which three additional messengers of peace to the heathen-the Rev. Messrs. Possett, Winter, and Liefeld-were solemnly set apart for the service of Christ in South Africa. The interest excited was so great, that the church overflowed, and could not contain all who were anxious to crowd into it. The propagation of the Gospel of Christ among the ancient people of God makes still more rapid progress. No Rabbinical opposition, however artfully contrived, can now stem the tide of Israel's conversion. They now join the Christian church by tens and twenties, and I confidently anticipate their doing so soon by hundreds. I allow that some are actuated by impure motives-even the strictest precaution cannot prevent the intru sion of some insincere and hypocritical professors; yet I can state with perfect conviction, that many are under the influence of right and truly Christian principles, stand firm and are stedfast in the faith. The number of those whom I have myself baptized, amounts to 109. In a short time I shall baptize a negro whom I have had under my instruction for upwards of a year. On the other side, wickedness and iniquity, in their greatest effrontery, abound. Some of our public papers and periodical works much aid the cause of infidelity; but we trust that the Lord will overrule all for good. The controversy now going on between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Church has already been productive of much good to the latter."

ON THE DISCREPANCY IN THE PRAYER-BOOK AND THE AUTHORISED BIBLE RENDERING OF PSALM LXXII. 15.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I HAVE been gratified with your truly excellent article on the Trinitarian Bible Society's attack upon the British and Foreign Bible Society. It is precisely what was wanted to open the eyes of many well

intentioned but weak brethren. Little do Mr. Thelwall and his coadjutors know the mischief they are doing by setting up the authorized English version (excellent as it is) as a standard. Just apply their remarks to a comparison between the Bible and Prayer-book Psalms. You have done this (at page 474) in the instance of Psalm cv. 28, where there is a direct contradiction between the translation from the Septuagint, which Mr. Thelwall reads in the desk, and that from the Hebrew, which he reads in the pulpit, and distributes at No. 11 Exeter Hall. But you might have selected a still more striking instance (if indeed you did not include it in your general remark), where in Psalm lxxii. 15, the Prayer-book version, taken from the Septuagint, which Mr. Thelwall declares is not a translation that can be called the word of God, says, 'He shall live, and unto him shall be given of the gold of Arabia; prayer shall ever be made UNTO him;" whereas the authorized Bible version, taken from the Hebrew, says, "Prayer also shall be made FOR Him." There is assuredly nothing in any one of the four continental versions which Mr. Thelwall remarks upon, to be compared with such a difference as this. he reads and distributes both these renderings; but keeping out of sight this fact, as if there were no difficulties, inconsistencies, or mistakes, to which he lends far more countenance than the members of the Bible Society to those which he alleges in any foreign version,

Yet

he proceeds to speak of the great aim and evil of corrupting the word of God as if any Christian doubted or denied this; the only question being how to procure and circulate that word as purely and extensively as is practicable; and this every friend of the Bible Society wishes to do.

I am not condemning Mr. Thelwall, or any other clergyman or layman, because the Prayer-book and Bible translations differ. With regard to the passage which you quoted last month, it has been variously argued as to which of the renderings is correct; for either will make a true sense according as the rebellion or the obedience is applied to the Egyptians or to Moses and Aaron; though, without giving any opinion of my own, I may observe that many clergymen consider that the Septuagint has retained the inspired reading, thinking that the text requires the nominative case to refer to the Egyptians. Mr. Scott, the Commentator, taking the rendering in King James's Bible, refers it to Moses and Aaron; but adds that some, "reading it as an interrogation" (that most convenient of all methods of transposing the meaning of a passage, when we are not satisfied with it affirmatively) apply it to the Egyptians: "Did they not rebel against thy word?" Let Mr. Thelwall read it how he may, he brings himself under the discipline of his own scourge.

But the other passage is much stronger. The Prayer-book Septuagint version makes the Messiah the Object of prayer; the authorized Bible translation, its subject. Now suppose that some unlearned but conscientious person, after hearing Mr. Thelwall read in the desk that under the Gospel dispensation prayer shall be offered to Christ, should go to him with a Bible having the impress of the Trinitarian Society on its covers, and say, "Take back this wicked book: you read in church a truly Trinitarian text attributing the divine honour of adoration to Christ; and you have given me a book which tells me I am to pray for him instead of to him.' Would Mr. Thelwall venture in reply to tell the perplexed inquirer, of differences of readings; inevitable varieties of rendering; the scriptural sense which either reading affords, in case he should not be perfectly sure which was the right one; and that if in his Trinitarian Society capacity he did not consider the offering up of prayer to Christ to be intended in this particular passage, notwithstanding in his ministerial capacity he had read that as its signification, the doctrine itself was still not the less true, and might be proved by other passages. "What Jesuitism!" would the worthy applicant exclaim: "You gave me in print, under your own hand, the following objections, which you urge, whether justly or not, against the Bible Society, in order to bring me over to your own society. You remarked :

'Now it may be said, in regard to some of these versions, or indeed, all of them, that there is no one doctrinal truth that might not be established by means of one part or other of that version. This, perhaps, notwithstanding the inaccuracy and unfaithfulness with which some very important texts are rendered, may be true. Yet, let it be remembered, that the faithful rendering of one part does not do away our objection to the unfaithful rendering of others; for, even in regard to the most important doctrinal points, we find sometimes that the conversion of a soul turns upon the plain, the faithful rendering of one particular text.'

"These," might the good man continue, "are your own words: and yet after teaching me this, you most inconsistently one day give me a Prayer-book, and the next day a Bible, which present such different meanings that both cannot be right; nor do I heed what you

say about the general correctness of both versions, though in some things diverse; for remember your own words, that 'general faithfulness' is not to be pleaded as a reason for circulating a version if there be one single passage mistranslated; for 'sometimes the conversion of a soul turns upon the plain, the faithful rendering of one particular text.'

I am very reluctant to notice such discrepancies of readings and renderings, which are painful to consider, and are quite inexplicable to illiterate persons; nor are they generally considered by others of better education, who, for want of understanding the subject, are liable to be carried away by one-sided declamations. It is easy to find mistakes in all texts, all copies, all versions: it is equally easy to repeat such obvious truths, as that the word of God ought to be conscientiously and correctly rendered; that "the faithful rendering of one part does not do away our objection to the unfaithful rendering of others;" and that infinitely important truth may turn upon a particular passage (as for example, whether Christ ought to be prayed to or not); but it is most unjust and mischievous to urge such arguments in the way Mr. Thelwall does, not as considerations applying generally and universally, and suggesting vigilance, and humility, and prayer; but as weapons of controversy, as though our own cause were pressed by no such difficulties, and that of our opponents was overwhelmed by them. It is not in urging false principles so much as in the unfair application of true, that the sophistry of such arguments often rests. A Chartist may inflame popular feeling by pointing out many things which are by no means perfect; and declaiming upon the value of justice, liberty, public and private happiness, and so forth; and all this may be very true, and yet Chartism be open, in an aggravated degree, to the very charges which it urges against Constitutionalism. An assailant has always this advantage; and the advocates of the Trinitarian Society have not been sparing in the use of it; though unhappily, in attacking the Bible Society, they have used arguments which may prove highly dangerous; since it is impossible to make any reply to them which does not go into questions of biblical criticism, very perplexing even to the best-informed, but altogether unsolvable by unlettered persons. If Mr. Thelwall will shew how he reconciles his own conduct in using and circulating two versions which occasionally contradict each other, he will have made out a far stronger case than any which is necessary for the refutation of his remarks upon the Bible Society. The same result will ensue if he will shew why the Trinitarian Society itself circulates any fallible version; for it is not committed to him or to them to pronounce what mistakes are essential and what unessential; what may ruin souls and what not. All mistakes are bad, and may be dangerous; and where there are discrepancies, there must of necessity be some mistake on the one side or the other. The great majority of wise, learned, and conscientious men know this, and lament it; and try, where they can, to remedy it; but upon the whole they feel that in this imperfect state they must do the best they can; and that if they will not belong to any church or society, or hear any sermon or read any book, or aid any object of Christian duty, till they can discover something that has passed through human hands without being dimmed by human infirmity, they must die before they begin to live.

AN ATTACHED LAY FRIEND OF

THE BIBLE SOCIETY.

THE ATONEMENT A DECLARATION OF DIVINE JUSTICE.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN your last Number a correspondent draws your attention to the heading of page 29 of No. 73 of the Tracts for the Times, as expressly saying, "that the atonement is not a satisfaction to the justice of God.' I turned immediately to the page of the Tract, and found it to be "The Atonement not a manifestation of God's justice." On reading the page itself in that Tract, it appears that the stress ought to be laid on the word "manifestation." The writer does not deny that the atonement was a satisfaction to Divine justice; indeed I think he implies it when he says that" the death of Christ manifests God's hatred of sin," but he denies that it is "a manifestation of his justice, as men speak now-a-days." I do not mean to vindicate the Oxford Tract writer on this point; but I think that there is an apparent want of fairness in the statement of what is "expressly" intended to be" the heading of the page." I hope therefore, for the sake of truth and candour, you will give insertion to these remarks in your next Number.

I beg to express my thanks for your useful review of "The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament."

A SUBSCRIBER TO THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

** We are not acquainted with the names of either of our correspondents; but it may spare them and our readers further discussion if we add a few words. Certainly quotations ought to be both fair and accurate and, for ourselves, we have always been very attentive to this, in our numerous references to the Oxford Tracts. Our last month's correspondent has fallen into the inaccuracy pointed out by "A Subscriber;" but neither is the latter perfectly accurate, for the word in question is not "manifestation," but "exhibition." The exact words of the running-title are "The Atonement not the centre doctrine of the Gospel: The Atonement not an exhibition of God's justice." He may reply that his eye caught the word “manifestation” in the text, and that he casually transferred it to the running-title; and our former correspondent may perhaps add, that he did the same; for the page referred to is in reply to some quotations in which it is declared that "the design of the atonement was to make mercy towards this offcast race consistent with the honour and the holiness of the Divine government;" ،، God's justice found rest here ; his law was magnified and made honourable;" whereupon the Tract writer says, "How his death expiated our sins, and what SATISFACTION it was to God's justice, are surely subjects quite above us. It is in no sense a great and glorious manfestation of his justice, as men speak now-adays." The Oxford Tracts are written so wilily that it is not always very easy to know what they really mean; and we are by no means clear that our former correspondent is incorrect, in imagining that the passage implies, that the atonement was not a satisfaction to Divine justice. That it was a satisfaction had been argued in the passage animadverted upon, and which expressed the doctrine of the Homilies, which say, “ Upon Christ's part, justice; that is, the satisfaction of God's justice." The reply is put into the equivocal form of its being above us to ascertain" what satisfaction it (Christ's death) was to God's justice;" which, to be a relevant answer, must mean that the atonement is not a" satisfaction" to God's justice. True, it is above us to find reasons not revealed; but it is not above us to admit, either the fact, if revealed, or the Scriptural reasons for it.

But at all events there is no doubt that the Tract affirms that the atonement " is in no sense a great and glorious manifestation of his justice, as men speak now-a-days." This assertion our second correspondent correctly states, not however vindicating the doctrine. And truly it is as little vindicable, as the insinuation that the doctrine is novel; a "now-a-days” notion; whereas it has been the doctrine of all the reformed churches, and the doctrine of Christian antiquity; and, above all, it is the doctrine of the Bible. We will quote but one text; but that one shall be direct and decisive. The apostle Paul says, (Romans iii. 24—26), “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare ['manifest,' exhibit'] his JUSTICE [we keep to the same word, in its substantive or adjective form, the Greek being the same, because the identity shews the cohesion of the passage, and acuminates its point; though righteous and righteousness are in themselves equally good] for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare [' manifest,' ' exhibit'] at this time, his JUSTICE; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." And yet, says the Oxford Tract, "The atonement is not an exhibition of God's justice," or righteousness! "It is in no sense a glorious manifestation of his justice, as men speak now-a-days;" adding, "But Rationalism would account for every thing." Was then the apostle Paul a “Rationalist?" which is defined to be a confirmed or partial Atheist. We are glad to include among the "now-a-days" men complained of, the members of the Christian Knowledge Society, who have never found fault with their Family Bible editors, for saying, in explanation of the words above quoted, "That he might be just; that is, might appear to do nothing inconsistent with his own Divine justice, in thus remitting or passing over sins, inasmuch as Christ has made satisfaction for them by his blood." The names of Whitby and Wells are referred to as thus stating this meaning.

The result is, that our second correspondent, in defending the Tract-writer from what he considers a mistaken charge, has made his case worse; for though there are texts in abundance to authorise the statement of the Homily, that the sacrifice of Christ is a "satisfaction of God's justice," there is not one so verbally and literally to the point of "satisfaction" as the above to the point of "manifestation." It is impossible for words or meaning to be more distinctly and irreconcileably adverse than those of St. Paul to those of the Tract-writers. declare his justice" (or righteousness), says the former ;-it made no such manifestation or exhibition, say the latter. The opposition is even more glaring than that to the apostle's doctrine of justification by faith, which is acknowledged in words, though set aside in meaning.

"To

WHETHER ANIMALS DIED BEFORE THE FALL OF MAN.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I WILL not attempt geological inquiries; but I wish to offer a remark upon a Bible question. Your correspondent Пloris, in your June Number, says: "I would be allowed to ask if death can fairly be supposed to have had any place whatever in an unfallen world." Now what does your correspondent mean by this question? It is not a matter of fairness or unfairness, but one of fact; whereas to speak of "fairness" implies that it is a discussion for interest or victory, not truth; a selfish or party squabble; but what sinister motive can Christian CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 21. 4 A