Des Arc citizen., 1860-03-14


 of our abors, 1t being brought unto such a conclusion, ns that we have great hopes that the church of Engiand shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold il our duty 10 offer it (,he lranslatIon) to your ma jesty not onty as 10 our Ring and Sover- eign, but as to the PRINCIPAL MOVER AND AUTHOR or rnE WORK" Will MT. M. impeach the integrity and veracity of the witnesses? When he does so success fully. he proves beyond question. that they acere unflted for the work assigned them. If their statement IS true, what becomes of MT. Ms coarse and vulgar charge ot '.gross and malicious falsehood"s The reader will please compare the two slate- ments, both canno, be true. l have no, done with this point yet. copy the title page of the first edition of the authorized version as given by Horne: "The Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and the New. Newly translated out of the original tcngues and with the former transIaiions diligently compared and re. vised by his Majesties special command men,; Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings mos, excel- lent Majesty. Ann. Dom. 15ll." That il was !" issued by royal authority "" isa ma llcious fasehood " so says MT. M., while, the title page declares that i, tUas done by the ," speciat commandment" of his majesty Have English Bibles borne malicious falsehood on their title pages for two and a half centuries? Then let the re- uision begin by removing this s,ereo,yped ]" lie :" from the very front of English Bl- bles. The lranslators themselves again, say, that the King, Ca, the Hampton, Court Conlerence,) when so earnestly imporluned by the Purilans, did begin 10 bethink himself of the good that might issue by new translation, and presently after gaze order for his translation wh,ch ss no,D presented unto lhee. This they call the very historical truth" yet two hundred and fifty years after MT. Moore, declares their statement 10 be mali. cious falsehood." for il was not by "royal authority" but simply, made during his reign' and nothing more.
 Second, That the King, "selected the lranslators," is also declared to be "ma-
 icious falsehood." ITO the law and to the testimony" In the first place the King appointed Bancroft general over- seer and final reviser of the work" and 10 this the translators allude in these words: " For the Chief overseer and ergodioktees (Engiish "and task.mas- ter under hiS majesty, to whom not only we, but also our whole church was much bound, etc." In letter fron'tli King to Bancroft found in Strype's life of Whit gift p 590, we read: ' Right trusty and we'll beloved, we greet you well. Where as ace haoe appointed certain learned men to the number of .ffiy.tour for the frans- iaiing of the Bible etc" But MT. M.. says, James did not select" them and that it is '.gross lie" to say lie did; the King says he did, and thereby, has added lying to his other' unklngly virtues. 1 quote also from letter of Chancellor Cecil, 10 the Vice Chancellor and heads of the University of Cambridge" "AFter my hearty commentators; Whereas his .Ngesfy haih appointed certain learned men, in and of your University, to take pains in transtating some portions of Scripture according to the order in tha, behalf set down, etc" This no, only declares the appointment, but that his Majesty did make it--lhe very point de- nied. Dr. Mcknight, anirms upon the authority of !" Lewis Annals of the Eng fish Bible,' that :" The King appoinfsd fity-four--or according to o,hers--forty- seven persons; learned in the languages. for revising the common translation" Either these statements are false. or MT. Moore is convicted of "gross ignorance, or what is worse, willful attempt to per- vert the truth of History. It will not avail MT. Moore to introduce Anderson his statements can be no offset to the dec- iarations of fhe persons by phom Me work i0as done have noi noticed this matter because 1t touches the question under dls- cussIon, for il does not, but, to show the utter worlhlessness of your correspon- dents statements and assertions. Grant, every specification of the quoted para graph 10 be true, and the question: :" Does the English Bible need revson,' 2 remains untouched.
 Third, MT. Moore next introduces wit nesses, to proye-what? that the common version needs no revision2 No, but 10 prove the admirable qualities of the au- thorzed Bible. something that all ad- init. He has proved the general accura- cy of ihe common version, but why prove il! Who has denied it's general accuracys Moore as usual misses the question at is- sue lis Il intentional 2 IL is not of gen. eral fanhfulness. but, '' is the version known as King James, in all respects a fa,thfut and correct transcript of the Origl-
 nal Scriptures What do his o,0n !" un. prejudiced wiinesses ieslilys Da GED-
 DIES. Socinian Catholic priest IS intro
 duced, and says of the version that il,
 /" must in general be accounted the mosl
 excellent" This same priest. Dr. GEDDEs'
 issued in the year 17S6, a Prospectus ol
 seA New Translation of the Holy Bible,
 shich Prospectus i" was afterwards follow
 ed by transations of the historical parts
 Of the Old Testament.'' This man. also
 maintained against Dr. Vicesmus Knox
 "fhe necessity of q new transIation anf'
 the uernacular." So much for the frs !