New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-06-06
WHAT TIE REVISION SIGNIFIES.
The Fer John w. ChddVfct ~ ne Second taGr1H ChWe
HrookIKn.

The Zee J0hA w. tHddV'oh '''"" '''''-''' NN
Tho Rev. John w. Chadwick preached yes
ter,lay morning In the Second Unitarian Church. at
Clinton and COngresssts., Brooklyn on The Revised
New Testament What Docs II Signify u He began his
discour.o by saying the rcvers had simply proclaimed
on the housctops what had long been known 10 divinity
students andcriics. All tho changes that had been
made he could find I'm the notes OF DR.. NOyess lectures
which no took when in the divinity school One OF the
most notable changes In the verse; the meaning OF
which the King James reyiscrs totally mkapprchcndcd,
ARrtnpas reply 10 PAUL. almost thou persuaded me
TO be a Christian" This Dr. Soyes rendered thus
"Wth but little effort thou woudest fan Induce me TO
become Christian" After pointing out with some de-
tail the OF nao cracy in the authorized version
Mr. Chadwick charged the orthodox churches which are
loah adopt the Translation, with inconssiency
refusing to accept text which agreed
by all 10 be q nearer approach 10 tho literal
sense Of what they hold TO be tho verbally
inspired original Other changes than those which were
finally adopted would he continued have improved the
text stil more The putting Of demon for devil"
proposed by tho American Committee would for exam
pie have been desirable change. Indeed, the sueges
lions OF the American rcyiscrs whole, showed that
they were morclbcral md far less tlncturcd with dog
matism than their British associated
There is n hue aud cry against using the phrase
the evi one" I'm the Lords Prayer but II the conccp
tons Of Jesus are granted to have been tho-c OF his
time there can be reasonable hostility TO
the words But the orthodox clergy many OF whom have
for good while Joined I'm conspiracy Of silence aRnnst
n personal devil naturally enough Indignant 10 ind
hun iInbcddcd in the Lords Prayer like fly In amber.
The great trinitarian proof text In the old version was
that OF the three heavenly Witnesses" In l. John.
which has been entirely eliminated from the The
passages upon which the doctrine OF the deity OF Christ
has been built also for the most part either omitted
or greatly changed The refura OF Christian churches
10 accept the new version Will be less
than a confession that the Church prefers
inaccuracy TO precision. Whatever other result-
may follow from this revision the belief In the literal
falbility OF the book must have been wiped out No
one can learn the fact that Of 9l3 emendatons pro-
posed by the American Committee IN the Book NJ lie
brews only 476 were edOpted without percciving at
once that even the edition must fall short OF per
frctiu aud that In the Testament have. II there
can DC no such thing verbal nfallibity. One out
come OF the work must at all events be more inel-
gent and rational view " the character OF the Bible.
In conclusion, Mr. Chadwick said that he could
how any rational could regard tho Bible n the
direct word OF God, speak OF II aH Dr. Roberts.
the English revirern, had, coming directly from God
Himself. Tho earliest manuscripts did not back
the fourth century and these contained the cpstes
Clement and Barnabas. The gospels did not emerge
into the clear light unt the close OF the second
century aud the second epste OF Peter did
| 10 have been written until that time.