THE REVISION OF THE To the Editor of the METHODIST NEW MY DEAR SIR,-Lord Shaftesbury appears to me to have some ground for alarm lest the alterations proposed "produce a momentous and permanent change in the thoughts and feelings of every English speaking people." As much is said, and the public mind is excited respecting a new translation of the Sacred Scriptures for the people, I now send you a short history of the translations which have appeared, for the purpose of directing the minds of the readers of the METHODIST NEW CONNEXION MAGAZINE to this important subject. The Old Testament was translated into Greek nearly 300 years before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. This version is commonly called the Septuagint, from the seventy Jewish writers who were employed in the work. Soon after the publication of the apostolic writings, the Bible was translated into Latin for the use of the Christians using that language. This version was called the Italic, which, being the vulgar tongue of the Romans, was called the Vulgate. This is the only authorized version of the Romish Church at the present time. In French, the Waldenses had translations of the Bible made by their celebrated leader, Peter Waldo, about 1160, and another, more generally published, about 1383. In Spain there was a translation made about 1280. In Germany a translation of the Bible was made in 1460. Luther published a new translation of the New Testament in 1522, and the whole of the Bible in 1532. In England, several attempts were made at different times to translate the Bible into the vulgar languages, by Venerable Bede, who died in 735, and by King Alfred, who died in 900; but the first complete English translation of the Bible was by Wickliff, about 1380. The first printed English Bible was a translation made by William Tindal, who retired to the Continent to prosecute that work in security. He was assisted by Miles Coverdale, another English exile. In 1535 the whole Bible was published by Coverdale, and rapidly sold; but while this edition was being prepared, Tindal was seized by the Papists, strangled, and burnt as a heretic at Tilford Castle, between Antwerp and Brussels. Two of Tindal's assistants shared a similar fate-John Frith at Smithfield, and William Roge in Portugal. Now the good work was carried on by Miles Coverdale and John Rogers, who was afterwards the first martyr in the reign of Queen Mary. Passing over the times of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Queen Mary, and Elizabeth, we find, in 1608, by the request of Dr. Reynolds, King James gave orders for a new translation. Forty-seven learned divines were engaged in the work, which was commenced in 1607, and completed and published in 1611. This version has continued to the present day to be the only Bible printed without notes or commentary, in Great Britain. Its general excellence has been admitted by learned men of different communions. This may be regarded as sufficient to satisfy every seeker after the truth "as it is in Jesus." Allow me to give a few testimonies respecting the truthfulness of our present version. Dr. John Taylor says:-"You may rest fully satisfied that, as Our English translation is in itself by far the most excellent book in our language, so it is a pure and plentiful fountain of Divine knowledge; giving a true, clear, and full account of the Divine dispensations and the gospel of our salvation, so that whoever studies the Bible-the English Bible is sure of gaining that knowledge which, if duly applied to the heart, will infallibly guide him to eternity." Dr. Doddridge observes:-" On some occasions we do not scruple to animadvert upon it; but these remarks affect not the fundamentals of religion." Dr. Adam Clarke writes:-" It is the most accurate and faithful of a translation. Nor is this its only praise. The translators have seized the very soul and spirit of the original, and expressed this almost every where with pathos and energy." un The Rev. Thomas Scott declares:"It may be asked, How can learned persons know how our trans have been seeking for- namely, Infallibility-they have never been able to find; and well for them that it is so; for what would be the use of it? Infallibility is a Divine attribute, not a human one. It is not suitable for man, and therefore he cannot attain to it. He can only attain to what is human, and no amount of learning can accomplish a perfect translation of the Sacred Scriptures. The professing Church is too sectarian, and it is sectarianism that renders the task impossible. Men, brethren, and fathers, keep to the old book in its present version, by making it the one test of sound Christian principle, spiritual worship, and daily practice. "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”—I am yours sincerely, Camberwell. JOHN GEORGE. Editorial Department. TO OUR READERS. IN assuming the management of this Magazine and of the Juvenile Instructor, it may not be out of place if we address a few words "to our readers" explanatory of our views and aims in the execu tion of our task, and of the claims and obligations implied in the relation now commencing, and, we hope, usefully and happily commencing, between us and our patrons. We succeed to the position without instructions from any quarter. Statute law for our guidance there is none. Whatever law there is is common law, which has grown out of instinct partly, a sense of fitness, the exigencies of time and experience, and which has received its chief illustrations and sanctions from example. Our worthy predecessors have retired from their office with the well-deserved commendations of the body which employed them, and the first rule of conduct which this fact suggests is that we should tread as closely as possible in their steps, in order to give the same satisfaction to our readers, and earn the same commendations at the close of our career. But no two minds are constituted alike. No two men will do the same work in exactly the same way. With every wish to imitate where imitation is desirable there will be divergence of view sometimes, and a difference of taste. The peculiarities and the specialities of an editor, and of each succeeding editor, will impress themselves upon his work, and whether this be for the better or the worse it cannot be avoided. With deference, then, and with diffidence, under the consciousness of the disadvantage of long absence from England, and of comparative ignorance of the prevailing taste and preferences of the readers of this Magazine, if we try to impress on our own mind, and indicate to our readers, and specially to our correspondents, some principles which should control a work like this, we trust we shall not be suspected of any wish authoritatively to dictate to others, or even to advise, in a case in which we own we are inexperienced, and may be wrong in our impressions. It is undeniable that in these times the conductors of all our religious magazines, and much of our religious literature, feel the difficulties with which they have to contend in satisfying the craving of many of their readers, and meeting the competition which, right or wrong, has set in against them. The age, perhaps, is not shallow, but it is busy and impatient. It reads largely by the aid of the pencil and the easel. It will not or it cannot trouble itself much with our teaching or literary companionship unless we can captivate the eye with pictures, or stir the emotions with sensation. The young especially have been so extensively cared for, perhaps pampered, in this direction, that now it is almost useless to attempt to teach them even a moral or religious truth without a vision, a "story," or a dream. Much of our reading specially provided for Sundays is simply So many chapters of a novel, in some cases republished as such in the usual three volume measure, with courting, matrimony, perhaps a murder or two, and as much of the bloodand-thunder element as is decent. The capital employed, the literary and artistic talent engaged on these works, and liberally paid for, cannot be counted up. But there they are, some of them good other wise and some of them bad altogether, but all blazing with colour, and ornamented by art, the competitors with the sober periodicals which the necessity or the custom of the case obliges us to place by their side. We cannot have "stories; we cannot have tales, novels, and the sensationals. All the proprieties would be shocked were we to attempt this, and thus the trammelled editor of a religious periodical is often made sensible, even in religious families, that his performances are dull and unattractive, and that the young will not read them anyway. Now, what is to be done? The artistic part of the business could be mended, but here again there is a barrier. There must be "profits," and we suspect that an angel from heaven who could not show a good balance of profit at the end of the year would be deemed a used-up editor and manager. All the "funds" would bare their wasted arms in his sight, look daggers at him with their ghastly eyes, and pronounce him a ridiculous failure. The "light reading" cannot be furnished without authority to that effect, and even with authority it is a doubtful expedient. So here we are offering plain food to an age that wants confectionery, and sober truth to many who like it only as it is dressed up in theatricals. Our brethren before us were in the like tribulation, at least in these latter times, and work they never so hard and willingly they have worked in bonds as compared with those to whom money, and art, and ample licence as to subjects, matter, and style, have given every assistance in the direction of popularity and effect. When the best abstractedly is not attainable, we must be satisfied with the best possible, and this brings us to the main point aimed at in penning these remarks. We all see what the literary taste of the age is, even when it represents itself in our religious or our socalled religious literature. Editors see it, and correspondents should see it. We may deplore much that it is in this state, we may go so far as to denounce it, but the case remains all the same nevertheless, and it is the part of wisdom to make the best of it. If we cannot satisfy this taste let us meet it as far as it is right and possible to do so. Let us throw as much ease, freshness, and variety into the contents of our periodicals as the case admits of. Long articles-especially on theology-should, as a rule, be avoided. The biographies should be made as short as possible. Learned and abstruse disquisitions on any topic are out of place in a periodical intended for such general reading as is our Magazine. We need short articles, adapted to feed spiritual life, warm the affections, and please and profit readers who have not much time to spare, and come to read often with minds and bodies wearied with other occupations. the Practical and experimental religion are the things we all want a richer experience of, and we want more preaching and more reading on these subjects. We cannot understand why so many sermons and so much writing in these times should imply unbelief in our hearers and readers. It would seem, from the frequency and redundance of this kind of writing and preaching, that we have all to be put through the elements again, and all because some shallow sceptic has made a great dash against something fundamental, "most surely believed among us.' We do not thank a man who seems always or often doubtful of our orthodoxy or our sincerity by his manifest anxiety to prove what we do not doubt, and to demonstrate what has long been a settled point with us. It is not polite to question a man's solvency in his own counting-room, and it is never wise for a man to mount the house-tops to proclaim that his notes of hand are good and will be paid at maturity. The public take all this for granted in every worthy case, and as to the unworthy the less said about them the better. So in religion. We have accepted it, and so have millions more, as true and undeniable, and if some choose to deny it our chief business is not with these, most of whom will go on denying after we have spent our last breath upon them, but with the believers who want to work out the religion they have accepted, and reach the heaven it promises. A fair proportion of articles in defence of our faith, and in demolition of all adversaries, is to be desired, but too much of this, whether in preaching or writing, will be liable to misinterpretation, as, for instance, that we may not be fully persuaded in our own minds as to the truths we profess, that we are ourselves travelling rather too much in the region or outskirts of doubt, that we are nervous on the subject, which itself is not the best sign of good theological health; or that we are pugnacious, which our adversaries will be very glad to notice, and take advantage of in their favour. At all events, whatever is done in this direction should be effectually done, otherwise we may indicate objections which we fail to answer, and conjure up more enemies than we slay. We Connexional intelligence of an encouraging character is always acceptable. The principle, widely adopted in the commercial world, of keeping yourself and your business before the public, is of more importance in religious movements than some of us imagine. should be informed, and so should our readers, of all occurrences in our circuits calculated to cheer and stimulate. Interesting services, good meetings-whether in connection with our missions, Sundayschools, or the ordinary working of our circuits-should be notified. A few sentences may be sufficient. If we can learn nothing else, let us at least know that you are alive and doing something. Nothing of this kind is too insignificant to be noticed, and we do not know how much good we may do miles away from our locality by recording even trivial incidents which have come under our own observation in the sphere in which we move. If we do not greatly mistake, our Connexion has been too modest and negligent in this respect. It has not kept itself well advertised, and we submit that we should turn over a new leaf. We are not prohibited from sounding a trumpet before us except when we do our alms, not when we herald our Connexional activity. There is the further question of editorial responsibility, on which a few words may be said. Most of our correspondents are ministers in full orders, of undoubted soundness in the faith, of proved fidelity in their calling, and with as earnest desires to vindicate the truth, and profit in every high and spiritual sense the minds they may seek to address in our pages, as we can claim to be. They are men "of full age," and fully able to answer for themselves. It is our wish to let them deliver themselves in their own way without our dictation. No honourable man will avail himself of our pages to pull down what he knows, and we all know, he ought to build up. It is sufficient for us to say 1. Our faith-the Connexion's faith-is not to be assailed. 2. Our institutions must be sustained till they are altered by competent authority. 3. That on this latter pointwhich is of less importance than the former-and on which there will, perhaps, be more or less discussion, we have to say to all who may question us, "We do not intend to be a divider or a judge among you." As we understand our position and duties, we represent and work for the whole Connexion, not a part of it, or a faction in it-if such a faction there ever should be -but for the whole body. The Magazine is not our individual property, it is the property of us all. We have all a right of access to its columns for any useful and reasonable purpose for which we may wish to use them. In so using them, every man, subject to the conditions indicated, must answer for himself, without involving us in responsibility. To shape every opinion to our own model is simply to prohibit its free utterance, and to involve ourselves in controversies from which we shall endeavour studiously to keep aloof. At the same time, let us all remember that controversy is seldom profitable, that "amendments to the constitution" are best referred to the supreme court of the Connexion, the president of which is |