out of which success grows. We are the more inclined to the belief that it was not a cunning master-stroke of policy, from the consistency of his future life, with the fact that he had passed under deep impressions, and risen to a higher level of soul in the process. While, therefore, we conclude that it is not needful to intercalate a miracle in history, we as decidedly think that Constantine's belief was entertained as true, however, in reality, erroneous. Courage, hope, and faith, the stout hearted forthgoings of the soul, seem incompatible with the cowardice of a lie-a lie, too, which every standard in his cohorts would resuggest to conscience, and thus unnerve the arm raised at its signal. Neither can we fancy that a patent, widely-known, and glaringly-emblazoned falsehood could act as a stimulant to the sinewy onrush of an armed host, at the mere behest of a selfperjured leader. Besides, a life-long adherence to that creed, of which his standard was an acknowledgment, seems to argue that, however the conviction arose, it was honestly entertained and acted on. And was there not in the character of that guileless, "soft, meek, patient, humble spirit," which conquered all by its truth, gentleness, and endurance, that which would forbid, as an ineffable enormity, the use of the symbol of the world's salvation-throes, as the mere gew-gaw ensign of an empire-gambler? Whatever the origin of the myth-fact may have been, the influences which resulted from it are historical, and must be accepted. The conversion of Constantine was an event of mighty moment then, and one whose influences even yet work in the history of our world, "For deeds like his, Pile on them what we may, turn not extinct." [The future life of Constantine we must reserve for our suc ceeding paper.] RESOLUTION. Resolve, resolve, and to be men aspire; Exert that noblest privilege alone Here to mankind indulged; control desire, Let god-like Reason from her sovereign throne DUTY. 'Tis not Enough to get a victory, if we lose WRONG DOING. He that does wrong, not only Thomson. Draws, but makes sharp his en'my's sword against Religion. IS A REVISION OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THE BIBLE NECESSARY? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II. "THRELKELD," in the January number, says our English version "has many faults; that they are important; that their influence is injurious;" and therefore a revision is necessary. We intend, in the present article (1), to examine his proof of these assertions, and (2) to give a few reasons why the present version should not be revised. 66 I. He says (1), "Suspected passages are not pointed out." Were this to be done, a large portion of the Bible would have to be marked as suspicious; for numberless passages have been disputed by various sects, because they did not harmonize with their views, e. g., the Unitarians at the present day declare whole chapters to be spurious, not because evidence is against them, but because they clearly assert the divinity of Christ. So many passages being marked as suspicious would only tend to shake the faith of the unlearned follower of Christ. It is no matter how many "grave suspicions" may have been entertained with respect to the genuineness of any passage, when they have been fully set at rest, or when the preponderance of evidence is for, not against it. Threlkeld" would have us believe that Mark xvi. 9-20 "is the production of another and later hand,” although Knittel, after an examination of all the arguments for and against it, maintains its genuineness; and many other sound critics hold the same opinion. In fact, it is found in all the MSS. except one, and that one, with which great liberties has been taken. It is also acknowledged by Clemens Romanus, Alexandrinus, Justin, Dionysius, Hippolytus, Irenæus, Tatian, &c. Why, then, should it be marked as doubtful? The grave suspicions respecting John xxi. are destitute of any support from external or internal evidence, and rest upon mere conjecture. The chapter is found in all the MSS. Of 1 John v. 7, 8, one verse only is questioned, and its genuineness has been maintained by many of the best scholars; e. g., Bengel, Bps. Horsley, Middleton, Burgess; Drs. Nolan, Hales, Wiseman; Professor Knittel, Mill, and many others. But Bp. Marsh, Dean Tarton, Porson, Michaelis, Wetstein, Scholz, and others, range themselves on the other side. Scholz, who wrote between 1820-30, was answered by Bp. Burgess only three weeks before his death. It is difficult in such cases to strike the balance, and I think it 66 This kind is best left as in our version. Again, in this passage, can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting;" the last two words, "Threlkeld" says, are believed to be interpolated. This assertion is destitute of evidence: it is found, also, both in Matt. xvii. 21, and Mark ix. 29. In 1 Cor. vii. 5, "fasting" is not found in some MSS., and has been cancelled by some editors, but without sufficient reason, since the external and internal evidence against it is not strong. A word is very easily omitted in a MS., and since prayer and fasting are joined together in many other passages, and in that age fasting usually accompanied religious exercises, we must conclude that " fasting is not an interpolation. John v. 3, 4, is doubtless genuine; if we cancel any, we must cancel the greater part of the two verses. And for that we have only the authority of two MSS.-two very inferior versions,-and Nonnus. But Nonnus can here be no authority, since he frequently passes over clauses and verses very slightly. The MSS. abound with instances of liberties taken with the text. The critics are not agreed that "some uninspired hand supplied the description." Lackman and others remove the brackets in which Griesbach had enclosed the passage. The Germans cannot explain the fact declared, so as to do away with its miraculous character, and would, therefore, reject this passage as spurious. But with so little evidence against it, it must be held as genuine. Why Jas. i. 3; 1 Pet. v. 2; ii. 3, 10; Jude 22, should be marked as suspicious, I cannot imagine. The portions of Acts viii. and ix. alluded to are, I suppose, viii. 37, and ix. 5. These two passages are, it is true, questioned by some, but they are defended by others. John viii. 1-11 is, without doubt, genuine. It is found in 284 MSS., and six Evangelisteria. In fifty-five others it is found, but marked; and in eight others it is placed at the end of the gospel. Seventy-five MSS., examined by Scholz for this paragraph, including thirteen uncial ones, were found to be mutilated. short, all the evidence against it is inconclusive. We may imagine why and how it might be omitted, though genuine; but we cannot imagine why, if false, it should have been forged, and how it could have found its way into five-sixths of the MSS. without detection. Men," it is true, "should not be told to reverence as God's that which is of man;" but how in the face of such evidence can he show that it is man's? 66 In "Threlkeld" says-(2) "Important variations and emendations of MSS. are not pointed out, or made use of." That there is not one of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible touched in the emendations of the Greek text is the general testimony of the greatest biblical scholars. In fact, many of the emendations could not be rendered in a translation. 3. " Mistranslations are frequent ;" and he gives a few passagess as specimens ; e.g., " I am that I am," Exod. iii. 14. Our translation is good, but any person acquainted with Hebrew knows that the proposed alteration is incorrect. In Exod. xii. 35, the word rendered "asked," not "borrowed," in the Hebrew has both significations. In 1 John iii. 16, neither God nor Christ is in the Greek, so that there can be no mistranslation; but is not Christ truly God? His translation of Sam. xii. 31 is disputed by many; and till there is some agreement, there would be no advantage gained by adopting his version. In John xiii. 2, although the sense of "bringing in," is not given to yivouai in the lexicons, our translation is better than that which he proposes, and agrees with Luke xxii. 20. Psa. lxxxiv. 5 "Threlkeld" would alter to "they go from company to company;" but can he show that, in going up to Jerusalem, they did "go from company to company"? What does he mean by the expression? Is it in keeping with the rest of the psalms? Dr. S. Lee, the first Oriental scholar of the day, translates the original as it stands in our version. John vi. 55 is, in our version, translated, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." "Indeed" is defined by Johnson to be an adverb, signifying "in truth, in reality," &c., and therefore is a correct translation of aλnews, the original word. "Threlkeld' translates the adverb aλnews by the adjective "true." Therefore our translation is the best. 4. "Proper names are very erroneously rendered." Supposing it to be so, it is a matter certainly not of sufficient moment to render a revision necessary. What would we gain by such changes? 5. He complains of "a want of uniformity." The same English word represents two or three Greek words. This arises from the copiousness of the Greek language. He finds fault with Auxvas being translated "light." Auxvos is generally derived from Xów, to scatter, and vos, night; it may, however, come from the old noun Xúrŋ, light; but in either case “light is an excellent translation. 6. Again, "Threlkeld" says, the "idioms require more attention.' If idioms were to be translated literally, an uneducated English reader would not understand them; and there are very few who do not know that the words put in italics are not in the original. Why does "Threlkeld" quote John xvii. 2 and Rev. iii. 21? Some few English idioms may be obsolete, but certainly the majority of them are not inelegant. The English idioms contain the strength and beauty of the English language. 7. This objection, to one who reads his Bible, is of very little importance; and to one who does not read it, it is of no importance whatever. II. We are to give a few reasons why the present version should not be revised. (1) The way of truth is in it made so plain, that "he who runs may read; and the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err therein." This, "Threlkeld" has not been able to disprove; the objections he has brought are very weak, and none of them concern the salvation of the soul. (2) "Our version" (we quote "Threlkeld" now) "gives, as far as is consistent with the genius of the English language, now the unrivalled conciseness of some portions of the text, now the beautiful diffuseness of others; and we value the Bible for its pure Saxon speech." (3) Because the principal parties who seek a revision consist of those chiefly who deny the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. (4) Numbers of the most learned men of the present day are unsound in the faith; and, if they had anything to do with the revision, they would cram their rationalistic, tractarian, and apostatizing doctrines into the word of God. (5) A revision would not satisfy all parties, and there would most probably be more complaining against the new version than against the old. On these grounds I maintain that a revision of the authorized version is unnecessary and unwise. AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II. T. T. B. WE deem it expedient to observe, that we do not engage in this controversy out of a captious, cavilling, and disaffected spirit; on the contrary, our object is, the elucidation of the truth by every available means. God's word is our standard of appeal. It is both "the man of our counsels" and the basis of our belief. Its principles should be our rule of action, its precepts our guide. Far be it, then, from our wish to underrate the importance of that book we so much prize, which has been the solace and support of millions of burdened souls, and upon whose strong pillars millions more, even now, are relying. All the great and fundamental doctrines of the Bible are incontrovertibly established beyond all power of refutation. doctrines have been subjected to the most rigid tests, and are proved to be "essentially contained in and established by the ORACLES OF GOD." With these doctrines it is not our purpose to interfere. Our plan of proceeding is the following; viz. : These 1st. To point out, here and there, defects in the translation and renderings of sundry passages, by which the sense of the text is obscured. 2nd. To supply other renderings, where exception is taken to those in the common text. 3rd. To show, in a few instances, defects in the arrangement of the chapters and verses. We are not insensible of the importance of the undertaking which lies before us-an undertaking, we freely acknowledge, far transcending our poor powers, and one which should be entered upon only upon the fullest conviction of its necessity. Conscious of our inability to accomplish this work with anything |