statements.  And we feel
confident that it is to the influence of Dr. Orrin B. Judd, a
dismissed reviser from the Bible Union rooms, we are mainly,
if not wholly, indebted for the mendacious parmiphlet issued
under the name of Dr. Maclay.  There is in the pamphlet
itself a deep undercurrent of malignity that surpasses all the
ordinary forms of human malice, to say nothing of the nefarious management of the pamphlet.  That Dr. Judd, after
being dismissed from the confidence, the service, and treasury
of the Bible Union, should have attempted to use this infirm
oldl man, borne down with the weight of nearly eighty years,
could have excited no great degree of surprise: but that he
should have degraded him, through a weakened memory that
Nwas scarcely conscious of what it was doing, into a derogatory;inld most insulting attack upon his own son, and thus, in ad-:ltion to Dr. Judd's other mischief, carry distress and affliction
into the old man's domestic circles, was a stretch of malice
that is scarcely human.  And as a fitting prelude to our portrait of Dr. Judd and of the Milaclay pamphlet, we begin
with this very case.  Among the pamphlet charges which Dr.
-;!Iaclay was made to father, is the following string of invenl:ions.
"'A  portion of the New York Chronicle, secured by an
annual appropriation of one thousand dollars, for the publication of revision matter, was found to be praclically under the
absolute control of the Secretary, and to be used according to
his pleasure.  I do not object to the appropriation made by
the Board; but I think the object of the appropriation has
been perverted, to invest the Secretary with power which no
such officer should possess."
Dr. AMaclay's son is the editor of the Bible Union department of the New York Chronicle, and these derogatory charges,
levelled no matter at whom, fell on his head.  Dr. Church, the
editor and proprietor of the New York Chronicle, thus disposes
of the string of unprovoked slanders we have quoted:




188          FIDELITY TO GOD IN THlE
"Now the truth is"1. The Board never engaged to give us a thousand dollars
a-yTear.
"X 2. Of the amount which it did agree to pay us, for every
four dollars which come to us, Jive go to Dr. Maclay's son in
payment of services for tile Bible Union.
"3. The space in our paper occupied by the Bible Union
matter, and the copies which we furnish weekly to that organization, bring us about one-half tile amount which we obtain
for the same amount of space and of papers from other sources.
WVe work for the Bible Union at half the rate of our ordinary
prices, and are quite sure that if all its concerns are man/aged
as cheaply, it is one of the most economical organizations in
the world.
6"4. The right to exclude whatever we please from the Bible
Union department of our paper, has been from the first conceded to us by contract, and if it has been "under the absolute
control of the Secretary," it has been so by no fault of ours,
and by no defect in the terms of the agreement. We have not
gone behind the curtain to pry into the manner in which the
Bible Union editor does his duty, but have left him at liberty
to pursue his own course, the same as we do those who advertise with us in getting up the form of their advertisements,
reserving to ourselves the right to exclude whatever we consider not in keeping with the design of our paper.
"We were the more surprised at this part of Dr. MIaelay's
document, inasmuch as it relates to his own son, who had every
means of correcting its mistakes.  If his son has been "under
the absolute control of the Secretary," it belonged to him and
not to us to throw off that control, and to act independently.
If he has not done so, why should the New York Chronicle be
charged with a subserviency inconsistent with its identity and
its diginity?"
Here then we find there is not the shadow of truth in the
statements put forth in this pamphlet for Dr. Mlaclay in this




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.   189
matter, and he is made to state these inventions as seriously
as any of the others, and without any provocation he is made to
assail a son for whom he feels an honest pride. He was not
only made thus to assail his own son, but to withhold even
from him a copy of the pamphlet containing the assault.  On
the 26th of July, after that publication had been in the hands
of the enemies of the Bible Union for three weeks, there was,
under the editorial head of that portion of the Chronicle confided to the care of Maclay's son, an advertisement for a copy
of the pamphlet. The wickedness that has, thus far, withheld
this document from every friend of Revision, while scattering
it freely, with specific injunctions, among the enemies of the
cause, is palpable to every honest heart.  No Christian mind
can approve or sustain such conduct. Are not the four clergymen beginning to feel proud of their new compeer in the war
against a pure version of the Word of God? Is not this comi
peer a beautiful specimen for their endorsement?  Do they not
feel exalted in the honor they enjoyed last week, and shall enjoy
in our book, in leading forth such a character and in introducing
such a being to the people of' Kentucky, as worthy of the clergy's
praise and of the people's love?  We congratulate the immortal four on their discriminating moralities and proprieties.'What vast and unnumbered crimes lie at the door of sectarianism  the enemy alike of God and man!
We have said that the Revision Association investigated
the case of Drs. Maclay and Judd.  It is due to truth to add
that the investigation was commenced with decided leanings
toward Drs. Maclay and Judd, arising fiom an imperfect acquaintance with their case. The Revision Association, early
in June, not only took decided grounds against the Bible
Union, but suspended all appropriations to it, until the Board
of the Association should be convinced of the propriety of the
Bible Union in these matters. Dr. Judd was informed of these
things at the same time that the Bible Union were advised of
t111em.  The Bible Union promptly met the requirements of the




190           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THIE
Revision Association, and by an array of conclusive testimony
established the fact that Dr. Judd was unworthy to be continued as a reviser.  Upon a full hearing of the case, the Board
of the Revision Association, numbering among its members
names that stand as fair as any in this comnmunity, unanimously
sustained the Bible Union in its whole course, and not only
made the usual monthly appropriation, but will largely increase
it. And so triumphant have the clergy been in their victorious
support of what their friends requested them to advocate in the
newspapers, that we have paid for this discussion in the secular
press, and shall probably double our usual appropriation to
the Bible Union for August and September and undoubtedly
through the fall, appropriating one thousand dollars a-month,
instead of five nhundred, the usual sum.  Cannot the five
clergymen be induced to carry on another series of their victories?
And now for the pamphleteer —tthe new compeer of the four
clergymen.  We have already shown fthe utter falsity of his
statements respecting the New York Chronicle.  We ask attention to a few other matters.  Dr. Judd is now the jfictus
aczatles of Dr. Alaclay, but he was the reviser whose work first
aroused the old man's dread of heresy.  It was his revision of
the 11th verse of the 3d chapter of lMattihew that stirred up
the childish apprehensions of Dr. -Maaclay. The old gentleman
received it just as he was starting for Baltimore on a collecting tour, and the supposed heresy so haunted him with spectral
visions that he was unfitted for work.  Dr. Judd's revision is
precisely of the same character as sonce of the specimens from
another reviser for whom Dr. Judd has a great dislike, which}
specimens the old gentleman is made to put forward for condemnation in the pamphlet.  On these esscntial facts tie 1kLclay _p2a, lee is silent, th/us qCarking dist-indctly, it seems to
us, the complicity of D9r. JTcid wit/h the panphlet. We have
the revision of John and i)r. Judd's revision of Matthew before us while we write.




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               191
And here let us pause to ask the reader to look at the
pamphleteer's attack upon the revisers,with the clergy's endorsement, and see how conspicuously the attack proves the fidelity
and integrity of the Bible Union. The old gentleman is made
to appear as busying himself about the work of the revisers,
and about "his faith."  The Bible Union was not established
to revise the Word of God, in acco~rdance wit/h Ir. -Mc]aclay's,faith, but by the laws of philology.  No one has any control
over the revisers, and Dr. Maclay is the first officer of the
Bible Union who has ever attempted to usurp any control over
that body.  It is a glorious fact for the Bible Union that the
first attempt to exercise such usurped power, though made by
the President, was promptly spurned. Neither the President of'
the Bible Union nor any other functionary can interfere with
that tribunal of scholars, which the Bible Union, firom the first,
made independent of any dictation.  If Dr. AMaclay or any
other man loves his prejudices and opinions better than the
laws of philology and the demands of truth, the Bible Union
is no place for him, for it is founded on truth and is governed
in revision by the laws of philology.  It was a curious crotchet of the old gentleman, that while he regarded one of the
best scholars in the Bible Union as incompetent because he did
not revise to suit him, he thought Dr. Judd altogether competent to revise the entire New'"Testament," although Dr.
Judd had made the same heretical revision as that made by
the condemned reviser.  Alas for human infirmity! iLet it not
be forgotten that Dr. 17aclay is mzacle to aclnit that lhe could
not infltlence tlhe scholars of tle Rible lznion to r'evise accord.
ing to his wishes.  And the poor old gentleman is presented
in the pitiable plight of prying into the papers of the revisers,
seizing their immature thoughts, and emblazoning them to the
world as the work of the Bible Union, when they were not the
finished work even of the reviser.  There is not one person on
earth, entitled to the name of gentleman, who could be induced
to father such a deed as this; but the managers of Dr. Maclay




192           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
do not hesitate to present him in this degraded position.  It ii
most shameful.  In the presence of such admissions from an
enemy of the Bible Union as we have quoted, what becomes
of the charge that that body is making a sectarian Bible?
Even the mouths of its enemies are made to speak its praise
and bear testimony to its integrity and faithfulness.
The entire worlk of revision is entrusted to scholars, and not
to the officers of the society.  As soon as Dr. Maclay was
elected president he betrayed his utter unfitness for the station
by undertaking to disturb this vital element of the Bible Union.
Sectarianism is greatly elated just now because Dr. Maclay is
antagonistic to the Bible Union, although his antagonism results mainly from the fact that he could not influence or coerce
the revisers.  But how would the four clergymen rejoice if
they had been told that the revision tribunal was not an independent body, but was under the influence and control of the
president of the Bible Union!  We rejoice that Dr. Maclay
is made to admit that he could not have his own way in this
matter, and on that ground we regard his present enmity as a
boon.  TIe strengthens the reputation of the Bible Union.
But not content with direct interference with the revisers, he
called upon a gentleman in Baltimore, of whose scholarship he
has a most fantastic idea, and requested him to draw up his
views upon the Greek article for the guidance of the revisers:
Let the reader imagine, if he can, a greater insult to such
scholars as Dr. John Lillie, to whose pre-eminent scholarship
the highest authorities among the Pedobaptists bear willing
testimony, Dr. Philip Schaff, Dr. Conant, and such men, each
one of whom could teach the supernumerary instructor more
than lie ever knew of Greek.  But the old gentleman obtained
this wonderful disquisition upon the Greek article, and gravely
placed it before the revisers.  Upon this point we may hereafter be compelled to expose Dr. Judd, over his own hand, but
we leave it now as a specimen of the readinesss of Dr. Maclay
to violate and outrage the fundamental principles of the Bible




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRtIPTURES.    193
Union, and because he could not thus sectaricnise the revision
tribunal, he quit his attendance upon the meetings of the Board.
When he discovered that his pet reviser was in trouble on
account of unfaithfulness to his contract, Dr. AMaclay resigned
his presidency, and, with the assistance of that dismissed
reviser, proceeded to put his threat in execution, by making a
publication which he hoped would ruin the Bible Union. There
never was a time when he could draw the bow of Ulysses, and
his infirmities of mind, body, and temper now place it beyond
his reach.  The Bible Union has enough holiness, integrity,
and fidelity in every duty to God and man, to stand without
injury a great many such blasts as Dr. Judd blows upon Dr.
Mv1aclay's slogan.
That Dr. Judd is the chief machinator of all this war upon
the Bible Union is abundantly evident to any one acquainted
with him, and in him the whole animus is for revengeful purposes.  The peculiarities of the style of the Maclay document
are Dr. Judd7's, and belong to no one else known to us; the
reckless statement of assumed facts, the insinuation of a false
statement that cannot be safely stated openly, and the identity
of mnistalkes in the M3aclay document and in Dr. Judd's speeches
before the Bible Union, point to him  indubitably as the
atuthor.
We had written thus far when we received the response of
the officers of the Bible Union to the Maclay document. We
shall partially avail ourselves of its developments, in addition
to our own matter.
In October, 18555  Dr. Judd was removed from the Comm1iittee on Versions, that committee on which is expended so
mnuch venom in the Maclay pamphlet.  He was appointed cbefore he became a reviser, and he never felt delicacy enough to
resign after he was appointed upon that tribunal.  The other
members of the committee felt themselves hampered by the
presence of a reviser, and complained of it. There was no
reason why, of all other revisers, he alone should be on the
13




1-94          FIDELITY TO GOD I.N TIiE
Committee on Versions.  From the moment of that remolval,
Dr. Judd became incensed against all who were engaged in
his dismission from that committee and against all who approved it, declaring that he would not be put on a level with
the other revisers.  He suddenly seemed to be converted to
Dr. -iMaclay's notions on the 11th verse of the 3d chapter of
Latthew, and thus pleased the old gentleman's vanity. Deacon
Colgate was induced to present a resolution of inquiry as to
the econfomWical working of the Union and on this committee
were placed Dr. Maclay, Dr. Judd, Dr. Judd's brother-in-law,
and seven other members of the Bible Union, representatives
of all the denominations in the Board.  From January down
to June Dr. Juddl kept this committee examining into every
conceivable charge he could invent.  His target for perpetual
crimination was the secretary, just as that functionary is the
target of the pamphlet, and, according to the testimony of all
other men who know him, no purer man lives upon the earth.
Even in the midst of his schemes to ruin the Rev.AW. H.Wyckoff,
Dr. Judd felt himself comlpelled in one of his speeches before
the committee, to bear testimony to the object of his bitter
persecution, in the following ternrs:
" I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the secretary.  I
regard brother WNyckoff with feelings of great personal kindness.  He is in my view the very best secretary in this coun —
try. I know of no one who is better qualified for the position
which he holds. This is more than I am accustomed to speak
in commendation of others; and I only do so now, to meet the
suggestions that have gone abroad, that I am personally hostile
to the secretary.  My estimate of his personal worth, talents,
and ability is equal to that of any of the brethren here present."
Old Father Maclay is made to say that the venerable Deacoll
Colgate sympathised in his views of the condition of the Bible
Union, when he offered the resolution for the creation of the
committee of inquiry. But mark the difference between the




TRANSLATION OF TIlE SCERIPTURES.            195
two men; the inquiry satisfied Deacon Colgate of the folly of
the whole business, and his name appears to the report of the
committee, which pronounced judgment against each and every
charge made by Drs. Judd and Maclay.
Almost the entire mass of the stuff concocted into a pamphlet
for Dr. Maclay's signature was delivered in speeches made by
Dr. Judd before the committee of inquiry.  Iis speeches occupied twenty-seven hours of the time of the committee, and
no public body in this country ever had a more respectable organization for inquiry, Those who love honesty better than
groundless denunciations, may feel gratified in seeing the
truths which defeated Dr. Judd before this respectable committee.  We present a few specimens of the charges which
Dir. Judd made before the committee, and with which Dr. Iaclay's pamphlet is embellished. We present them with their:c-.'utation:
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNION.
"1. That the secretary published the Mionthly Reporter
without authority.
The authority of the Board and the special authority of the
Union in the case were proved fiom the documents.
2. That the secretary and assistant treasurer published the
Quarterly without authority.
The authority both of the Board and Union was proved from
the documents.
3. That the Monthly was a heavy pecunilary loss to the
Union, amounting to hundreds of dollars every month.
It was proved by the written testimony of the printers, the
binder, the purchaser of paper, the mailer, the assistant treasurer who keeps the accounts, and the statements of the accounts
drawn from the books, that, aside from the stereotype plates
of revision which had to be made for other purposes, the publication after deducting all expenses yields us a monthly profit
while it is doing immense good.




'-[g;".      FI~'IDEILITY TO. GODI IN TI{HE
4. That 1500 copies of the Monthly were sent each months
to the Bible Revision Association, and no compensation was
received for them.
It was proved that they were uniformly paid for in cash.
5. That certificates were given to the Bible Revision Association for life membership without payment or money.
It was proved that in each case the money for this purpose
was first received by our treasurer.
6. That the officers freely advertised the Monthly Reporter
in the New York Tribune, tile Times, and other papers withouDt authority.
The economy of such advertising was clearly shown, and the
authority for it proved from resolutions of the Board.
7. That the Secretary had in December, 1854, interfered to
prevent the payment of certain moneys to Dr. Judd.
It was admitted that Dr. Cone, and the Secretary, advised
that no money be paid to Dr. Judd without the presentation
of his bills for the services rendered.
8. That the plates of Job, besides those used in the Montlh'ly, cost the Union "thousands upon thousands of dollars."
Their whole cost when completed was proved from the bills
to be $294 12.
9. That these had been imade without authorlty.
It was proved to have been the joint act of the officers during
Dr. Cone's life (the President, Secretary, and Assistant Treasurer), and to have been in full accordance with the contract
made by the Board, and a great saving of expense to the Union.
10. That it was wrong to send the Quarterly to so many
persons.
It was proved that they were entitled to it as life members
or svbscribers fo- life membership, and that its circulation
among them did:: great good.
11. That the Secretary had changed the policy of the Unioni
by not allowing every revision to be printed and circulated
among scholars.




TRANSLATION OF THIE SCRIPTUR.ES,              197
It was proved that the Secretary had no power or authority
in the matter.  That the Board had establishlled the rule govcrning the case, and the Union had approved it unanimously,
and that tile Secretary had only carried out instructions as in
duty bound."
It can scarcely be necessary for us to go into a minute
examnination of all the criminations made by the pamphlet
against the Bible Union. A general review of them will be
sufficient, for upon all legal principles, inasmuch as we have
positively proved the most scandalous fabrications upon the
author of the pamphlet in relation to the New York Chronicle
and Dr. Mlaclay's son, and in the specimens above, all the rest
of this testifier's statement may be safely set down as worthless. FProm that principle there is no chance of retreat.
The four clergymen loomed out upon the honesty of Win.
II. Wyckoff in urging Father Maclay to go out upon a collecting tour.  They fully endorsed the mendacious pamphlet in
that particular, but knew very little of what they were saying.
The Secretary urged the old gentleman to go, simply because
he had claimed the privilege of doing so in the event of being
elected President, and when the Secretary was urging him  to
go out upon a collecting tour, Dr. MlIaclay was drawing his
salary as a collecting agent of the Bible Union.  And for this
discharge of a simple duty, the Secretary is abused by the
pamphlet, and the abuse is endorsed by the fobur clergymen, as
though he were one of the worst of human beings. Sectarian
members of a church of God said of Jesus, the Christ, that " he
was a Samaritan and had a devil," and their brother sectarians
in Christendom are not behind them in their love of traducing
virtue and merit. What reason had these four clergymen for
calling in question the purity of Winm. H. Wyckoff's character?
They must answer, none.
Upon the conduct of the pampleteer in his infamous reference to the work of the reviser of John's testimony, it is
scarcely possible to be too severe.  Dr. Mlaclay's learning has




198           FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
long been in ruins, and his critical powers are very feeble, but
Dr. Judd had been a reviser and a member of the Committee
on Versions, and well knew the baseness of this conduct in
publishing as Bible Union revisions, specimens which never
had been received by the Bible Union, which had none of the
notes of the reviser required by the Bible Union, upon which
it had not acted in any way, and which had not been published by it. But in order to place the four clergymen and the
pamphleteer in a proper position before the public, we entreat
the reader to compare the specimens of revision, republished
derisively by the four clergymen, with the authorized versio'n:
and he will be able to see that in nearly all the specimens thle
ideas conveyed are identical.  The four clergymen could not
tell what there is objectionable in them if they were to try.
If they are "shocking" in the revised text, are they not so ina
the authorized version?  In some of the passages the grossest
fraud is practiced upon the Reviser of Joln, for we have his
revision before us, printed long before the pamphlet, and he
has made no such revision of them as Dr. Maclay is made to
allege.  Upon this great outrage, the Bible Union thus
speaks:
" The quotations which are professedly made from the work
of a reviser, are sufficiently answered by the fact stated by I)Dr
-Maclay, that the work ihas not been _published, and, therefoire,
the Bible Union is in no way responsible for them.  It may
be added that they do great injustice to the reviser, having
been taken from a copy which was subsequently revised and
materially altered.
"But the propriety, the ncagnanimzity, tthe justice of taking
extracts fromn the work of a reviser without his permission and
publishing them to the world to condemn him before he has
been heard, no man of principle will attempt to sustain.
" To go behind the Bible Union and select obnoxious passages froml its unpublished revisions, and to make these public
for the purpose of injuring its reputation - to go between the




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.               199
reviser acnd his work, and before it has received his corrections
so as to be ready for the public eye, to rudely separate his incipient and undecided changes fromz the reasons by which,
accorwding to the ruldes of the Union, he woould accompany
thema, and thus to endeavor to prejudice the public mind, in
advance, against all the publications of the Union, is a course
of pi'oceeding that can not be justified on any pretense. No one
has ever before attempted such liberties with a reviser of the
Bible Union, and, for the sake of Christian propriety and
gentlemanly courtesy, we hope and pray that it may never be
repeated.
I" The ungenerous imputation -I these are by no means the
most objectionable renderings,' might readily be disposed of'by arguments.  But we think it proper to say, in addition,
that the whole spirit of the pamphlet is so obviously hostile to
the Bible Union, that if any thing worse could have been discovered, it no doubt would have been published."
The old gentleman is made to say, also: "'In this and other
books are some ['objectionable renderings'] which I would
not disclose to the public eye."  That looks like Dr. Judd all
over.  The pamphleteer knows that there is not a shade even
of truth in this insinuated falsehllood, but he desires the public
to see what he cannot show. Dr. Judd himself could see'nothing of the kind himself until he was degraded from a position
he was unworthy to hold among the revisers of the Bible Union.
Neither Dr Judd nor any one else can show one rendering,
accepted by the Bible Union that is unfit for the public eye.
The four clergymen endorse the following: "I found that, in
addition to the shocking translations already referred to, the
misguided hand of the reviser had been rashly laid upon the
oriyinal text." Now what is the original tex t? Where is it?
Who has seen it? We proved in the presence of the four clergymen the grossest corruption in the Greek textus receptuls, and
the four clergymen did not dare to call in question any one
statement that we made. They were utterly unable to meet




200           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
any one point. And we now say, fearless of confutation, that
the condition of the Greek  us xtus receptus is as disgraceful to
the scholarship of this age, as thle state of the English versionz
is to the biblical sciezce of the times; and in the vast number
of' shocking translations" we have summoned from that, in its
gross absurdities and glaring contradictions, the four clergymze
have not been able to ficnd a single p2lce on whZic/ to make a defiense. If they will now undertake to defend either the received
Greek text or the authorized version against the palpable proofs
we have brought against both, we will keep our book open
one week longer for them. This might enable them to enlighten
the public mind and improve the public heart, much more than
their scandalous attacks upon the characters of the officers of
the Bible Union, who possess as good a reputation as they do,
as good as we admit that is.  We can produce more than five
hundred passages from the authorized version, not one of which
can be defended in any way by the four clergymen.  When
they can meet this charge they may then begin to talk about
"the shocking translations" of the Bible Union, which they
do not even pretend they have seen!  Now, gentlemen, if you
desire space in our book, that you can fill with honor to yourselves and profit to your readers, take up this proposition.
But look at these facts: the pamphleteer makes Dr. Maclay
say that the revisers are incompetent.  When Protestants
fight Roman Catholics they call this Jesuitism, and it certainly
contains all the elements of that species of wickedness. The
old man is made to say, that he could no longer assure the
people that the Bible Uniion had competent scholars in its
employment. Now, if this is true, the old man and his fiiend
Dr. Judd have been bearing false testimony for years.; Only
two years since, Dr. Judd assured the meeting of the Revision
Association at Nashville, of the fullness and competency of the
tribunal of revision, as may be seen in a subsequent part of
this article. The incompetency never was discovered until
Dr. Judd was dismissed.  Since Dr. Judd made that IReport




TRANSLArION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                201
to the Nashville meeting in 1854 there ihas been but little
change made in the Board of revisers, save the addition of a
few names, the competency of which even Dr. Judd would not
have the face to challenge.  If the Bible Union has not competent scholars, it is because the highest authorities among the
Presbyterians and Episcopalians deceived us in the testimony
which they gave us in behalf of those scholars we employed
in their ranks.  The Bible Union has published a numnber of
important specimens of revisions, such as the minor Epistles,
tlhe Book of Revelations, the two Letters to the Thessalonians,
and the Book of Job. Upon these the best scholars in Europe
and America have spoken in terms of the highest admiration.
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians have alike borne
testimony to the ezcelleznce of ever"y 9revisio.nz pblish/ed by the
Bible Union.  Where is the justice or decency in assailing
what the Bible Union has not yet accepted or published? And
what fairness is there in insinuating incompetency, when Dr.
Judd could refer to no reviser by name, in the employment of
the Bible Union, that could not stand every test of scholarship
that he can, and the pamphlet makes Dr. Maclay raise him to
the highest pinnacle?  It is disgraceful that men can descend
to such depths of wrong as these.  If the Bible Unmionz's
_Board of  evisers ccare inzcomnpetent, it is becatuse nezeil/er Eu0rop
nor Amnerica canzfurnish. competent mzen.  The world ascribes
to some of the men in that tribunal the first rank in scholarship,
and no man can successfully challenge that fact.  As the four
clergymen endorsed Dr. Judd, they are of course now prepared
to settle.  Their bill has gone to protest and they must now
settle their draft, or lose credit.
The four clergymen quoted the paltry remarks of the pamphlet about the salary of Dr. Conant.  We rejoice that we
belong to a society that honors scholarship with liberal remuneration; and if Dr. Conant were receiving five times the
amount lie receives from the B3ible Union, it would be no more
than he deserves.  Dr. Iaclayj thought thus of Dr. Conant




4202          FIDELITY TO GOD IN TiIE
until he was hounded on after that great luminary of learning.
On the 7th of March, 1856, Dr. Mlaclay, while President of'
the Bible Union, wrote to Dr. Conant that his desire was 1"to
increase his salary to $3000 per annum, and to pay any assistant he might choose, provided Dr. Maclay's plan of revision could be carried out."  And, reader, what do you think
that plan was? —To dismiss all the scholars employed by the
Bible Union, and employ Dr. Judd and an assistant to revise
the New Testamnent!  When the reader comes to learn that'
Dr. Judd's revision of three chapters of 3Matthew's Gospel
hlas cost him nearly three years' labor, and that he is the only
one upon whom any one can say the money of the Bible Union
has been wasted, the richness of Dr. ]Maclay's ideas of revision
will be palpable.
But the averment which the pamphlet makes for Dr. iMaclay
about Dr. Conant's salary, is falsely stated.  His salary is
$1500, and $500 additional are allowed him for an amanuensis. Dr. Conant employs his wife in that capacity.  She is
the author of the finest history of early translations of the
English Bible that has ever been written.  She is also the
translator of several of Neander's works, and reads and writes
eight or ten languages, including the oriental biblical tongues.
hUnder what other circumstances could the Bible Union enjoy
the use of such learning and ability for the paltry sum of
$2000?  The cheeks of the pamphleteer and of the four clergymen  should tingle whenever they think of their complicity
in the wrong done to Dr. Conant.
We shall not dwell on Dr. M3aclay's course in failing to exercise his influence in correcting the evils which lie imagined
in the Bible Union, nor upon the demonstrative proofs of Dr.
Judd's authorship of his pamphlet, further than to say, that
although Dr. Maclay has been made to say that whatever his
name is signed to is his own, yet, as we know that Dr. Judl
has often written articles which appeared before the public as
Dr. Maclay's, and also knzow that the late John L. Waller




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES,               202
wrote articles which appeared in publication with A. MAaclay's
name appended to them, we understand the full merit of the
claim that what he signs his name to is his own. Among the
r'easons for Dr. -3Iaclay's resignation, the pamphlet makes
1lim give Dr. Judd's dismission from the Board of revisers.
The resignation was written on the 13th of May, and Dr.
Judd's dismission took place on the 1st of June.
On the subject of the forty revisers, Dr. Maclay is made to
say that he found there were only twenty-three or four.  Yet
he published in Great Britain the following: "Distinguished
scholar.; are employed by the American Bible Union in the
revision of the common version. Written contracts have been
made with more than twenty scholars; and many of these, in
compliance withl the stipulations, have made engagements with
others to work with them; so that the number of scholars actually engaged in tihe service of the Union does not vary far
from forty."  Alas for the old man's memory!  And Dr.
Judd, the author of this attack upon the Bible Union, as
chairman in a committee in a Revision Association meeting at
Nashville, April 7th, 1854, reported: " Some forly or yffty
scholars, connected with several evangelical denominations,
hlave been employed in this country and in Europe, either
wholly or in part." Dr. Judd was a member of the Committee on Versions when lie made this report; and he must have
then borne false testimcny, or lie is doing it now, if, as we
hlave abundant reason for thinking, he prepared this charge for
Dr. AMaclay, and he can take his choice of the two horns of
the dilemma. Out of his own mouth we convict him of attempting to destroy the Bible Union by the most flagitious
conduct; and the four clergymen endorse the work!
The pamphlet makes Dr. Maclay mourn over the change in
the Committee on Versions; and yet the only mournful change
was the removal of Dr. Judd from it-one of the most righteous of the acts of the Bible Union.
The general plan of the Bible Union has commanded the con



204            FiDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
fidence of the myriads of friends of revision. It was projected
by Dr. Cone, and deserves the admiration of every honest
mnind.  Soon after Dr. Maclay's election, it was discovered
that he had an intense dislike for the menlory of Dr. Cone;
and his friend Dr. Judd advised that the name should not be
mentioned in his presence.  This envious dislike of Dr. Cone
is the reason for the old gentleman's desire to revolutionize the:Bible Union, which he hoped. to accomplish when lie stepped
into Dr. Cone's place; and when hlie found that lie could not
do that, he hoped to blow it into ruins.
The attacks made by the pamphlet on the. Commnittee oa
Versions have already been accounted for.  That committee
has no such powers, claims no such privileges, and can exercise
no suchll authority, as the pamphlet falsely alleges it claims.
One answer to all the allegations about the committee is sufficient:; IFl/le Dr. Juclcd  waCS pe.zrmitted to be on it, he never
utterel a compl'int against it; its horrible character revealed
ttsef o7nly tfler Dri. Jetcld's rmemnoval fromn it. It deserves alnd
should command the confidence of all friends of a pure version
of thle Holy Oracles.  The one-man power ascribed to WT. H.
Wyckoff is a fabrication arising from  Dr. Judd's intense
dislike for that honest, faithful, and meritorious officer.
On the financial matters of the Bible'Union, the following
facts are a sufficient answer to the Mlaclay pamphlet.
" In respect to the financial department of the Union, tIle
following'facts will entirely remove the injurious impression
sought to be. made by the pamphlet.
"1. The Corresponding Secretary has no control over thle
treasury.
"2. He seldom receives any money, except what comes in
letters addressed to hini; and all such money, witll the letters,
lie inmmediately passes to the Assistant Treasurer.
"' 3. M{oney can not be. taken from the. treasury except by
tile Treasurer's check; and this is never given except upon
the written warrant of the Assistant Treasurer.




TRANSLATION OF THIE SCRIPTfURES. (o)
"4. The warrants are made out in accordance with the act.sf
of the Board, which are certified to the Treasurer by the;
minutes of the Board.
" 5. In no insta nce has ihe Corresponding Secretary been
known to interfere with the treasury department, or to clainm
or to exercise control over it."
On account of the length of this communication, we are
compelled to omit a notice of some matters connected with the
pamphlet, especially upon the causes of Dr. Judd's dismission
fromt the service of the Bible Union; but we shall supply the
omissions in the book edition of this article.*  The four clergymen have also endorsed the statements of the faclay pamphlet which filsely allege that the Bible Union has squandered
the funds entrusted to it. In return for this courtesy, we may,
in the book edition, look into a little piece of machinery iln
which some of these clergymen officiate as leading spirits; and
if they can show as satisfactory documents as the Bible Union,
they will deserve praise.
But we turn to the four clerg'ymen for a diffeikent item lnow in
the account between us.  You, gentlemen, have attempted to
arrest an enterprise which enjoys the approbation of Heaven, if
any thing on earth does. You have never established one fact
against the Bible Union, nor have you found it possible, as
scholars, to defend King James's version, nor can any man do
it. We have shown that it was made from an imperfect and
corrupted Latin text; that it has many omissions from it of
the things of the Holy Spirit, and many interpolations of
matter that the Holy Spirit never dictated.  It has numerous
contradictions which the genuine text does not countenance.
And you, gentlemen, are engaged in an effort to palm these
off upon the community as the Word of God.  Your ownu
brethren of the British and Foreign Bible Society denounce
~those numberless errors; and you can not, in the presence of
Se page'209.




206           FIDELITY  TO GOI) IN TIlE
scholars, nor before an intelligent people, make any defense of
that version.  Instead of such a defense as would command
the approbation of scholars, win the love of the people, and be
in ulnison with the spirit of Christ, you devote your time,
learning, and talents to the abuse, villification, and misrepresentation of all who are honestly engaged in an effort tc(
amend the great sin, the crying evil of the times-the want of
a pure version of the Word of God.  This may do for those
most miserable paltry things, the partizan religious presses; it
is their vocation; and nothing good, noble, or magnanimous,
need be looked for froom  them.  And now, gentlemen of thl
clergy, look your lan-guage full in the face, ponder upon it in.
your hours of repose, think of it in your pulpits, meditate
upon it in auditing your accounts as stewards, for you have to
undergo that auditing.  Because Drs. Mlaclay and Judd have
accused tihe Bible Union of mismanagement and the employment of incompetent revisers, you say:
4 "We think the same public will say, as they come to understand it all, that such a scheme of tampering with the WTord
of' God, and abusing the credulity of His people, richly entitles itself' to derision and contempt."
Look at your woiJrd~s calmly and soberly. They are the very
impertinence and insolence of sectarianism directed against the
aims, purposes, motives, and acts' of thousands of people at
least equal to you in learning, in piety, in holiness, in all good
deeds, in all that ennobles humanity and gives dignity to man,
and in the estimation of the communities in which they dwell.
Arid about such people, in the presence of an intelligent, sounld,inquiring public sentiment, you dared, in clerical arrogande, to
utter such lanorage.
But if, as you say, misnimahagement by the overseers of
revision and incompetency of some of its revisers mark "suclh
a scheme of tampering with the Word of God, and abusing
the credulity of Its (?) people, which richly entitles itself to
derision and contempt," does not your logic show you that you




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTUR:ES,    207
and your cause are clown beyond redemption? It is notorious
to you, gentlemen, that the revisers of King James's version
were exceedingly incompetent, they made versions of multitudes of passages of the Holy Oracles which no scholarship can
tolerate or excuse. You have repeatedly admitted the incompetenzcy of Iing Jcamnes's revisers by acknzowzleclying the dcqfects
of the version.  Some of them were preachers of what you
denounce as the leading doctrines of Rome.  So much for the
revisers.
Bancroft, that abandoned wretch, and King Jamens, were
the overseers and managers of the revisers, and King James
was the 7fial reviser of the authorized version.  IHe is well
known as one of the most profane wretches of his age, "the
most greedy, blood-thirsty, and contemptible of all recorded
klings."  HIe was a combination of the tiger, the leech, and
the monkey-at once monster and mountebank. But all ideas
formed of him by those who have never read Mr. Pitcairn's
researches among the law records of Scotland, are milk and
water compared with those developments.  WVe present a few
examples of the pastimes of this holy FnTzal re viser of the book
which the four clergymen call the word of God.  A Mr.
Tennant dropped two' pasquils" or notes on a church floor.
which reflected on his gracious majesty.  The sentence of
this "reviser" was, that Francis Tennant should have his
tongue cut out by the root, and then taken to the gallows and
hanged "till he be dead," and all his goods were escheated to
the Crown.
A constable. in disttraining some poor man for debt, seized a
miserable daub of a painting, purporting to be a " portraiture"
of his gracious majesty.  On the day of sale, wishing to hanlg
the'"portraiture" where it could be seen by the bidders, lihe
was about to drive a nail in a beam to hang the portrait on,
but a fiiend warned him, and he did not do it. But the matter
came to tile'6reviser's" ears - the intention was enough. He
was tried and found guilty of the intention, and the King's




08            FIDELITY TO GOD INT -T:I:E
sentence was, that he should be hanged till lhe was dead, on
the beam where he intended to hang the " portraiture," and all
his goods were escheated to the Crown.
A Polish gentleman visited Scotland, and was much derided
anld abused by the people.  When he got back home he wrote
a book, which was not very complimentary to the Scotch.
James read it, sent an embassador to Poland, demanded the
author, obtained him, and hung him.
A poor half-witted clergyman from Scotland went to London, affixed a -" thesis " to St. 3Tary's door, setting forth that
all Scotchmen, except his gracious majesty and his son, should
be driven firom England. It was carried to James, and he
ordered that the writer's right hand should be struck off, and
then his head, and his goods were esclheated to the Crown.
Such is a part of the character of the manager, overseer, and
final reviser of that immaculate version, over which the five
clergymen have wasted so much ink. That cold, narrow, ferocious, tyrannical, and depraved mind, filled to overflowing
wvith the idea that James was King by right divine, presided
over the- authorized version from its inception until its publication by royal authority; and those royal hands, dripping with
the blood of hundreds of innocent human beings,, gave the final
touches to this immaculate version, as the four clergymen consider it.  And now, gentlemen, take your own pill - the revisers of your version were so incompetent that you cannot
defend them, and you acknowledge their incompetency; the
overseer and manager of the work, and its final reviser, was a
meaner tyrant than Caligula or Nero; he was one of the most
ferocious and selfish wretches that ever disgraced the human
race  he was steeped in all conceivable wickedness; and, according to the logic you impertinently framed for the worik f'
the Bible Union, the authorized version, made by such characters as we have drawJvn from the records of history, betrays the
existence of ":such -a scheme of tampcring' with the Word of
God, and abus'ing the crzedulity of hAis eoj)le, as richly en



TREANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.    209
titles itself to derision and contempt."  Gentlemen of the cIergy,
shall a waiting public have the honor and pleasure of hearing from you again — on the machinery of making versions?
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
Bible Revision Rooms, July 29, 1856.
NOTE REFERRED TO ON PAGE'205.
FATHER MACLAY is made to say: that Dr. Judd was induced by Dr.
Cone, Dr, Armitage, and Rev. Mr. Wyckoff to relinquish his post as ain
editor, and become a reviser. It would be difficult to. prove that there is
any accuracy in this statement.  And the old gentleman is made to assume, that the contract for revising Matthew's gospel was for any length
of time that Dr. Judd might choose to loiter over it.
But this statement is far from being accurate, as the following official
history of these special matters will show:
At a meeting of the Board, held May 3d, 1854, the Committee reported, and
upon their recommendation it was
Resolved, That we authorize the Committee on Versions to make an arrangement
with Rev. 0 B. Judd, LL. D., to devote his time and attention exclusively to the
business of revision, and the passing of parts through the press as. they shall
severally be prepared, at a salary not to exceed $15)00 per annum.
In accordance with the authority given in the above resolution by the Board,
the Committee on Versions, on the 24th of May, 1854, made an arrangement with
him, by the adoption of the following:
Resolved, That we hereby agree with Bro. Judd (who is present, and unites ise
lthe agreement) that he be, and he is hereby, engaged in the service of the Bible
Union, for one year, from and after the first of June next, in accordance with the
resolution upon the subject, adopted by the Board at its last meeting.
The following report made by the Committee on Versions to the Board, June,
1856, presents the facts of the case.
We deeply regret that we are compelled, by the statements of this pamphlet, to
publish such facts in vindication of the Bible Union; but Drs. Maclay and Judd
force upon us this painful necessity by their defective and erroneous representation
of the case:
REPORT ON THE DISMISSAL OF DR. JUDD AS A lREVISER.
The Sub-Committee that was introduced to prepare a history of the connection
of Brother Judd with the Bible Union, as one of its Revisers, and to give the
14




210               FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIIE
reasons which influenced the Committee to notify him that their contract with him
was no longer in force, present the following as their report:
Your Committee feel that a clear view of all the facts that have a bearing on
the relation Dr. Judd sustains to the Bible Union, as one of their revisers, is necessary to prepare us to act in the case before us. They, therefore, submit the
following statement:
On the 29th of October, 1852, Rev. O. B. Judd expressed his willingness, in
writing, to revise the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, in connection with Rev. Dr.
--, for the sum of one thousand dollars for each Gospel, for the services of
both revisers.
On the 19th of November, 1852, he specified in writing, one thousand dollars as
compensation for the revision of the Gospel of Matthew, the work to be done by
himself.
On the 1st day of December, 1852, the Gospel of Matthew was assigned to him'by the Board to " revise at a compensation of one thousand dollars."
Under the above contract, he was paid:
February 10, 1853.................................................$100
April 5........................................................... 150
August 1..........................................................   100
Total.............................................   $350
On the 3d of May, 1854, the Board authorized the Committee on Versions " to make.arrangements with Rev. O. B. Judd to devote his time and attention exclusively
to the business of revision and the passing of the parts through the press, as they
shall severally be prepared, at a salary not to exceed $1500 per annum."
On the 24th of May, 1854, the Committee on Versions availed themselves of the
discretion given to them, and Dr. Judd being present, they engaged him " in the
service of the Bible Union, for one year from and after the 1st of June next (June
1, 1854), in accordance with the resolution upon the subject adopted by the Board
at its last meeting."
On the 3d of June, 1854, he drew $125 in advance on this salary, and has regularly drawn his salary since; making, in all, the sum of three thousand dollars
drawn on this salary.
At Dr. Judd's request, Mr.  -    was employed to aid him in the revision of
Matthew; and from  January 1st, 1854 till August 1st, 1854, seven months, MIr.
labored upon that Gospel, at the cost of the Bible Union of $583 33.
The aggregate of moneys thus paid to Dr. Judd, and for his aid in the revision
of Matthew, is $3983 33.
The reader will observe that this sum has been drawn from  the Treasury of the Bible Union for three chapters of Matthew, by a gentleman
who originally contracted to revise the entire twenty-eight chapters for
one thousand dollars. And in one breath Father Maclay is made to complain of the Bible Union for squandering the money entrusted to it, and
in another breath he is made to mourn lugubriously because the Bible
Union would not squander its funds on Dr. Judd! Assuredly the legs of
the lame are never equal.  Dr. Maclay is made to forget the laws oJ
Christianity, so far as to intimate a suit-at-law on the bond.  But the
time has past for forcing money again from the pockets of friends of the




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.    211
Bible Union by threats of this kind.  If Dr. Judd feels like appealing to
Cmesar, he will be met at Cmsar's tribunal in this second effort. But again,
respecting this $3983 33, the official report says:
For this sum the Board has received from Brother Judld the first three chiaete,-s
of MIatthew revised, and nothing more.  These were printed in September, 1855.
On the 5th of February.. 1856, the Committee on Versions appointed Brethren
I aker and Sarles o sub-committee, to ascertain the condition of the work of e:ach'
Reviser laboring in the rooms of the Bible Union, and the prospect of the conlpletion of each of their revisions. The committee addressed a copy of the same to,each of the revisers, requesting information upon these points. The others an.
swvered pronmptly and satisfactorily, but Brother Judd made no reply.
After waiting several weeks, the sub-committee addressed a second note to hinm,
repeating the request.
To this note the sub-committee received replies, dated March 29th, 1856. In
these replies to Brethren Baker and Sarles, he communicated no information (except what was already in the possession of the Committec) in regard to the condition of his work and the prospect of its completion, but he very unnecessarily
occupied his own time, and the attention of the Committee, with uncalled for comr
parisons and calculations about the work of other revisers. In these comparisons
and calculations, Dr. Judd seemed to take it for granted, that he would be justified
n spending as much time on a narrative as upon an epistle of the same length;
as much time on one book as upon several books of the same number of pages,
and as much time upon one author as upon six, provided the number of pages is
the same. The fallacy of those comparisons was so evident that the Committee
considered that it would be a waste of time to attempt a formal refutation; but
they could not fail to be struck with the inference that Dr. Judd seemed to wish
us te draw from his calculations, viz., that if he spend some years longer upon the
revisions of Matthew, the Board will have no reason to complain.
The Committee on Versions instructed the sub-committee, on the 28t1h of April,
1856, to inform Brother Judd that his reply was not satisfactory, and to request
tisitinct information upon the condition of his revision and the prospect as to its:omnpletion. His second letter was as unsatisfactory as the first.
From these letters received from Brother Judd, it is evident that he does not
design to give the committee any information about the probable time which he
yet expects to occupy, before handing in his revision of Matthew.
On the 8th of May, 1856, the Chairman of the Committee on Versions received
thle following note from the Assistant Treasurer:
AMERICAN BIBLE UNION RooMes,
No 350 Broome street, NTew York, May 18, 1856. 1
Rev. SAMUEL BAKER, D,D.,
Chairman of the Committee on Versions - American Bible Union.
DEAR BROTHER: - Our Treasurer is now absent from the city, and will not
probably return before the close of the ensuing month.
I notice at the last Board meeting, that the Committee of which you are Chairman expressed dissatisfaction with the progress, etc., of the reviser of Matthew.
As compensation in this case, under the authority given by the Board, requires the..pproval of the Version Committee, will you have the goodness to communicate
io me my proper course of action in the matter.
Very truly yours,   C. A. BUCKBEE, Assistant Treasurer.




212               FIDELITY TO GOD IN THE
Under these circumstances the Committee are compelled to investigate the subject, and to express their views to the Board.
As Brother Judd refuses to give any information about the probable time of
completing the work assigned him, the Committee are obliged to deduce that information, to the best of their ability, from the' circumstances that have characterized his proceedings in revision, from the commencement of his work under a
salary up to the present date. On this subject, we call attention to the following
facts:
1. Notwithstanding the express stipulation of the Board, that he should " devote
his time and attention exclusively to the work of revision and the passing of the
parts through the press, as they shall severally be prepared," he did from the Ist
of June, 1854 to the 1st of January, 1855, - seven months of the time in which
he drew his full salary as ta reviser - edit and publish the New York Chronicle,
and keep its pecuniary accounts.
2. During the last six months, Brother Juddc is known to have occupied a
large portion of his time and attention in other investigations than those connected with the revision of 3Matthew, and to have had his mind deeply absorbed
and excited on other subjects, as has been clearly manifested at the meetings of
the Committee of Inquiry, and at the meetings of our Board. Your Committee
consider it absolutely impossible for a man who suffers so much of his time to be
thus employed, and his mind to be so much excited and absorbed in other matters,
to "' devote his time and attention exclusively to the work of revision."
3. Your Committee are painfully impressed with the conviction that Dr. Judd,
by suffering his mind to be so much excited and absorbed in other matters, in a
great measure unfits himself for his work as a reviser. The circular which he
saw fit to publish, calling in question the acts of the Board and of the Committee on V ersions, and which he has circulated among friends and foes, and the
spirit exhibited in his correspondence, as in the letters before us, evince his condition of mind, and show the want of that calm composure which characterizes
a mind all of whose powers are acting in sweet harmony under the influence of
the Divine Spirit. We renrind our revisers, in the action of our Board, of their
need of "the sanctifying presence and power of the Holy Spirit," and of their
duty to pray for the' promised indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit;" but
that heavenly guest will not take up its abode in a mind disturbed in its depth by
its indignant feelings, or thrown out of its composure by the tumult of inward
agitation. The business of revision requires entire abstraction from other pursuits,
and the quiet and calm devotion of the mind to study; while a mind constantly
excited and absorbed in other matters is unfitted for this work, and indisposed for
prayer and the enjoyment of that aid of the Spirit which is necessary in revising
the Scriptures.
4. While Dr. Judd refuses to give the committee any information in regard to
what are the prospects as to the time of the completion of his work, and pleads
his inability to do so, it should be borne in mind, that as long ago as the 1st of
August, 1853, he seems honestly to have believed that one third of his whole work
was done; for he, then drew from the treasury a little more than a third of the sum
for which he had contracted to do the whole work. If he did not believe then that
one third of his whole work was done, he had no right to draw $350 (more than
one third of what was to be paid for the whole work) from the treasury. If he did
believe it, is it not strange that at this period, when so much time has elapsed
since, and when for tw-o years he has been employed  nder a stipulatior, that he




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.    213
should devote his time and attention exclusively to this work, and has been drawing a salary of $1500 a-year, the completion of the other two thirds of the work is
still so far in the distance that its length can not be measured, or even the probable time of the completion of the work ascertained? The one third of the workl
cost the Bible Union $350; the other two thirds have already cost the Bible Union
$3633 33, and the end of it can not be seen yet. The aid of Mr    - for seven
mnonths, in addition to the two years' labor, has failed to secure this end.
Such is the history of the connection of Bro. Judd with the Bible Union as one
of its revisers; and influenced by the considerations presented in this report, as
the Board left it to the discretion of the Committee on Versions to contract for the
services of Dr. Judd; and as the committee, acting under the instructions of the
Board; contracted for his services " for. one yearl  only, and as a second year has
just expired, the committee felt it to be their duty to notify Dr. Judd that their
contract with him is no longer in force, and instructed their chairman to give him.
notice to that effect.
SAMUEL BAKER,
J. W. SARLEs,
Sat b- Comzzttee.
In one of his letters to the sub-committee, Dr. Judd makes free to enter into a
lengthened discussion of the comparative remuneration received by himself and
the reviser of the last six books of the New Testament, which so preverts true
history, and reasons so sophistically, that it is necessary to say a word or two
in passing  For instance, he assumes that the work he has done on AMatthew's
Gospel was fully equal in labor to all that this reviser had accomplished in the
service of the Bible Union, and consequently, that he was entitled to equal remuneration. It is but necessary to say, that the reviser of the last six books of the
New Testament had completed his work, up to this time, in the following order:
First, he had given in the firstf ive books of the six, and had edited them while
passing through the press. Then he proceeded to complete the Book of Revelation,
and went over the five published books the second time, with the aid of criticisms
from many living scholars, and a much larger apparatus of critical works, and sawthe five books through the press in a second edition, twice the size of the first in
point of philological notes and authorities, in connection with the publication of this
revision of the Revelation. Besides this, the saine reviser had finished his revision
of the first and second Epistles to the Thessalonians, and put them through the press,
and had nearly finished his revision of the first Epistle of Peter, which he has since
completed. Now, the absurdity of Dr Judd's claim, in this respect will appear
at once, when we state that all that the'Union has ever received from him, as a
reviser is the first three chapters of the Gospel according to Matthew, and his
labor in superintending their printing. But add to this the consideration that the
difficulties of translating a Scripture narrative are not comparable to those to be
measured in translating an epistle, that the labor of mastering the style of Matthew
is small compared with that of mastering the several styles of Peter and Paul and
Jude and John and the very peculiar style of John in the Book of Revelation; and
that the present condition of the original text of the Book of Revelation presents
innumerable more difficulties than that of Matthew. He was equally wrong, in
point of labor. in comparing his translation of the three chapters of Matthew with
that of other revisers who had gone through whole epistles. In any comparison,
therefore, justly made, with all the facts before the mind, it will be seen that he
Ilas received flar more for his labors than any other reviser.




2I14             FIDELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
This history is closed by the following resolutions, adopted July 2, 1856  It is
sufficient to add, that Dr. Judd intimated to the Board, in person, his purposo not
to deliver the manuscripts described in the resolutions, and it was upon this intimation that the resolutions.were passed. They were forthwith communicated to
him in writing, and an official written application made for the manuscripts. but
he persists in retaining tLhem.
~WHurxEAs, We are informed by Mr   -- that the manuscript revision of the
first fourteen chapters of Matthew, made by him for the Board of the American
Bible Union, while in its employ, is now in the hands of Rev. 0. B. Judd; and
we are informed that Mr -   - has applzed for it to Bro. Judd, and been unable
to obtain it, and whereas, this msanulscript having been made solely at the expense?f the Union, by the aid of its library, at its rooms, and sith materials furnished
by it, belon, s, of r ight, exclusisEely to the Board of the American Bible Union, and
is needed in the prosecution of its cork; - therefore,
Resolved, That the Corresponding Secretary be instructed to make written application to Bro. Judd for the manuscript revision, now in his possession. of the
first fourteen chapters of Matthew, made by Mr.       for the Board of the
American Bible Union, and for which he has received from the Board the stum of
$583 33.
And whereas, Bro. Judd retains the manuscript revision of the Gospel: of Matthew, made by himself for the Board of the American Bible Union -7while in its
employ; and whereas, this manuscript having been made solely at the expense of
tile Board, and in its rooms, and with materials furnished by it, and with the aid
of its library, belongs of right and exclusively to the Board of the American Bible
Union, and is needed in the prosecution of the work - - therefore,.Resolved, That the Corresponding Secretary be instructed to make written application to Brother Judd for the manuscript revision of Matthew, made by him
for the Board of the American Bible Union, and for which he received from this
Board the sum of $3350.
After this clear and satisfactory history of Dr. Judd's contracts, and
his extraordinary course in relation to them, the readler can be at no loss
to ascertain from whence came the idea that Dr. Judd could devote any
number of years he might choose to Matthew's narrative, and draw $125
per month, for an indefinite period of time, from  the treasury of the
Bible Union.  And it is from such accusers, that the charge of squandering is made against the Bible Union! If all the employees of the Bible
Union had acted in this way, the Treasury of the United States could not
have met the demands; and the age of Methuselah would not have been
sufficient for the completion of the work of revision.  Drs. Maclay and
Judd are admirable lecturers upon the economies of the Bible Union.
Father'Maclay has taken a heavy load on his shoulders in undertaking,
at his age, to carry Dr. Judd through his own unprovoked warfare upon
the cause'of Revision.




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES,                215
A P P E ND I X.
BIBLE' REVISION.
THE following article was, as the reader may perceive,
written for the Nashville Christian Advocate, the editor of
which declined publishing it.  It was sent to the Bible Revi —
sion Association, and placed at our disposal, and we cheerfully
place it before the readers of this Discussion.
JAMES EDMUNDS.
T. S. BELL.
To THE NASHVILLE CHRIS-TIAN ADVOCATE.
"ALudi alteram partem."
MIR. EDITOR.:- As you have published so much in opposition to the "Revision" of the Scriptures by the "American
Bible Union," I feel sure from the knowledge I have of your
candor and courtesy, that you will also admit into your paper
something in its favor, and that, too, by one who claims to be
a "'Methodist minister," but by no means a "distinguished"
one. If you send forth into the world the criticisms of those
who judge of that performance from what has been "told"
them, you certainly will not refuse a place to a few remarks
fiom one who has read with the utmost care nearly every verse
issued by that society hitherto, comparing it with King James's
translation and the original, and weighing well every reason
assigned in the notes for the alterations that- have been made.
You are aware that, besides nearly all; the book of Job, six
books of the New Testament were: published some time ago,,




216           FIDELITY  TO GOD IN THE
with this notice prefixed: "This revision is not final.  It is
circulated in the expectation that it will be subjected to a
thorough criticism, in order that its imperfections, whatever
they are, may be disclosed and corrected." I have been in the
habit for more that twenty years of using different versions
both of the Old and New Testament, collating them with the
originals and IKing James's translation, with a sincere desire
to ascertain the exact sense of the Spirit of God in every passage, divesting myself as much as possible of all prepossessions
and prejudice, and I am constrained to declare that the version
hitherto issued by the "Bible Union," so far as it goes, is most
decidedly and conspicuously superior to them all.  This my
judgment and conscience would compel me to acknowledge,
even if it had proceeded from the Shakers or Mormons.
The: " Bible Union" may have set out with a wrong motive
and an unjustifiable intention. The desire to make it appear
that "immersion" is the only legitimate mode of introducing
persons into Christ's Church may have given rise to it; but
whatever may have been its design in the beginning, I am well
convinced that if it publish the remainder of the Sacred Books
with the same fidelity and scrupulous adherence to the original
observed hitherto, it will confer an incalculable benefit on the
many millions who use the English language throughout the
world.  I speak not of the other versions published by this
society in French, Italian, &c., for the simple reason that I
have not examined them; having read somewhere that "He
who answereth a matter before. he heareth it, it is folly and
shame unto him."  Persons who have not read a single chapter of the "revision," nay, some who have not seen it, have
raised and are daily raising, a senseless lhue and cry against it.
This is unwise, unjust, and, moreover, uncharitable and unchristian.  They are impeaching the motives of those engaged
in the work, taxing them with ignorance, bigotry, malice, &c.,
without'any knowledge whatever of the individuals. Surely
it is "folly and shame" unto those who do so.  Now, aftuer




TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.                  7
having, as already stated, perused most scrutinizingly all that
has yet been printed, nearly seven books, I am utterly'unab.le
to determine to what denomination of Christians the translators
belong.  One writer stigmatises them as " New Version Tinkers."  Tinkers, indeed! I think I can judge by a mlan s
writings whether he is a scholar or not; and if the gentlemen
who have given us these seven books in English dress are not
scholars, and accurate, thorough, profound scholars, I know not
in what country we are to find such.  "The works that they
(0o bear witness for them;"  and, according to the highiest authority, this testimony ought to satisfy all. 1But ignorance
and bigotry are both very unreasonable things, and it is useless for any mrn or society of men to aim at quieting their
clamor.
These translators, too, have evidently availed themsel-ves
of every aid, consulting not only all the English versions from
Tyndal's down to the present day, but those made in many
other languages also, as Syriac, Ethiopic, Slavonic, Dutch,
German, Spanish, Italian, French, &c., besides all the lexicographers and grammarians of any note.  They frequently refer to Clarke and Wesley as authorities for some of the chanoges
made.  Who that reads the Bible in the original languagec
does not know that a revision is imperatively, absolutely de.manded?  I venture the assertion that there is hardly a paragraph in our common English Bible, from the first chapter of
Genesis to the last of Revelation, that is not capable of amend-ient.  The version was good for the acge in which it iwas cxe-,
cuted, but it is very far from being' so now.  Who can for a
moment believe that no progress has been made in ]biblical
criticism, in the space of nearly two hundred and fifty years?
Dr. Adam Clarke tells us that this science was, in King J1ames's
time, "in its infancy, if indeed it had begun to exist."  Whoever has read his commentary with care has found thousands
of corrections of the common version, and no very civil epithets
app!ied to many of the passages so corrected; such as c. n-on



218            FIDELITY  TO GOD IN TIHE
sensical," "absurd," "no translation at all."  And instead of
King James's version of Isaiah - one of the most sublime and
evangelical, but, unfortunately, one of the worst translated
bhooks in the Bible - he informs us he came very near inserting Bishop Lowth's admirable version. It would be very easy
to show, from a multitude of theologians and commentators,
-that King James's version abounds in errors - some of them,
too, of a very grave character.  If permitted, I shall advert
to a few of these hereafter.  I have read in the Advocate from
time to time some most ridiculous strictures on the I' Revision."
One gives us a long diatribe on the use of the perfect tense
in Greek, referring very learnedly to Winer, Butman, and other
masterly grammarians.  He thinks too lie has discovered " a
stroke at Armenianism" in one passage, wherein the perfect is
very rightly employed in the new rendering.  For myself; I
miust confess I am rather dull of vision, but I believe I would
rather labor tnder this disadvantage than possess the overexcited optics of this vigilant brother.  Another thinks it
"1furnishes infidels with the most deadly weapon they have
ever used against the Christianity of the Bible."  Should any
persons be so extremely weak as to discredit Christianity,
because of a new tracnslaction of the Bible, let them run their
own course. They certainly have not comnnon, sense enough to
be Chiristians. They must be the very quintessence of ninnl yisin.
HE:ave wve not had hundreds -upon hundreds of translations of
the Bible; and i7who has ever known of one infidel being made
or confirmed thereby?  On the contrary, I am fully persuaded
that this translation, truly faithful and beautiful as it is. will
induce many to read the sacred Scriptures who hithcelrto have
Lnelected to do so. and thousands to peruse them with more camre
and diligence than ever before.  WIhat can be more fair than
thle nmanner of publishing this "Revision"?  You have presented to your v;liew on each page the common version, tlhe
ori;ginal, and the revision, and underneath you have authorities
for all the amendments malde.  EvrYv man wh1o is cap, blue','a:




TRANSLATION  OF THE SCRIPTURE.S,              219
form for himself an instant judgment as to the merits of the
performance.  It is forced upon no one. No one need substitute it for the old, defective translation, if he is so wedded to
error. But for my part, if the rest at all equals what has been
already accomplished, I will, if spared to see it completed,
most assuredly adopt it, at least in my own family and for
private use. I value it above gold, yes, much fine gold. And
I will confess that my design in writing the present article is
mainly to call the attention of my brethren in the ministry to
this work.  With the utmost deference I would advise every
minister of the Gospel to subscribe for the "Bible Union Reporter," and to st8zcy it, laying aside all prejudice and passion;
and I am satisfied, if he do, he will thank me heartily for the
counsel. What an opportunity is hereby offered to all young
ministers of acquiring an accurate knowledge of the sacred
languages! The notes subjoined afford considerable help to
the attainment of this end.  They are, I venture to say, the
soundest and most reliable critical and philological notes ever
published. They are indeed the very cream of all that has
preceded them in that kind.  The Greek text is magnificent.
Methinks it should tempt every preacher of the Gospel who
sees it, and who has neglected the study of that language, to
commence it forthwith.  The whole is beautifully got up, and,
besides, it is remarkably cheap - 12 numbers, postage paid,
for one dollar.  If we ministers of the Gospel had but the
industry and love of learning that characterized the great Adam
Clarke, theological institutions wotld hardly be needed among
us.  He could preach clcily and yet find time to study the
Scriptures in tihe languages of the inspired writers.
What if the authors of this revision do translate the word
)' bIptlvizo " immer8e, will that destroy the value of the whole
work or make immersionists ot all who may prize and use it?
By no means.  I doubt whether it will make a single proselyte
to immersionism.  People will continue to think for themselves
ol-n that subject, as hitherto.  Thousands who practice sprink



2f3           FTrIDELITY TO GOD IN TIlE
linbg or pouring believe that immersion was the primitive andt
Apostolic mode of administering that sacrament, but not attachng any importance to the mere mode, they still employ the
more convenient and feasible methods.  For instance, the late
Bp. Capers believed that "bagpti'.zo " meant to " immerse," and
that anciently that was the custom.  I heard him say so myself at Ash-Spring Camp Ground, Logan  county, Ky., only a
few years before his death.  Yet, I believe, the good bishop
died as lhe lived, in the bosom of Methodism.  So did Dr. A.
Clarke, who had the same persuasion.  So have thousands of
others.  I wish there were less controversy among us, especially in matters of little importance, and more of that heavenly temper of mind described and recommended in the 13th
chapter of 1st Corinthians.  We would then no longer "bite
and devour one another," as is too much the case at present.
But this article being already sufficiently long, I shall close it
with stating that I have marked more than fifty passages in
the six books of the New Testament already published by the
I"Bible Union," wherein the translation is altered greatly for
the better, and it would not be difficult to add fifty more to
the number.  The portion of Job issued is a peicfcct gemz -
more intelligible without any commentary at all than the Old
Version, with twenty of the best commentaries that have been
written, casting their light upoh it. Come brethren, "in understanding be ye men," and do not suffer yourselves to be carried
away by the popular current, but stand, consider, review, and
judge for yourselves. Despise popularity, and be well assured
that so ~ar from1 thle " vox populi" being always': Vox DIei,"
it is muntch oftener lvox Jnicboli.  But more anon.
W. McC ALLEN.
W't7/4';ngfton  county, XimS.