at the same time, challenge the severest criticism? They tell us that it is absurd to say that Jehovah, if omnipresent, came down to see the city,' &c., Gen. xi. 5. That Jehovah beheld, or observed the city, &c., would doubtless convey the idea of the writer more correctly; and thus it would probably appear in a revised version.

Infidels point to such passages as Matt. xxvi. 45, 46. Here Jesus does not tell his disciples, at the same time, both to take their rest and to rise and be going, as in the common version. But he said, 'Do you sleep and take your rest now? Behold the hour is come when the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going; lo! he who has betrayed me is at hand.'

Again: He is the man of my choice, would sufficiently express the sense of the latter clause of Sol. Song, i. 13. These are only examples. It has been truly said, that 'the most plausible infidel objections are derived from inaccuracies of translation, and the foundation on which these objections rest would be removed by a faithful revision."

It is said, however, that the people are so attached to the style and phraseology of the common version, that they would not receive another, unless it were sanctioned by the crown and government. We do not believe this. The question at issue is simply a question of time. We know that many who love the book are much attached to certain words and phrases which are peculiar to the common version; and we would make no alterations, except such as are necessary to convey the true sense of the writer. We would not ask the government to do it. We would intrust it to such men as are now employed by the American Bible Union, to revise the Scriptures in the English and other languages. They are connected with various Churches-Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, &c. &c. Some are

resident in this, and others in other countries. Certain men are revising certain parts of the book. Several parts are already published, and are constantly on sale in London. Especial attention is solicited to the following extracts from The Bible Union Reporter:

Even opponents, who assert that a revised version will never come into popular use, freely admit the immense advantages conferred upon all biblical scholars and translators into foreign languages, by the parts which we have already issued for criticism, while the friends of the work are more and more pleased, the further it progresses. From the numerous criticisms of a favourable character that have been received from scholars of undoubted reputation, we copy the following. At the same time it is proper to remark, that no scholar, so far as known to us, has pointed out a fault, or hinted a difference of opinion upon any passage, without expressing his decided admiration of the general merits of the revision:

The American Bible Union has the merit of putting forth in the book now before us, the first attempt at such a revision of the text as is required. The conscientious minuteness with which every slight departure from the authorized text is noted, and every authority of value collated, is highly creditable to the editor or editors. The style in which the book is printed, and the price at which it is offered to the public, are highly creditable to the publishers."-Clerical Journal.

This is a noble quarto volume, printed in triple columns, in which a superb Greek text occupies the middle place, between King

James' version and the revised version. The notes are chiefly critical, and they exhibit much research and profound scholarship. Of the scholarship and industry revealed in them there can be but one opinion."-Church and State Gazette.'

There has been an agitation on this question ever since the present very faulty version was issued, in 1611. After many efforts, an order was made in Parliament, in 1652, that a bill should be brought in for a new translation. The Parliament, however, was soon dissolved, and the effort failed. From that time to this, much has been said and written for and against a revised version. The question was submitted to Parliament last year (1856), and will be again this year. Many say, and this has been recently reiterated by the Times (8th Dec. 1856), that the common version is so good that revision is unnecessary, and would not be accepted. Dr Cumming did speak on this wise; but recently, in Exeter Hall, we find him taking different ground. Greek scholarship,' says he, 'is not ripe enough.' We have shewn that important corrections are required. It is not so easy to shew that Greek scholarship is ripe enough. But we hesitate not to affirm, that if ten or fifty Greek scholars were summoned to decide that question, they would contradict Dr Cumming. That the common version has errors is admitted, and that Greek scholarship has very far advanced since 1611 is unquestionable. Whether corrections are required, and whether these are important, you can judge without an enlargement of the list, which it would be easy to make. And we call upon you to pronounce your judgment, to say on which side of the controversy you will take your stand. The question is of supreme importance to you and to all,-to you and your posterity, whether you are of the teachers or of the taught; and we call upon you to think, judge, speak, and act, as in the sight of God, who is honoured by a faithful utterance of his word, and vice versa.

'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world,' 1 John iv. 1. The prophet who shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak... shall die,' Deut. xviii. 20. 'What is the chaff to the wheat, saith Jehovah? Is not my word like a fire and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces. Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah, that steal my words, that use their tongues, and say, He saith, that cause my people to err by their lies. They have perverted the words of the living God,' Jer. xxiii. 28-36. 'The words of Jehovah are pure words,' Psalm xii. 6.

...

Who will first plead for, and then hail, a pure version of the word of God?

Page for the Young.

THE FIRST SHIPBUILDER.

THE first ship of which we have any account is calculated to have been able to carry about ten times as much as one of the great vessels which sail from this country to Australia. Many a year did it take in building, and so peculiar was the purpose for which it was designed, that the like of it has never been seen since, and all the

world then held it in scorn. But it was a work of faith, and works of faith ever seem to those who walk by sight to be but foolish undertakings. So the people laughed at Noah and his ship. But after all it turned out that he alone was the wise man, and endued with knowledge among them. For the time did come when the ark was needed, and all who were out of it perished. Warned of God of things not seen, moved with fear, by faith he prepared the ark. God told Noah, as he did the world, that the flood would come upon and sweep away the ungodly. Noah believed God, and did as he told him. Moved with fear, or being wary, he commenced to build, and left not off till he had finished, notwithstanding that the longsuffering of God waited very long, for God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' But the days of longsuffering passed away, and God, who many years before said to Noah, Make thee an ark,' said now, 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark.' And Noah and all his entered as the Lord commanded, and the self-same day the waters of the flood came upon the earth, and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. And still the waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, but still the ark went upon the face of the waters. And yet the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered, and all flesh died. Noah only remained alive, and those who were with him in the ark. Thus his faith triumphed. Thus he condemned the world for its unbelief and consequent disobedience, while he became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Accordingly we find that Noah found grace, or favour, in the sight of God, for thus he walked with God, and God declared him just and upright, and God's covenant was with him, and his blessing was upon him. But those who would not believe God suffered the threatened vengeance. God told them the same that he spoke to Noah-both had the same ground of faith, the word of God. In addition, they had the preaching of Noah, for he, like all God's preachers, was not ashamed to work while he preached, and so all the time he was building the ark he preached righteousness to the ungodly. But for all that they did not believe, and without faith they could not become righteous, even had they wished, and so there was nothing for them but to die in their sins. Dear children, God has spoken to you in his word, that you may believe and attain the righteousness which is by faith, and enjoy his favour and be saved; and he has also threatened, saying, that the world that now is shall be destroyed, not by water, but by fire, and that as in the days of Noah, the ungodly shall be punished. See, then, little ones, that you follow Noah's faith from this hour till God takes you to himself.

The Cloud of Witnesses.

LOVE.—We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and be carried to Abraham's bosom; but if we die without love, what would knowledge avail us? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels. I will not quarrel with you about my opinion; only see that your heart is right towards God, that you love the Lord Jesus

Christ, that you love your neighbour, walk as your Master walked, and I desire no more. I am sick of opinions, I am weary to hear them, my soul loathes their frothy food. Give me solid, substantial religion; give me a humble lover of God and man, a man full of mercy and good fruits, a man laying himself out in works of faith, the patience of hope, the labour of love. John Wesley.

SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM.-Ye plungynge into ye water sygnyfyeth that we dye and are buried with Chryste; as concernynge ye old lyfe of synne, which is Adam; and ye pullynge out agayne sygnyfyeth that we ryse agayne with Chryste in a new lyfe. Tyndal.

Correspondence.

6

REPLY ON CHURCH AND CONGREGATION.'

་

WHILE Philology is allowed by all to present a curious and interesting field of investigation to the learned, it is also well adapted to afford efficient assistance in carrying forward the cause of pure and undefiled religion among men; for, in this field where are deposited so many gems, there is a department in which the humble and studious Christian may labour, and find an ample reward. There are numerous words, each of which has a long and instructive story to tell; and which can only be related to those who cultivate their acquaintance. Error also not unfrequently hides itself under the mantle of truth; but true philological enquiry will trace it to its concealment, and, stripping it of its false dress, exhibit it to man in its true colours. Let us now proceed to examine the two words in question. 1. CHURCH. This term is derived from the Greek, and is compounded of oikos, a house,' and kyrios, 'Lord.' The expression, therefore, means, the house of the Lord.' As far as I have observed, it is not found in any of the Gospels or Epistles, though of frequent occurrence in Old Testament writings, especially when referring to the temple—the sacred place in which Jehovah placed his name and promised to dwell. And as the temple was undoubtedly a type of God's spiritual house-his redeemed people being his habitation through the Spirit-the name of the former might very appropriately be given to the latter. And all the more so, from several expressions employed by the apostles in their writings, when speaking of the people of God, such as-The house of God," Tim.; Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we,' &c., Heb.; and, Know you not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost,' Cor. Then, any number of people united together by the common bond of the faith for the worship and service of God is a Church, or in other words, one of the Lord's houses; but the Church is all the saints, who are or ever shall be saved, collected into one vast assembly-one glorious temple, whose length, breadth, and height, the spiritually-minded are invited to contemplate with adoring wonder, on account of the amazing love and infinite wisdom displayed in its construction; seeing that out of such materials a stupendous and symetrical edifice has been raised. No one, then, I conceive, can object to the use of the word 'Church,' when speaking of a number of believers in their associated capacity.

2. CONGREGATION.-As to it I would observe, first, That it is a word of Latin origin, made up of the following elements: con, together; greg, flock; and the termination, ation; so that the whole term literally means, the act of flocking together. Second, That, strictly speaking, it should not be found in the English New Testament. It occurs only once, in Acts xiii. 43, and rather improperly, for the usual rendering of the word 'synagogue,' instead of congregation,' would have been much preferable. If that had been done, the expression before us would have had no place in the English New Testament; because the corresponding Greek word (ovvayeλaoμos), so far as I have observed, no where occurs in the New Testament. Third, The idea of multitude or flock seems to be the principal and primary idea of the word, so that where no number of individuals are collected together, there can be no congregation.' Fourth, Any sort of articles, if gathered together in sufficiently large numbers, could, with all propriety, form a certain kind of 'congregation.' When employed, however, in relation to human beings, it appears to import, a number of persons gathered together in one place, who may be of different ages, ranks, sexes, and principles. It might do well enough to express a mixed multitude, but does not appear to be the most suitable for applying to a number of the Lord's people when met according to his command.

A Church, then, may consist of few; but a 'congregation' must consist of many. A Church must be composed of the Lord's redeemed; but a congregation may be composed of any individuals, so that, when the latter refers to believers, it must have some descriptive adjunct attached; for example, the 'congregation' of the righteous of the saints, &c. The phrase 'Church and Congregation' is unscriptural, and not generally recognised as correct, even by Presbyterians. Whenever it is employed by them, it seems to be equivalent to the more common expression-Members and Hearers. Members answering to Church; Hearers to Congregation. In the Episcopal and Roman Churches the phrase is employed somewhat differently; but I think it would be both tedious and uninteresting to follow it there, as it is purely one of the many human inventions and distinctions which have veiled the simple and glorious Gospel of the ever blessed God.

Edinburgh.

A. A.

(Our brother omits to notice the word Ecclesia, which occurs above a hundred times in the New Testament, and is rendered in the authorised English version, Church; but in other versions, Congregation. That neither of these two words is its proper English, our readers will see very plainly from the derivations as stated by brother A. But from his not adverting to this term most commonly used by the sacred writers, the reader might be led into the mistaken supposition, that whenever he finds the word Church in the common English version, oikos would be found in the original. The word, however, as we have said, is Ecclesia, from Eккаλeо to call out, or summon. So that it designates a body legally or authoritatively summoned or › called out. This is the true idea of an assembly of Christians. It expresses not only the fact of their flocking together, which is all that the word Congregation indicates, but it implies that their com