The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-20


was introduced into the King James
Version instead of or, but that it was not
TOR the reason given by DIR. Corcoran is
evident from the fact that there was no
necessity for such dishonesty on the part
OF the translators when there were so
many passages in the same connection.
so overwhelmingly in favor of the Pro-
testant doctrine of the sacrament. DIR.
Corcoran shows his ignorance when he
says that our translators depended on
that passage to uphold their claim that
men must both eat and drink of the bodv
and blood of our Lord" The passages
that Protestants depend upon to uphold
their claim, are not whit altered or
weakened In the revision-but read, after
the latest and most impartial criticism.
as follows, Matt. XVI 81, (Revised Yer
sionn), And he took cup and gave thanks
and gave to them saying, Drink ye ALL
Of It," Mark xiv: %, 'And he took a
cup, and when he had given thanks he
gave to them, and they ALL drank of It,"
Cor. xl: 26, "For as often as We eat
this bread and DRINK the cup We pro-
claim the Lords death till he come"
Same chapter, verse %, "But let man
prove himself, and so let him eat of that
bread and DRINK Of the cup, for he that
eateth and DRINKETH," etc. The Roman
Catholic Church will find the Revised
Version as fatally opposed to its half-sac-
rament as the King James. 1t will seek
In vain either in the original Scriptures,
or In any honest translation, for any sup
port to its cruel practice of withholding
the cup from the laity.
Another passage commented on by DR.
Corcoran is Acts xvii: %, where Paul is
made in the authorized version to saw 70
the Athenians in the Areopagus, Fora as
| passed by and beheld your deyotions
found an altar with this inscription: To
the Uaakmoaoa God,'" and which the Re.
vlsers have corrected so as to read. "For
as | passed along and observed the OBJ
jects of your worship, found also an
altar with this inscription: 70 an am ~
E''oaon God.' Here the learned DIR. says
that the revised version is correct and
then absurdly charges the King James
translators with rendering "your devo
tons, rather than objects of your wor-
ship as "a slap at CATHOLIC devotions."
" to make out that we (Catholics) are no
better than heathen,'" etc. Now if the
King James revisers had intended to
make slap at Roman Catholic practice
they would have written "objects of your
worship" as the revisers have done, and
not devotions" as they did. Paul, if he
were here now, could pass by any one of
our Protestant churches and see our ode
votlons' for we have them, devotions of
prayer, praise, almsgivings, &C., but he
could not say II observed the objects of
your worship" for Pedestrians have onlv
one object of worship, and that an invisi-
BILE One in the Highest Heavens. thouoh
spiritually present in every worshipping
assembly; but if Paul should pass bv anT
Roman Catholic church, he could use ex-
actly the words of the revised version,
and say, L observed the objects of your
worship" The objects of worship Of the
Romanist are material, visible, manifold
crucifxes, waters, Madonnas, &C., without
end, and doubtless these "obiects of wor-
whip" would seem as heathenish to Paul
as those in the Areopagus. No honest
version of the Scriptures will fail to cry
out against this creature worship of the
Roman Catholic Church. Rome NAV
strike, as she has done, from the Deca-
logue that commandment which forbids
the making and worshipping of images
but the Bible will still cry out THROUGH
all its versions with holy horror at their
sacrllegious worship of images,
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him.
only shalt thou serve"
What I have said above equally applies
to his next criticism that in Rom. XII: 4,
where instead of the image of Baal" the
revisers read "Baal" simply, and where
the critic says the words the image of
are pure gratuitous corruption, made
with a purpose of throwing ridicule on
our pictures of saints He is evidently
very sensitive about his image worship.
verifying the old adage, ga guilty con-
science needs no accuser." Look at your
Bibles and you will see that the King
James translators introduced the words
the image Of in italics, to show that they
were not in the original and thus avoid
all Misconceptions that there was no
corruption" whatever, and his charge Of
pure gratuitous corruption" is fling
at the memory of great and good men
now dead, unworthy Of scholar not to
say Christian. It was, as DR.. Corcoran
knows, the image Of Baal to which the
apostate Israelites bowed the knee in the
days of Elijah. The translators simply
expressed that well known fact. They
had no purpose of throwing ridicule on
Roman Catholic nicturae of ooir4s The