The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-27

boast of antiquity, is older by only eigh-
teen years than our King James Version.
Bishop Keene then alluded to the fact
that seventeen translations Of the Bible
into the vulgar tongues had appeared in
Germany before the time of Luther.
From this fact, (Which is ADMITTEDLY he
would have US believe that the Church
of Rome was then favorable to the gene
raj circulation of the Scriptures. But
the same authority by which he bids us
verify his statement, Chambers Ency. J
declares that Gas early as 1884 the
Synod of Terragona denounced as a
hereto anyone who, having a translation
of the Bible, refused to surrender it to
be burned within the space of eight
days" Again, with regard to the
Waldenses, Innocent III. prohibited the
private possession and reading of the
Scripture, excepting the portions con-
tanned in the Breviary and Psalter)
Withoat prieStly permission and super-
viSiom. (See Chambers Ency. Art.
Bible'0. Plainly then Rome has no
credit for the translations into the YER
nacular tongues which preceded the Re-
formation. She showed her true animus
towards the dissemination of the Scrip
lures, by making almost every city in
Western Europe bright with the flames
which consumed the word of God.
Hence the credit of these ante Reforma-
ton Versions is to be ascribed not so much
to Rome, as to that ELECTION of grace"
still within her fold, but soon to leave it
under the lead of Luther and Zwingle.
Such TRANSACTIONS only did she spare as
were made in her interest. But she
would pretend now, that she nursed those
versions which it was her constant en-
deavor to destroy.
We will pass by the speakers COM
ments on the earliest Protestant versions,
although he spared no pains to bring
them into disrepute. 1t was plain that
our own King James Bible, the bulwark
of Professionalism, was the chief object of
his assault. He produced the testimony
of Henry Ward Beecher, to prove that
this version abounds in errors. He cited
the revisers of 1881 as a witness that
candor has compelled Protestant scholars
to confess that in many cases (e. g., John
V: SO, Cor. XII: ~ the version of King
James has been wrong while the Douay
version has been right. He would thus
undermine our faith in our Bible. Then,
with more adroitness than consistency, he
tells us that the revision of 1881 is un-
worthy of confidence, and that the trans
lators of the Jerusalem chamber have
yielded up the text Gas if it were the
only one) on which the glorious doctrine
of the Trinity rests. He gravely declared
that the committee of Revision embraced
men of every shade of belief and unbelief,
and that the omission of l John V: 7, s,
a0aS a concession, aOgung from the Ensi-
taaianS on that committee By such un6e-
HeUerS IN the TRINITY as Dean tSyanIey.
He certainly rated the information of his
audience very low, to suppose that they
could be deceived by such statement,
and were ignorant OF the true grounds on
which the omission was based (see Rob
ert's Companion to the Revised Version.
e These verses are wanting in all the
Greek Goddess, also in the Codex Sinai
ticus in almost all the ancient versions,
including the Latin as late as the 8th
century; and Notwithstanding the Trim
itarian controversies, they are not referred
to By a single Greek father, on by amy of
the older Latin Church fathers" Iange
in loco.) In the face of these facts he de-
clares that the verses were left out be-
cause there acre UnitoraanS on the Conn.,
mittee. But his purpose is plain. He
has demonstrated from Beecher's refusal
to subscribe for the Bible Society, that
our Authorized Version is unworthy of
our confidence He shows the same in
regard to the Revised Version because it
has omitted some verses and marked
others for future excision. He would
have US believe we have no Bible. And
then he opens an escape for us from the
dilemma by commencing to our accept
ance the Vulgate of Jerome, (edited,
however, in 1899 and the Douay YER
sion, more Romish than the missal itself.
Here appears the relation of the lecture
to scepticism. He will make us all scep-
tics unless he can make us Romanists.
But perhaps the most marked feature
of the lecture was an adroit and plausi-
BILE attempt to refute the assertion that
the Church of Rome withholds the Bible
from the masses. This charge he denied
and fortified this denial by stating that
the Douay Version has been printed in
numerous editions and is freely used by
the English-speaking Romanists every
where. He did not allude to the denun-
citation, levelled by the Synod of Terra
gona against anyone who, having trans
lation of the Bible, refused to deliver it