Des Arc citizen., 1860-02-08

oppOSeua lQ ti1e enevfSlOfl HiDNetHept aS du- vocated by the Bible Union, because d par fakes of 3ait the chdfacferistics of fSa 'Secia- rian naovementi Its history proves this. Its origin was the following:I A difficulty
 arose, near a fourth of a century ago, in the
 American Bible Society, in consequence of that society refusing to aid in the pub.i |lication of a version of the Scriptures in |the Bsngalese language. made by Baptist
 misslonaries frankly acknowledged that slhey had translated the original of the
 word baptize by word signifying to im- merse. The Bible Society refused aid upon the ground that the Society was com
 posed of different denominations, united ito ocircuates the Scriptures in common use, and thai, they could not aid n circulating the views of a particular denomination. .- To this action, d number of the Baptist members took exceptions, and formed a society oftheis oAvn, knownas the Ameri- can and Foreign Bible Society," Whether Tor not the American Bible Society did
 right or wrong, forms no part of my pres- ent inquiry I only introduce 1t as ink in the chain of the history before me, TT The newly formed society confined its operations chiefly. to foreign ltranslalions, It's object, according logDr Cone, it's ,pres- ident, was, 10 vindicate principle, and according to that principle, baptize and it's cognates, should be translated immerse and immersion This they regarded as essential tolhe purity of the versions they circulated, After some time, a number of its members proposed the publication of a revised edition of the English Scriptures, in which it was clearly understood by all thatlthe words baplize andsbaplism should give place to aaamersel and immersion =
 Thoughl these were not the only changes
 proposed, it is evident from the speeches and publications elicited by the proposal,
 that they were regarded las the principal. The measure, however, met with the most decided opposition from the majority of the most learned and influential ministers or the Baptist denomination. They took the ground that the version known as King James was good one. That they re- garded il asa ''venerable monument of learning, erutha pieay --of f'unequalled purityof style and detion,"n and shat they j'fdesired ito be perpelualed to the endyoi time, just as ,ge now haue d." "Let no daring genius continued one of their principal writer's ainedilate either change or amendment in its structure or Icomposi- iton; snellher let any learned imperti- hence presume Ho disturb the happy con-f lfidence of the tens of thousands who now regard sit aas, next to the original, the pares. vehicle through which the mind of the HolyiSpirt was ever conveyedtc nor lals. Under God, and with God, we feel prepared to stand or fall with this conse-l crated instrument, known and quoted and. ,familiarzeds sas the Common Standard yer. .sion1 The above is from the 'sGhristiap
 Review' flor. March, 1857, "a leading Baptist journal They moreoyers con
 tended that it would be regarded as "a Baptist Bible. That it would be viewed
 as an attempt 10 cut. the gordian, knot
 which they could not Iuntie. That it would
 place them in antagonism with other de-
 nominations, by having religious stand-. ard of their own. 1 shall squoie a few more of their remarks Dr. Bowling, in
 a pamphlet entitled .'The old Fashioned
 Bible" after referring to statements by
 them respecting other errors in the com mon version,s goes on to esays various
 other connections. of the text have been
 recommended in, the proposed, new yer sion, But believing, however, mosl firm ly, as l do, that these suggestions have
 been put in only as make-,veights, in
 orderao aid the great obeetio of the subsll- tuition of ioanaersiou for daptiSe, 1, shall
 not, on the present occasion, lepler into any examination of the correctness of these criticisms" s-'' lsliA
 He'quotes Dr. Malcom, another emi-
 nent Baptist minister, as saying, ,'Were l to utter alt the objections which occur to
 me, as to the proposed revision, should
 want week for it. When the world is
 allowed to say that we needed, as Bap- tists, new version to sustain ourselves, fhen is our right arm broken irs fAe fight
 l can add no, more than to say, l shall spuTn from me he proposed publication, and the society which gives it birth '1 p
 But on the, other hand, pr. Cone and
 his party conlended most manfally for a
 new English revision in which the word
 immerse should supplan. baptize., Said
 Dr. Cone in 1919, when trying to ipfu-
 ence that society to, undertake it-" Let a
 Bible sucieiy like the American and For eign dare to say that bapiize means 10 imnerse and stamp their conviction upon ! the New Testament" But he failed to