The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-07-06
THE REVISION AND THE CHURCH OF EN-
GLAND.
New York Herald.

Curiously enough just as the revised
Testament is given to the Christian world,
as the fruit of ten or dozen years labor
of goodly number of the most learned
biblical scholars who speak the English
language, the question is raised in England
whether the book can be read in that
church whose divines have been most fore
most in the work of revision. After giving
notice that he would put this question to
the lord chancellor in the house of lords,
Lord Carnarvon decided not to do so. But
letter written by the bishop of Lincoln
brought from Lord Selberne the opinion
which Lord Carnarvon had intended to get
The chancellor agrees with the bishop that
the revised Testament cannot lawfully be
read in church without being recommended
or authorized by 'some sufficient public
authority" Whence the needful sanction
must come, whether from the church, the
crown or parliament, does not clearly APP
| pear.
The lord chancellor admits that there is
no documentary or other direct proof to
sustain his opinion that the version now
| in use is authorized and can be supplanted
only by one that is Blso authorized. He
bases his conclusion on circumstantial evil
dence and inference. Citing the words,
| appointed to be read in churches" which
appeared on the title page when the exist
| ing version was first printed in 1911, he
assumes that this was done by order in
council and explains why no record of
such order now exists by the fact that the
council books and registers for that year
were destroyed by fire This presumptive
authorization of the Bible of 1911, togeth-
er with the consideration that it has been
sanctioned by the use of two hundred and
| seventy years, leaves no doubt in the mind
! of the chancellor on the question raised
| But others have found some formidable OBJ
stacles III the way of reaching the conclu
sion at which Lord Selborne and the bish-
| op so easily arrived. To one correspon-
dent it is absolutely uncomfortable" that
| the order to which the chancellor refers
| should have been issued, when it is remem-
| bered that no contemporary or historical
reference to it has ever been made. 9th
ers point out that the version now read is
not identical with that of 1911
/ that several editions of the
latter were printed in or about
that year without the words on which sc
much stress is laid, and that even if the
version of 1911 were authorized it would
not necessarily follow that it was the only
| one authorized or that none other could be
used without authority,
Neither the bishop of Lincoln nor Lord
Selborne enters into any discussion as to
the merits or dement's of the new revision.
The argument that if this version may be
adopted in the church without authority
any other version or number of version:
may be introduced at the pleasure of AM
clergyman is not without force. But wheI
the lord chancellor says that whoever shall
read the revised version in church without
due authority win Incur a serious risk o
being held to be an offender against tn
law" one might suppose that the sacred
book in its new condition had been trans
formed INTO mischievous and dsngerou
volume, while in this country, to say moth
ing of the gymnastic harrangues of Tai
mage, some of the attacks made on it b.
less sensational preachers suggest the in
quiry whether the clergy may not contriv
to give Col. Ingersoll a vacation