Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-05-13
Eur the Advertiser.

]cct OF 4 revision OF the English scriptures. Al
though am not in the habit of noticing anony-
nous attacks upon the cause in which We are en-
gagged, and the objections urged by your cores
pondcnt are remarkable neither for their novelty
nor for force have consented in Difference to the
wishes of several friends Of Revision in your vi
cinity, 10 notice briefly his communications. 1t is
very true, as your correspondent suggests, that the
enterprise of Revision has from the first been
warmly, often bitterly opposed This is, however,
by no means surprising. II would be difficult to
point to a single truth, however important, that
position The Reformation was objected to, not so
much because it was wrong in principle, as because
it threatened to disturb the existing order of
things. Luther might have prayed and tasted to
his hearts content if he had not attempted to dis
turb other peoples prayers and fasts. Abstract
Theology was we'll enough; but indugencies "
and "masscs were practical things They had
a definite tangible value
1t has been very much so with the enterprise Of
Revision No one opposes the principle. That is
correct enough. But seek to embody this princi-
pie, to carry it into practical execution big
otry at once starts up alarmed. Sectariansm So
licitously enquiries, How will it affect me, and
then with the emphasis of an oracle, it assures us
that although the Bible may perhaps need revi-
sion, that the time is wrong-the place is wrong
The men are wrong-everythng in short connected
with the present enterprise, is emphaticaly, out
rageously wrong!"
The objections urged by your correspondent are
very much of this character. He does not call in
question a single organic feature of the Bible
Union. He points to no defects, either in its con-
stituton, its organization, or in the principles it
seeks to embody. His issues are from first to last
side issues-qucstions about times and places,
and men. Let us examine them:
First this Revision movement had its origin
at the North" Now, the North" is sdoubtless
very suspicious Birthplace second Nazareth"
it may be- Enlightened men are, however, accus-
toned to Judge of truth more by its intrinsic char
acter than by the mere accident Of its origin.
Even in this respect, however, your correspondent
is sadly at fault. Revision is older by several
hundred years than the political segment of the
Union to which he refers. Three centuries ago
Tyndale and Firth organized a "Revision Associa-
ton" in England, and were burned at the stake
for their tcmerity. The Anti-Revisionists Of that
day, like the anti-kvisionists of the present day.
did not want new Bible. It was not the time, or
the place. nor were they the men to do the work
1t was mere sectarian money-making scheme
And like your Jealous correspondent, they ex-
claimed, Aaray ,cith your new Reuision Of the
Bible. We understand the old one nell enough as
regards the plan Of salrat'on"
But your correspondent urges another and far
gravcr charge against the Bible Union:
at is coneoeted," he says alone for the pur-
pose of gulling the people and making money"
Now, if such charge can be sustained against
the Bible Union, it will certainly brand the enter
prise with lasting infamy. If it cannot be sus-
tanned, it will hardly improve the reputation OF its
author. regret that the "accuser of his breth-
rcn did not see fit to append his name to his ac-
cusation As the case now stands, it is only the
thrust of masked assailant. Is such course
characteristic of the honorable Christian gentle
man? 1t is true that selfish. irreligious men
sometimes excuse themselves from contributing to
our Missionary societies, our Bible societies, and
all other benevolent organizations, on the ground
that they arc concocted for the purpose of Gull
ling the people and making money" 1t is very
seldom, however, that man can be found who
has the hardihood to say so over his own name in
print. The moral sense of the community pro
tccts these great public charities from open insult
if not from secret assault. When, therefore, this
anonymous assaant sees fit to make the above
charge over his own name and prore ii, it will be
quite time to consider its claims to public attention
Again; seemingly forgctful that he has just de-
clarcd the Bible Union to be a society concoctcd
alone for the purpose of quilting the people and
making money" he assures us that it is the great
object of the Society to substitute in the new yer.
sion imDlsrse for Japtizc. Now, without consider
ing the palpabc contradiction of these charges, it
NAV not bc amiss TO look for moment at the alb
surdity of the latter. It's author would really
have tile world believe that society OF men, COM
p ising some of the most talentc AMI piouS among
US, have not only conspircd together to humbug the
world Systematically. but that they arc so hopeless
y insane as to employ thirty or forty scholars for
dozen years, at an expense of perhaps half
million of dollars to make change in the tranSla-
lion of single word-a change that any printer
can effect in five minutes, at an expense Of five
t.; "a Ia 10 ofo mo 1,ii
rous specimen of unnitigated nonsense!
1t would seem at first sight that an enterprise
like that of the Biblo Union would at once conf
mend itself to the respect and confidence Of uni
vcrsal Christendom. 1t is, however, painful to OBJ
serve the prejudice and opposition that in this and
former times have arrayei themselves against
cause SO noble and principle so plain Revela-
ton seeks no Hiding place, it fears no inrestisa-
ton. 1t is not truth, but error that shrnks from
tic sunlight The man who clings to belief
that he is unwilling 10 submit to the most search
ing test confesses a. once his own weakness and
the weakness of his system.
Those who favor revision of the English scrip
lures do so from conviction that the Bible will
bear the closest scrutiny. They have no fear OF
marring the pages OF Gods word by busting away
the cobwcbs that obscure it. That the present
version of the English scriptures is obscure and
Inaccurate no scholar will deny. 1t is almost i'm
possible to oren single book written by any bib
ical scholar within the past century that is not full
of evidences to this effect. Their testimony is
concurrent on this point. Says Bishop Lowth, OF
the Church of England, speaking Of Hebrew
word that was not found in the faulty text from