Dr. Horne, speaking of the New Testament writers, says: "As their quotations now correspond with the Hebrew, very frequently in express words, and generally in the sense; so it is highly probable that they uniformly agreed at first, and that, where the Hebrew was properly expressed in the Greek version, they used the words of that version. But where it materially varied from the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, they either gave the sense of the passage cited, in their own words, or took as much of the Septuagint as suited their purpose, introducing the requisite alterations." *

We see not, then, how the example of Paul, in his quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures, can be fairly adduced in support of those who oppose the revision of our English version. We have dwelt thus at length on this topic, not only on account of its bearing upon the cause of revision, but also to vindicate the New Testament writers from the charge of introducing into their text, as inspired truth, the defective renderings of an uninspired version.

§ 5. Claims of Foreign Fields against Revision.

"When Paul determined to labor in Foreign rather than in Home Missions, not building on another man's foundation, nor preaching Christ where he was already named, did he really do homage to a low expediency? You allow with us that his choice was just. Now, was this, his preference of the most needy field as demanding the first labors, very unlike our own resolution, that the supply of the unevangelized heathen with the Cherokee, Burman, Karen, and Chinese Bible, is an object of higher and earlier obligation; whilst we postpone to the fitting time the bettering of an English Bible, already by your own acknowledg ment GOOD?" Are we justified in forsaking the versions for Rangoon and Hong Kong, and in breaking down the organization that does most to supply these versions, in order to concentrate our strength on the one or more projects, at various times submitted to us, for a new revision of the English Bible?" p. 4.

In the beginning of your letter we were charged with unjustly disparaging our English version, without recognizing its merits; but here you declare that we have pronounced that version “ GOOD." Is it possible that you see no inconsistency in such contrary charges?

You "postpone" you say “to the fitting time the bettering of our English version." In this you admit that the version is not good enough as it is; that it needs bettering. But how can you reconcile this admission with what you have said to prove that there is no need of revision? Do you postpone to some future time the performance of a work which there is no need of doing at all?

You prefer to supply the heathen with the Scriptures, rather than do anything towards revision at home; and to justify this position you refer to Paul as choosing to be a foreign missionary rather than labor at home; and you ask:" Did he really do homage toa low expediency?" In the first place, it is not true, that, Paul regarded the foreign field as "demanding the first labors ;" and in the next place, he had no choice in the matter, but to obey God.

When Christ first commissioned his disciples to preach, he restricted them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And when he afterwards commanded them to go into all the world, they were to preach in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem," that is with the Jews. Accordingly, the apostle,

6.

* Intr. Part I. c. 9. § 3.

when preaching to the Jews at Antioch, says: “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us."

Thus it is evident that Paul had no regard to mere expediency, in determining the place of his ministry; nor to what might seem to him the comparative claims of the Home and the Foreign field. He preached first to the Jews, because “it was necessary; he then turned to the Gentiles, because "the Lord so commanded." Now, if you feel called, as distinctly as was Paul, to labor in the foreign field, where in this apostolic example do you find a precedent for opposing those who labor to revise the common version at home? Did the apostle to the Gentiles, while laboring in the foreign field, reproach his brethren in Jerusalem, and do all he could to hinder their work? Did he not rather take collections in Gentile churches and send to the poor saints in Jerusalem? In what respect does your conduct towards the Bible Union resemble that of Paul towards his brethren in Judea? You would not be justified, you think, "in forsaking the versions for Rangoon and Hong Kong, and in breaking down" the Am. and For. Bible Society. We think it is not necessary to forsake our foreign versions, in order to carry on the work of revision at home. The money that has been spent in opposing the Bible Union would go far towards defraying the whole expense of a revised version. The cost of printing and circulating your letter alone, would have made a liberal contribution to our treasury. And as to our enterprise "breaking down the organization" referred to, we must regard the insinuation as coming with an ill-grace from the author of your letter. It must appear strange, indeed, to the Baptists of these United States, that WM. R. WILLIAMS, D. D., who strenuously opposed the organization of the Am. and For. Bible Society, and for thirteen successive years declined all coöperation and connexion with it, not even deigning to attend its anniversary meetings; who has sent his contributions for the Bible in foreign lands directly past the Managers of that Society to the Missionary Board in Boston, while in the work of home and foreign distribution he continued to co-operate with the American Bible Society, an Institution avowedly hostile to Baptists in the fundamental principle of Biblical translation; that he should all at once, on the withdrawal of Dr. Cone and his coadjutors, become the champion advocate of that Society; upbraiding the Bible Union for breaking down that organization.

*

*

*

§ 6. Character of the Revision sought by the Union. "The alteration most sought by some esteemed brethren among you, was in the word describing the first ordinance of the Christian Church. And by laying down, as your society is said by its friends and officers to have laid it down, that the rendering of the Greek word for baptism by another word is no longer held an open question," but that in effect" immerse" must take the place of "baptize," does not your enterprise incur the very censure which your advocates cast upon King James for his instructions to translators? You limit the consciences and restrain the unfettered judgment of your revisors." pp. 4, 6.

To say that we "limit the consciences and restrain the unfettered judgment of our revisors," by requiring them to supplant "baptize" by "immerse," as King James commanded it to be kept, is to assert what you cannot prove, and to testify to what you have no reason to believe. In the first Address of

the Bible Union, put forth contemporaneously with its organization, and published in the same pamphlet from which you quote, (pp. 10, 11,) is the following plain declaration on this point:

"In the consideration of this subject, some have endeavored to poise the whole question of revision upon the retention or displacement of the word "baptize." But this des great inju tice to o ur v ews and aim. I or the gh we insist upon the observance of a uniorm principle in the full and faithful translation of God's word, so as to express in plain English, without ambiguity or vagueness, the exact meaning of Baptizo, as well as of all other words relating to the christian ordinances; yet this is but one of numerous errors, which, in our estimation, demand correction. And such are our views and principles in the prosecution of this work, that, if there were no such word as "baptize" or Baptizo in the Scriptures, the necessity of revising our English version would appear to us no less real and imperative."

"

Here, in this official document, lying open before your eyes at the time you were writing, it is distinctly stated that the change of" baptize " for "immerse was not "the alteration most sought " by the Bible Union; that all changes, required by the exact meaning of the inspired originals, are placed on the same ground, subject to one uniform principle. And in the Second Annual Report, p. 29, that principle was embodied and published, as passed by the Board and the Union, in the following language:

"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."

This principle was not to be applied by the Union, or by its Board directly; it was to guide and govern the translators and revisors employed by the Union; it was to be applied by them to every sentence, and every phrase, and every word, in all the versions made for, or patronized by the Union. The only additional rules prescribed for our revisors are founded on that grand principle, and here they are:

"Wherever there is a version in common use, it shall be made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with the established phraseology, shall be avoided; and only such alterations shall be made as the exact meaning of the inspired text and the existing state of the language may require.

"Translations or revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the received Greek text, critically edited, with known errors corrected.

"In the English language, the common version must be the basis of the revision; the Greek Text, Bagster's and Sons, octavo edition of 1851.

"Whenever an alteration from that version is made on any authority additional to that of the revisor, such authority must be cited in the manuscript, either on the same page or in an appendix.

"Every Greek word or phrase, in the translation of which the phraseology of the common version is changed, must be carefully examined in every other place in which it occurs in the New Testament, and the views of the revisor be given as to its proper translation in each place.

"As soon as the revision of any one book of the New Testament is finished, it shall be sent to the Secretary of the Bible Union, or such other person as shall be designated by the Committee on Versions, in order that copies may be taken and furnished to the revisors of the other books, to be returned with their suggestions to the revisor or revisors of that book. After being re-revised with the aid of these suggestions, a carefully prepared copy shall be forwarded to the Secretary."

These rules, as passed by the Board, were printed and sent out in an official circular sometime before the note of our Secretary, to which your letter replies, was written; though we are not sure that they had come under your notice.

Now, brethren and sisters, will you honestly and candidly tell us what there is in all this, that bears any resemblance to the rules of King James, which required “the old ecclesiastical words to be kept, not to be translated.” What is there here which excepts" baptize," or any other word, from the one uniform principle of giving the exact meaning of the inspired text." We have never said to our revisors,--we never can say to them,' you shall retain this word," or, ‘you shall change this word.' Nor do we undertake to interpret for them the original text. But we require them to determine, in the fear of God and the love of the truth, "the exact meaning of the inspired text," and then to give that meaning in "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."

Your charge against the Bible Union on this point is as unfounded as it is unjust and unreasonable. And we cannot resist the conviction that the cause which arrays its ablest advocates, armed with bold assertions, against the plain documentary evidence of undeniable facts, must be at war with the truth.

§ 7. Was Dr. Carson opposed to Revision?

"And as to other changes, going beyond this one term, can we overlook the warning testimony of Carson as to much over which modern criticism vaunts as being emendation? "Many real improvemets [he has said] of our translation in particular passages have undoubtly been made, but BY FAR A GREATER NUMBER of pretended improvements are gross corruptions. Besides, it is in small matters they amend; in matters of the HIGHEST IMPORTANCE they pervert and corrupt." So wrote Carson to the author of a celebrated article in the Edinburgh Review. ** ** ** We have been rather content to acquiesce in the opinion of Carson, no lenient or incompetent critic, that "no rule can be more general," or, in other words, admit fewer exceptions, than does the maxim that he who is perpetually amending the common version is but a novice in criticism." pp. 4, 5.

*****

This is not the first time that Dr. Carson has been referred to as authority against revision; and after what has been proved before the public in refutation of such pretension, it is really surprising that you should again bring forward such a brief sentence from the writings of that justly celebrated scholar and critic, to prove that revision is not needed; or that any improvement of our common version is impracticable. We have the most direct parol testimony to show that Carson was in favor of revision. But we shall rest the case at this time on his written words; confining our quotations to his work on Baptism as published by the Am. Bap. Pub. Society, ed. 1848.

Speaking of the term rendered "wet" in Dan. 4: 33, (Greek 4: 30), he says, p. 35, "It is by no means a translation of the word in the original, nor of that employed by the Septuagint. It ought to have been rendered according to the usual model meaning, which, instead of being harsh, would have found corresponding expressions in all languages. By employing a general word, in this instance, our translators have lost the peculiar beauty of the original, without in the least adding to the perspicuity. The words of the Septuagint are IIis body was immersed in the dew.'" Speaking of Luke 11: 38, he says, p. 67, "The passage, then, ought to have been translated, " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he was not immersed before dinner.' Speaking of Mark 7: 4, where our version has, "except they wash, they eat not," Carson says, p. 68, "It ought to have been translated,' except they dip themselves, they eat not.'

And what our version renders "washings" &c., in the same verse, Carson says, p. 71, "ought to be translated immersions." In Heb. 11: 10, he says, "The translation ought to be 'different immersions,' not 'different washings,"" as it is in our version. Speaking of Matt. 3: 16, Carson says, p. 126, "I admit that the proper translation of arto is from,' not 'out of," as our version has it. Speaking of those who understand only the English language, he says, p. 145, They do not understand the original, and the adoption of the words baptize and baptism, can teach them nothing. Translators, by adopting the Greek word, have contrived to hide the meaning from the unlearned.”

These are only examples of the numerous instances where Carson has charged our English version with concealing, obscuring, or perverting the truth, by wrong renderings and non-translations. And we submit it to you; Is it right--is it honorable to represent him as approving that version" as it is?" or as condemning all attempts at the correction of its errors?

§ 8. Argument of Rev. Thomas Armitage vindicated.

"Nominal emendations may be really, and have often been, violent wrestings of God's truth. You would avoid the admission of such amongst your changes. But must we not be earnest in demanding some greater safeguard than the allowed honesty of your intentions? Mere piety without learning, or mere learning without piety, would equally endanger us, and to both these need to be added, judgment, taste, aud mastery of our own rich tongue. Do we recognize the presence of these in some of the rival versions to which you appeal as if with admiration? We find in the very pamphlet published in connection with the proceedings at your organi. zation in 1850, favorable mention made (p. 27) of "the most godly and learned men who, it is said, have been dissatisfied with the received version, and then, amongst others, are recounted the names of "Scarlett, Wakefield, and DickinNow, if these be among the names which the laborers of your society see fit to quote and honor, to what inferences are we not shut up, as it respects the soundness of judgment, and purity of doctrine, and perfection of language to be expected from a project heralded by such outriders and forerunners ?" pp. 4, 5.

son.

*

*

*

That the injustice of this paragraph may be fairly exposed, we will quote the passage referred to. It is found in the address of Rev. Thos. Armitage, delivered before the Bible Union, in the Baptist Tabernacle, June 10, 1850, and published in the official report of that meeting. He says:

"Let us labor and let us give, to procure, if possible, such a translation of the Word of God as will give one sense, and but one, and that so clearly, as to enable the unlettered to understand the word of God, without the use of note, or comment, or gloss, or of the living teacher, where the Spirit has designed no inexplicable mysstery, to which we must submissively bow. And will not God be thus glorified, and Christian Union promoted?

That our commonly received version of the English Scriptures does this, we cannot confidently declare. If we can, why the dissatisfaction with it which has always existed in the minds of the most godly and learned men, from the time it was given ? Why the number of new translations, in part or in whole, by such men as Thomson, Scarlett, Wakefield, Dickinson, Wesley, Webster, A. Clark, Campbell, Macknight, Stewart, Doddridge, Lowth, Barnes, and multitudes of others? Why the piles of Comments, Notes, Essays, and Exegeses, either accompanying these translations or going forth alone, treating of the errors of this version, and seeking to remove them? And from whence has all this dissatisfaction arisen?" pp. 27, 28.

You condemn "Scarlett, Wakefield, and Dickinson," on account of their heterodoxy; but what shall be done with Wesley, Webster, Clarke, Macknight, Dodridge, Lowth, and the multitude of others, who have undertaken to revise our version, or to retranslate the originals? Are you so blinded by prejudice