DEEP WATERS. YES! it is even so! The long, long strife It is the Lord: let Him so shape our life What though the gloom of heart-deep sorrow shroud Not in the azure heaven, but in the cloud, What though through thorny paths to bear our load The tenderest feet upon the homeward road What though from some to whom our hearts were given Hearts in His keeping, (would they house in heaven,) What though deep waters wait us?-Men who go The wondrous goodness of the Lord shall know, Shall, 'scaped from storm and tempest, as now we, "We call'd upon the Lord in trouble ;-He Deliver'd us!" MARY C. HUME. A NEW TRANSLATION OR REVISION OF THE BIBLE. SECOND ARTICLE. THERE are some people whose satisfied and comfortable state of mind would be extremely enviable, were we ignorant of the concomitant deficiencies which seem necessary to the perfection of their happiness. They move in a limited circle, have personal intercourse with but one class of people, and confine themselves within the bounds of a religious fellowship more narrow than that prescribed by the most contracted sectarianism. They have their one place of worship, their favourite pastor, and even their choice portions of Scripture, which they will seek to commend though it be by the disparagement of the rest. They never read the newspapers, except perhaps one which advocates their opinions; and they "take in " their religious periodical, which presents their theological notions invariably in one and the same light, giving no idea that there are possibly truer and better things taught elsewhere. They hate discussion, eschew all scepticism on existing matters of faith or old-established forms, and never dream of the propriety of the slightest change, unless indeed they deem it safe and advantageous to their own persuasions, which they may do sometimes when, from their very confined means of observation, the change sought would be highly detrimental to themselves, and to the progress of the religion they profess. No wonder these people enjoy the smooth comfort of a blissful ignorance-blissful, if it be folly to be less at ease by the possession of a wider knowledge. They have fenced themselves off from the possible experience or information of the agitated state of the entire religious world at the present day, and are utterly unconscious of the rigid and ardent sectarian feeling which prevails in every Protestant country more conspicuously now than in any previous age. They are not aware that religious sects were never more numerous, less confident of their own tenets, and therefore more clamorous and determined in their defence. Could a more untimely season be chosen for the accomplishment of a work, upon which, to be of any use, general unanimity is essential? It does seem strange that any one accustomed to observe the movements of various religious parties, should hope to obtain in these times a new translation, or a total revision of the Bible, that would be recognised by Christians of all denominations. A new standard edition is of course the object of the present outcry for a new translation. To be assured of the impracticability of this desire, we have but to see what has been already done by those bodies who, dissatisfied with the support which the authorised English Bible gives to their peculiar doctrines, have had translations made by the most learned men of their own sects. Those comfortable sort of people who never have the curiosity to cast a look from their peaceable inclosure upon the outer world, believe that there are but one or two English translations of the Bible in existence. But almost every important denomination in England has its translation, its commentaries, and its notes. The Wesleyans have theirs, by John Wesley; and part of one, by Richard Watson, a Methodist preacher, has been published by the Methodist Conference. Dr. Boothroyd, a congregational minister, has published another. Dr. Conquest, a layman of the same body, published another, in which he says he made twenty thousand emendations or improvements. The Unitarians have a new translation of the New Testament, and a large portion of the Old Testament. Alexander Campbell, the founder of the sect which bears his name, has published another translation of the New Testament. The Baptists, too, and many others, have had new translations, if not of the whole Bible, of considerable portions of it, and many, who have represented no particular body of religious people, have ventured on translations to a further extent. And, as a consequence of the late agitation, we have a "literal translation of the New Testament," by Herman Heinfetter, author of Rules for Ascertaining the Sense Conveyed in Ancient Greek MSS. Likewise we have The Jewish School and Family Bible, a new translation by Dr. A. Benisch, of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, under the supervision of the Rev. the Chief Rabbi of the United Congregations of the British Empire. There is also the translation of a part of the Book of Job, by Prof. Conant, under the supervision of the American Bible Union. As might have been expected, the translation issuing from each sect or party is marked by characteristics peculiar to the essential dogmas of each. Judaism is distinctly seen in the Jewish Bible; Unitarianism in the Unitarians'; and the Methodists' palpably distinct from either. Dr. Benisch confesses to have made his translation "a faithful expositor of Jewish opinions in every theological point." Yet, notwithstanding this confession, he lays claim to an independence of rendering, which he seems to think almost impossible of attainment in a Christian translation. Compare any two existing commentaries on the Bible, and the English rendering of the Hebrew or Greek text is seen to partake, even more obviously, of the bias of the commentator's mind, and to clash wherever their distinctive doctrines are likely to be affected by the rendering. Taking these facts into consideration, it appears to us that nothing short of a miracle can suddenly create that unanimity of perception, that perfect suppression of creed-bound individuality, which would be necessary to the performance of their work, whether in the " American Bible Union" or in any other union of opposing religious sectarians. It requires but a little amount of Biblical knowledge to enable an intelligent Newchurchman to see, that before we can hope for a better translation of the Bible than the one in common use, an insight and an open acknowledgement of its spiritual sense must become more general; the laws according to which it is written must be understood; the divinity not only of its precepts and injunctions, but of its words, to a fuller extent perceived. Let the New Church but look at the estimation in which God's Word is held, not by ignorant sceptics, or by an insignificant body of Dissenters, but by a no less important people than a large portion of the Church of England itself, and the force of these observations will be readily admitted. The Rev. H. Burgess, LL.D., Ph. D., Curate of Clifton Reynes, Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature, and the Clerical Journal, and Member of the Royal Society of Literature, says, that "to maintain inspiration as held by the sacred writers and by the Church, while we concede that they are not infallible in every point, is to break at once half the arrows in the quiver of infidelity." Where is the beginning and ending of this concession? The sacred writers are not infallible; the Church is not infallible; and the Church is to be accepted as the guide and interpreter of the Sacred Writings! "The Church of England," says Dr. Burgess, "is founded on Scripture as interpreted and supplemented by antiquity, and not as explained by any private subjectivity. . . . . The Church preceded the Bible. . . . . The Church is the divinely appointed instrument for converting the world." (Archdeacon Gunning states that the Prayer-books are the best interpreters of the Bible.) These words now quoted were directed against the statement of Lord Shaftesbury, that the circulation of the Scriptures on the Continent by the Bible Society had brought "tens of thousands to the knowledge of the truth." This, the Doctor thinks, is the office of the Church, and not of the Bible by itself. "While the influence of the Bible is most blessed and salutary," he grants, "its office is not to convert the world, but to be a law to men when they become Christians." And in his own Journal it is said, in reference to these sentiments, "Dr. Burgess does not lay down any opinion of his own on the subject, but merely pleads for justice to others, who may follow Catholic consent and the demands of the Bible and the Church, and yet disbelieve in verbal inspiration." With the prevalence of such loose notions and mischievous ignorance of the character of the Holy Word, among the learned and influential dignitaries of the Church of England-to say nothing of the infidelity of the leaders of other religious denominations—we ask, is this the time to hope for a more faithful translation of the written Word than the one we now possess? We sincerely desire that the authorised version were purged of the inaccuracies it contains; but when we think of the battle that is being waged by one sect against another, dividing and sub-dividing upon the meaning some attach to a single word in the original tongue; when we hear others complaining of the phraseology of Scripture, and desire a new translation because there are several obsolete words in the present version; when almost every sect has its own peculiar reasons for rejecting as divinely-inspired that to which others owe their very existence; and when universally the very and only test of divine truth is unknown, the light requisite to evolve the present obscure meaning of many Hebrew words and phrases is not admitted; we have no inclination to say a word in the encouragement of this laborious and useless, if not positively dangerous task. But here is a work to which we can cordially direct the attention of our readers. It is stated in the New York Protestant Churchman that the American Bible Society-not the Bible Union-" have, with great care and labour, prepared and published a standard edition of the English version of the Holy Scriptures." We are indebted to a London daily paper for the following statement of the facts: "The necessity for this undertaking arose from the many typographical variations in the editions of the English Bible in common circulation. The committee to whom this work was entrusted, was composed of the following seven gentlemen, some of whose names will be recognised in England: Gardiner Spring, Thomas Cock, Samuel H. Turner, Edward Robinson, Thomas E. Vermilye, John M'Clintock, Richard S. Storrs,jun. "The work of collation occupied the labours of three years. The system and method of examination and decision which were adopted were simple and clear. The royal octavo edition of the American Bible Society was selected as the basis. This was compared, in every word and point, with a recent copy from each of the four authorised presses in England, and also with a copy of the original edition of 1611. So far as the English copies were found uniform, there was an entire conformity to them. In all variations among them, the object was to restore, as accurately as possible, the original standard of the first edition. A single collator was employed to devote his whole time to the work of examination. A sub-committee of the Committee on Versions met him for several hours every week, for an examination of the results of his collation. The whole committee reviewed and decided every important question arising in the course of the proceeding, and established the rules by which the collation should be made. The close of their work was the production of the most perfect copy of the English version which has ever been printed. No correction was made but with an entire unanimity in the committee. Twenty-four thousand variations, more or less important, in the printing and punctuation, were found in the various copies compared, and were corrected. And the whole work was brought to the happiest conclusion in the preparation of that edition which was adopted by the board as the standard edition of the society, which is now the standard edition of the English version, |