the mind of every reader, how could he remain ignorant of the fact? Was he, it is again asked, ignorant of it! Credat Judæus Apelles! But if Mr. C. did not know that Philip Doddridge was not a Doctor of the church of Scotland, before he published his first edition, ought he not, and had he been actuated by that regard for candor and truth, which ought to characterize every author, and especially an author of a version of the scriptures, would he not have taken care to know that he was a Doctor of the church of Scotland, before he made the formal assertion, as contained in the title page? It would require a casuist, such as the Bishop himself, to estimate, in point of morality, the difference between a wilful assertion of that which is false, and a formal and solemn assertion of a thing as a fact, without knowing the same to be true. Nor is this all; if it were a mere mistake into which the Bishop had inadvertently and through ignorance, fallen, why did he not openly and candidly correct the mistake in the 2d edition of his version? Why did he still retain the assertion in the title page, where it must meet the eye of every reader, after he, by his own admission, knew it to be false, whilst he attempts to save appearances, by inserting his excuse in a note, that by hundreds of his readers may never be observed? But Mr. C., in the conclusion of the note alluded to, has given his own reason for this procedure. "But, (he adds,) as the Presbyterians and Congregationalists in this country do amalgamate to a certain extent, the differences are more nominal than real." How this matter stands, will be seen in the sequel; at present, it would seem that his explanation amounts to this, that although, in the first edi tion, he made a reckless assertion in violation of the truth, yet upon the whole, it was in relation to a point which he deems too unimportant to require correction.

But still it may be asked, what advantage could Mr. C. hope to derive from the alleged misrepresentation? That the inquiry is worthy of attention, is frankly admitted; for it cannot reasonably be supposed, that he would wilfully make the misrepresentation, or retain it

and therefore had to place his reliance on what he would wish to be considered, (not indeed a three-fold,) but at least, a two-fold cord. But to effect even this, Mr. C. was under the necessity of giving an unfair and garbled representation of the sentiments of Dr. George Campbell, in relation to this subject. The fact is, that Dr. C. takes a distinction between those cases where the word EKKLESIA, is used to signify all, without exception, to the end of the world, who have believed, or shall believe on Jesus Christ to the saving of the soul; as for instance, where it is said, "Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." And such, where the same word is used to denote a single assembly, or congregation of professed worshippers; as where, (Matt. 18:17,) it is said, "if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church." In the former cases he would retain the translation, as it is in the old version, in the latter, he is of opinion, that it would be more correctly rendered" congregation."

The discussion of the merits of the question is here purposely avoided, and more especially as they were not discussed in the debate. It is only intended to consider the subject, so far as is deemed necessary to expose the deception of the author of the new version, in imposing that work upon the public, under the authority of names whose sentiments he has garbled and misrepresented, to promote his own views.

If the reader should entertain any doubts concerning what is here alleged concerning the conduct of the Bishop, he is requested to refer to the appendix No. 10, of the new version; and in connection therewith to the note of Dr. George C., upon Matth. 18:17, (a part only of which it suited the purposes of Mr. C. to quote,) and he will have his doubts removed. In the commencement of this appendix No. 10, Mr. C. informs his readers that "wherever the word Church is found in the common version, congregation will be found in" the new version. "We shall (he adds) let Drs. Campbell and Doddridge defend this preference. For although they have not always so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why

ed that this term fitly represents the original one. The term church or kirk (he adds) is an abbreviation of the word [words] KURIOU OLKOS, the house of the Lord, and does not translate the term EKKLESIA."

If the Bishop means that the word church, as an abbre viation of the Greek words which signify "the house of the Lord," does not literally translate the word EKKLESIA, he says that which is correct; but if he means, as it would seem he does, that it does not (and especially in reference to Matth. 16:18, as well as many other passages which refer to the church which Christ loved, and purchased with his own blood,) give the true meaning of the original, he is most manifestly, not to say perversely, incorrect. His position is indeed so directly in opposition to the truth, that it is fearlessly affirmed (for it is as will be seen presently,) upon divine authority, that it is this very translation, which removes all uncertainty as to the meaning of the term, which at least in many instances, must attach to the word congregation. "But if I tarry long, (said the apostle in his first letter to Timothy,) that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God (EN OIKO THEOU), which is the church, (KLESIA,) of the living God." Thus it appears, that the translators of the standard version, had better authority than that of the Bishop of Bethany for translating the term EKKLESIA, and especially in the passage in Matth. 16:18, as well as in all other passages, which refer to the possessions of Christ, by a word which signifies the house of God.

The deception thus practised by the author of the new version, which has, it is conceived, been made clearly to appear, is nevertheless of small importance compared with what yet remains to be exposed to view. When we consider the strong asseverations of the author, contained in his preface, that in putting forth his version he had no sectarian object in view, in connection with the humble pretensions of the title page, which professes to be the translation not of the Bishop of Bethany, but of three Doctors of the Church of Scotland," it could not have

66