The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-20
For the Central Presbyterian.
Rome, and conscientious Crit
iciSm."
OLD POINT. VA. July Cd. 81.

|
MeSsrs. Eaitors,-The PHILADELPHIA
Times is, as you know, one of the ablest
and most admirably conducted journals
of this country. 1t is not often that the
credulity of its editors is imposed upon
or that their judgment is at fault in re-
ference to the accuracy and trustworthi-
ness OF the writers to whom they give
prominence in their columns. You may
Judge OF my surprise, therefore, when 1
found In their weekly issue of May
18th, an article occupying nearly two
columns of the paper, introduced in the
grandest style, with most pronounced
and conspicuous headlines as "Conscien-
tious Criticism" Good humored Crit
cism, ""Doctrinal Corrections, Interest
ing Fonts, etc., purpoting to be "a Cath
ollc clergyman's views" of the changes
made by the revisers in "the Protestant
Testament"
From the opening sentence, it appears
that the editors of the Times were anx-
lous to get an expression from the high
est Catholic authority" as TO the merits
OF the Revised Version" A special re-
porter therefore interviewed "the Very
Kew. James Corcoran, D. D., Professor of
Scripture in st. Charles Seminary" who
is, in the Judgment of the Times, "admit-
teddy the most learned theologian of the
Roman Catholic Church in America"
The result of the interview is given in
number of quotations of passages from the
two versions with the criticisms of the
august theologian.
A careful perusal of the article leaves
one In some doubt whether the critic was
In earnest or was only making sport of
the Times and its reporter 1t seems in
credible that one bearing the reputation
OF being the most learned theologian,"
etc., should stumble into as many mac
curacles and errors as are found in this
article and inasmuch as the reporter
represents him as constantly breaking
forth with " soft ha, ha, hal a very
pleasant laugh, which often garnishes his
conversation" it looks little as if the
venerable scholar" was having his own
fun at the reporters expense. At all
events the Times has served UP to its
readers under the head of Conscientious
Criticism" mass of ludicrous and alb
surd charges against the former revisers
of tampering with the sacred text for the
purpose of supporting Protestant errors,
VI gu .aSohiSiuS IlOLudH OaInOllc QOcCrlneS
and rites.
Although, therefore, I have closed my
series of letters on Romanism, and they
are now rapidly passing throug ii the press
In book form, you will allow me the lib
erty of postscript, just to notice a few
OF the plumbers Off they are not practical
Jokes of this eminent clergyman. I con-
fine myself, for want of space, to those
criticisms which concern vital points be-
tween Protestants and Romanists
The first of these has reference to the
substitution of the word bishops for the
word. oUerSeers in the revised Version,
Acts Xxx: %, Take heed to yourselves
and to all the flock over which the HOLY
Ghost hath made you overseers Revised
Version, bishops). Upon this DR.. Cor
coran descants in the following marvel
lous manner: liking James had especial
" forbidden his translators to use the
term 'overseer' for bishop; but in this
special passage by way of concession to
the Puritan element in the Church they
slipped In the word overseers?' I am
glad it has been corrected by the revisers."
Now the directions given by King James
were to follow as closely as possible what
was called the Bishops Bible, and in that
Bible the word used is overseers" SO
that the revisers, so far from disobeying
the king in their translation, were keep
ing closely to his instructions. They did
not have to "slip in" the word. They
found it right before them in the version
they were ordered to follow. But the
most amusing part of this comment is the
statement that the word overseers was
used by way Of concession to the Puri-
tan element in the Church" There. were
no Puritans in the body of translators.
There was no disposition to make any
concession to them, and if there had been,
the way to please them would have been
to use the word bishops as the revisers
have done; for DIR. Corcoran will soon
know, if he does not now, that the Sc
verest blow to Roman hierarchy, and
High Church Episcopacy that has been
gwen In this generation, is that involved
in the substitution of the word btshops
for the word oUerSeerS, showing as it does
that the ablest biblical expositors even of
the Episcopal Church are compelled to
&dmit that the same men who in verse
II of the same chapter are called presbv-
ters or elders are in this 18th verse called
bishops, and that there was in the DAYS
of the apostles no such distinction be-
tween bishops and presbyters as that now
held in the Roman Catholic and other