NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-V. AN eager logical ingenuity, on being exercised upon words, may easily and plausibly elicit from the terms of the question assigned to us for discussion, a great variety of differing topics on which writers may descant or debate. We might hinge the discussion, for instance, upon this peculiar turn of the phraseology-ought we not to lay aside the Authorized Version of the Scriptures as worn out and misleading, and betake ourselves to the task of a bran-new translation from a fresh text-or in briefer phrase, ought we to revise or retranslate? and if we are to revise, ought we to take the Authorized Version as our standard, or ought we to prefer the original text as the matter to be revised? These various questions are quite as much involved in the terms of this debate as is that to which H. K. has devoted the large proportion of his opening paper. We believe that H. K. has succeeded in directing the discussion away from the specific point involved, which refers primarily to the manner in which the revision ought to be gone about. I am led to the opinion that this is the point of view intended from the force of the following facts :-the necessity of the revision of the Authorized Version was debated in this magazine in the early part of 1857, and it is not usual to renew a debate previously carried on, without a change of form. aspect, or terms. It had been proposed in the British Parliament that a Royal Commission should be issued for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, and this indicated the point of view from which the debate originated; and there had arisen a revision committee of the Convocation, who were preparing an actual revisal about the form. constitution, members, and duties, of which there were considerable doubts and discussions. These statements seem to me to bear out the idea that the question of revision was regarded as a foregone conclusion, and that the matter of the present controversy was limited to the very grave and serious consideration, Ought the management of this affair to be handed over to a Royal Commission, or ought the Church-the proper custodier of God's word-to retain the matter in its own hands? As to revision and its necessity the most exaggerated notions are entertained by some people on this topic. Some declaim at random regarding thousands of misreadings, corruptions, and mistransla tions, and innumerable interpolations and mistakes, as if salvation were perilled by the state of things. There is really no ground for these assertions. Constantine Tischendorf, who is one of the ablest of the decipherers of the old MSS, and has most diligently searched into this topic, says of the Authorized Version, "This translation of the New Testament has not only become an object of great reverence, but has deserved to be such." As a matter of fact, the variations of the texts are, so scholars say, on points of quite minor importance; they do not, in any appreciable degree, alter the general tenor or the ordinary doc trines, for what is gained on one hand by a revision is lost on the other, so far as regards sectarian differences. A very few notes, a slight addition to the marginal references commonly used, and a bringing into uniformity the spelling of proper names, would serve all useful purposes, and make the authorized version a very perfect and exact transcript into our language of the very meaning of the inspired writers. Numerous variations, such as those of "on for " upon," "in" for "into," "to" instead of "unto," and vice versa, can scarcely deserve serious consideration, and by far the larger proportion of the variations among the MSS., we are assured by learned and trustworthy men, consist of these and similar differences or divergencies. It seems to us, therefore, of very little importance indeed whether we have a revision or not. It must be recollected, besides, that every variation in the MS. does not constitute an error. None know the very original text of the apostles, and hence none know precisely what is the right and proper text. That which we might feel disposed to accept, they might be the very first to negative, had we access to their veritable writings. Scholars, as such, have no special guidance concerning the ipsissima verba of the apostles, and hence scholarship will not do for a court of final appeal regarding the orthodoxy of readings. They have no specific means of knowing what is the mind of the Spirit, and the Church would not be justified in resting or risking her doctrines on the mere scholarship of any set of men. word of God has been placed under the guardianship of the Church; to it has been committed the faith once delivered to the saints. Under that guardianship it ought to be retained: kings and popes have been compelled to give a free and readable Bible to the people; and we are not likely to resign to the hands of scholars that which has been wrenched from the wielders of the world's power. therefore hold that, in a matter which affects "the whole household of the faith," that the Church should retain its own peculiar treasures, and ought not to hand over its management to secular rulers or their commissioners. The I "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is one of the express commands of our Saviour, who said distinctly "My kingdom is not of this world." Dare we, as professing Christians, give to any Government the right to supply the Church of Christ with an authorized version of the word of Christ-the gospel of God? To the Church has been entrusted the preservation and publication of the life-giving oracles of the Most High; and any version of the Scriptures which can satisfy the conscience of the Church, must be the work of the Church and not of a Royal Commission, the members of which might be "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." The state in our land is not a theocracy, and its officials do not hold the seals of office from the Lord of glory; they are only managers of the temporalities of human life; they have, and ought to have, officially, no lordship over God's heritage. In matters temporal we are indeed to be subject to the powers that be, but in matters eternal we have a higher and more blessed citizenship, and are members of a diviner commonwealth. Under Jesus Christ, whose Spirit has been promised for guidance in all things that belong to the kingdom of heaven, there is little likelihood of any thoughtful and sincere seeker greatly erring, whatever be the version from which he may read. He gives His truth to them that ask in faith, nothing doubting. It is, we affirm, an unwarrantable encroachment on the kingdom of Christ, to propose to put into the hands of any Royal Commission the revision of the word of God. It was to His apostles that Jesus gave His divine commission to "go" and to "teach all nations," especially "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them;" and giving besides His gracious promise, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." From this we see that it is the office of the Church, not of the State, to teach God's law. This is further shown in the Pentecostal revelation. It was God's own Spirit which gave and guided the utterance of the apostles in the many languages they spoke. To this same spirit must we look in anything that relates to the revelation of the divine will and it is wholly within the Church that any dealing with the Holy Scriptures should take place. We have the assurance given us that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and that same Spirit who originally gave the form of sound speech, which cannot be condemned, will also preserve sound doctrine among His true and faithful followers. To the care of the churches has been committed the law and the testimony; to them God has delegated the transmission and interpretation of the same, and they will be unfaithful to themselves and to God if they resign their functions to any Royal Commission whatever. I do think it becomes the Church, in the present crisis, to consider her way wisely. So cautious and so learned a man as the Archbishop of York has hesitated to accede to a revision until all else has been tried and has failed. He proposes to alter in the quiet and calm way that living things change. He will show the form and manner in which the authorized text and version may be read, so as to yield the truth of the faith. He will show the express amount of the alterations requiring to be made in the present version, but he refuses to make trivial changes, or to incorporate the changes made in the text. He thinks that process of critical assimilation ought to go on as it does in living bodies, so that healthy absorption should at last bring all that is vitally correct and fitting into the Authorized Version. If there is to be a revision-and I suppose there must be-let it be done gradually, tentatively, carefully, but let it be done by the churches. Let the household of the Lord look upon the endeavours made, bring the text and the translation into harmony, let them welcome the best form of sound words they can secure, but do no give to the State the power of prescribing the Scripture to be used and exercising a tyranny over the consciences of men. M. C. L. H. Education. SHOULD THE BIBLE BE READ IN SCHOOLS WITHOUT COMMENT OR EXPLANATION? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I. Ir books ought to be valued for their authorship, for their worth, for their influence, and for their informing power, what book can compare with the Bible?— "This lamp, from off the everlasting throne And earnest sighs to hear, believe, and live." God reveals His will in the Scriptures. God makes Himself known in the Bible, and has given in it a record of man's destiny, duty, the law of life, and the nature of our social relationships; and He has above all given it that we may know Him as the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. This is saving knowledge. This is the chief and special knowledge man requires. It is that which makes him know God and his relation to God. The Bible is the guide of life. It alone can instruct and conduct us safely through the dangers and the difficulties of a sin-filled world. It is the true educator, because it is the book written for the education of the world, by Him who knows not only the world, and circumstances, and human nature best, but has prescribed the course of duty and the end of life. There are low aims of education-aims to educate men to be more useful and profitable machinery; but these we decry. We hold that man made in the image of God should be trained to gain and retain that image. This being our view of the proper end of education "We can but place ourselves in firm resistance to the theory which urges, as the final cause of education, the mere preparation of men for particular positions in society. Bring them up, it is said, for what they are to be; teach them the parts they are to perform Where this destination is certain, the discipline may be so directed. It ought not, nevertheless, to stop at that point. But how is this to be foretold? Still it is at best a low, unworthy view. We say, Educate man as man, for what he is, for what he can only be, as accountable and immortal man. Incline your instructions to his probable pursuits and duties on earth. Give not, however, to these your stress. They are comparatively little matters. Chiefly awake the moral sense. Draw out the soul. Enthrone the con science. Leave out of your consideration for a while every idea of earthly circumstance, condition, lot. Eternity must be your mark. Here is the man. He is only great in his intellectual and moral nature. He stands before you with all his awful capacities. Educate him! Your process must answer to him! Your purpose must answer to him! Teach him aright, and every incidental relation and function of earth will be included; but that being shall be seen unfolded in his unearthly greatness, and travelling on in the way everlasting!"* We cannot regard education as only an instrument for promoting the machinery of life and increasing the material wealth of nations. We recognise the political economy of an educated people as valuable, but not as valuable in and for itself alone. The sudden influx of zeal into the hearts of merchants and manufacturers, of statesmen and utilitarians, has an ominous look. It is a this-world state of things that has caused the outcry and the agilation. But the question is not one of this world only. It concerns the manhood of man, and because it does so, it is essential that the Bible, the chart of life, should be taught-taught, I say, not tolerated; but above all not politely neglected. And if in every other case you examine in, comment on, and give explanations of, the contents of the books read and studied, what is it but a mere glozing of the matter to say that the Bible, being merely read, is taught in schools? Shall we inaugurate a huge Statehypocrisy, and while professing that the Bible is the religious charter of the country, it is to be read, not understood? Is the power of reading and spelling really so valuable; is the accomplishment of writing and cyphering so very advantageous, that we shall put these instruments into the hand of men without guide or safeguard; nay, by placing a national veto upon the teaching of Scripture. justify infidelity, and carelessness of God and goodness? "Whatever is worth doing is worth doing well." If the Bible is worthy of being read, it is worthy of being worthily read. We call it the Book of God to the ears of children, but to the hearts of children we treat it with disrespect and despite. What is the Bible, that it should be thus visibly slighted? a child cannot but ask; and no sophistry can deceive it regarding the nature of the book, and men's aims concerning the non-explanation of it. If it is beyond human comprehension, why teach it? if it is within human comprehension, why not explain it, as is done with other books? What a weariness is an uncomprehended task-book! what a dreary, distasteful toil is the perusal of a book which is said to be all-important to the life of man, which one cannot comprehend and dare not inquire about. It is a book of history, philosophy, poetry, morals, and religion; it involves chronology, geography, botany, natural history, ethnology, antiquities, and the manners B. W. Hamilton, LL.D., D.D., on "The Institutions of Popular Education," p. 66. |