Harbinger, Nov. 2, '63. NEW TRANSLATIONS. 389 barrass themselves with such Greek contrivances as this particle "de." Regardless of the fact that it is sometimes best translated when not translated at all, they drag the English language for words that they imagine will correspond to it in position and meaning; and often, on the same page, give to it the most varied and opposite sig. nifications. To illustrate the character of this little word, and, at the same time, to shew the importance that should be attached to the criticism which we are now noticing, I would state that so Protean-like is this "de," in the opinion of the Bible Union, that they have ventured to translate it, in this first chapter, sometimes by the conjunction and, sometimes by but; now by the word then, and then again by the word now and having exhausted, it would seem, the resources of the English tongue in order to translate, or rather to Having already discussed the propriety of expressing Luke's thought by the use of the passive form of the English sentence, in preference to the active; and shown that the active form adopted by the Bible Union is both obscure and ungrammatical, convey-monument it, in other places, they detering the false ideas that Luke and his associates were the "eye-witnesses"-it would seem to me to be trifling with criticism to proceed now to justify the position given to subject and object, in my rendering of the verse, since this arrangement is necessarily involved in a correct structure of the English. Simply to lay bare a criticism of this sort is, I think, the only refutation of it that sober controversy requires; and this I have already done in my reply to the Secretary's Paper " No. 1." mine at last to depart, themselves, from "the words of inspiration," and to leave it untranslated entirely! But, to close this notice of the Secretary's suicidal criticism, I would merely add, we translate this particle when the sense requires it; and when the sense does not require it or an attempt to render it into English would give nonsense, we let it alone, as the Bible Union have done in other passages, and ought to have done in this. The next and last critical note with The next feature of the New Translation which the Secretary favors us, concerns which is assailed, is the omission of some the translation of the Greek verb Epecheiword to stand as a representative or trans- reesan. This verb is from a noun signifylation of the Greek particle de, in the be- ing "hand," and this hand, says the Secreginning of the 6th verse of this chapter. tary very gravely, is a very striking image! It is enough to say in reply, that here Assuming that there is no effort on his part there is no occasion for any English repre- to appear facetious, but that he sees really sentative; and that this is often the case a with this particle, the Secretary might himself have known from the fact, that in other passages of Scripture even the Bible Union themselves have ignored its existence, and refused to translate it! This they have done in such passages as the following: Matt. xiii. 1, Luke iii. 11. Every Greek scholar understands the nature of this particle, and he will doubtless be surprised at this criticism from the pen of the Cor. Sec. of the Bible Union. For the benefit of the English reader, however, I would add, that it frequently serves to indicate the introduction of some new matter, incident, or train of thought into composition; and to attempt to translate it at all would, in some cases, be useless, if not ridiculous. But those who trammel themselves with arbitrary rules of translation, and who think that idiomatic Greek should be affected by solecistic English, and who are more zealous to reproduce forms of speech, than faithfully to give the thoughts to the Spirit, frequently em rhetorical and not merely a pugilistic image in the figure of the hand, I confess myself unable to appreciate what he calls the beauty of this Bible Union rendering. To say of a writer that "he took in hand to set forth in order a narration concerning anything," as the Bible Union would phrase it, may by reason of this image "strike" some persons "with force;" but a serious and tasteful reader will hardly suppose that such English is the work of the Holy Spirit. But I respectfully sub. mit to the Secretary, whether his partiality for the faint rhetoric of "the hand" does not involve his version in a fatal departure from the sense and meaning of the inspired writer? He argues that the New Translation, by using the expression, "have undertaken," implies that "the many" who undertook to set forth in order did not succeed; but that the Bible Union Version, by translating it "have taken in hand," contains no such implication. Now, admitting that the word "undertake" suggests any such notion as failure, I would ask the Se 390 FALL OF INFANT BAPTISM. cretary to inform those for whom he is writing, whether "the many" whom we represent as "having undertaken," and whom he represents as "having taken in hand," did succeed or not? Will he please to answer? The Secretary, even here as elsewhere, charges upon his own version a departure from the words of inspiration.' But this is not the only difficulty in which our critic involves himself and the society which he represents. Will the reader have the kindness to turn to Acts ix. 29? We read there that the Grecians went about to slay Paul. The Greek word there translated "went about" is this same verb, which the Secretary insists should be rendered "taken in hand," in order to preserve the figure and to avoid suggesting the idea of failure. The reader may now try "the image" and "the implication" to his own satisfaction. The 'striking figure of the hand" here must please our opponent, for in this instance the purpose was to kill Paul. But what shall we do with the "implication of success" which goes along with "the image" in his rendering? For the Grecians actually failed even to "strike" Paul with their "hand." They simply undertook to kill Paul, but he escaped to Tarsus? Will the Secretary find fault if, in conclusion, we apply his method of criticism to his own version? In this same chapter of Luke, verse 78, we have the Greek word splangchna eleous, which the Secretary, by means of what he calls a "human device,' translates by the phrase tender mercies. Here certainly, according to his own reasoning, are both a departure from the words of inspiration" and "a concealment of a striking figure" of the original 66 1. Splangchna is a noun, but the Secretary has changed it into an adjective, Harbinger, Nov. 2, '63. which is a very different part of speech. To use his own language, he, in this instance, "undertakes to remodel the direct and positive form of phraseology employed by the Spirit of all wisdom and grace, and substitutes a construction of man for the words of inspiration!" 2. The inspired Greek, as the Secretary would say, requires splangchna to be modified by eleous, but the Bible Union chooses to reverse this order of the original, and to make splangchna modify eleous. In the somewhat emotional style of the Secretary we might say, "Had the Holy Spirit made the change, we would have bowed in submission; but we object to such power being assumed by man!" 66 3. Splangchan literally means "intestines,' "bowels;" of this no one "at all conversant with Greek can doubt for a moment.' Now, the very image of a thought should be daguerreotyped on the mind," says the Secretary. But instead of the image of the original, the “human device" of "tender" has been employed by the Bible Union, which, "from the service that it here performs," reminds us of the pretty pun on the word undertake, with which the Sec. of the Bible Uuion, in his second paper, relieved the dignity of the Bible controversy; but which we confess our inability successfully to imitate! Thus it appears by force of the Secretary's own reasoning, that, in rendering one single verse of this chapter, the Bible Union Version contains, 1. The substitution of an adjective for a noun ! 2. The change of a governing to a governed word! 3. The concealment of a striking figure or image of the original!—Yours truly, H. T. A. FALL OF INFANT BAPTISM IN AMERICA. THERE are, as we learn from the last mi- | tion, several of the churches report but nutes, fifteen Congregational Associations connected with the General Association of Connecticut. We judge that the rite of infant baptism, so-called, is declining, or at least it is much neglected, in many of the churches. It is with no desire that these churches may decline in piety, that we can say that we are not displeased to see them ignoring a practice which has been in all ages a source of injury rather than an evidence of spiritual prosperity. In the Fairfield East Association, of the twelve churches of which it is composed, two reported none baptized, and several but a single case. In the Fairfield West Association, three churches reported no infants baptized. In the Hartford Fourth Asscia two each. In the Hartford North, six out of the fourteen churches report none baptized, and in none of the other eight churches over six. In the Hartford South Association, three of the churches had no infants baptized, and three others but one, and some of these churches among the largest. In Litchfield North Association, of the twenty-four churches composing it, eight report no infants baptized, and the average is only two to a church. In the Litchfield South Association, of the twenty churches, six, and some of them large churches, shew no infants baptized; and the average is less than three to each church. In Middlesex Association, in the nineteen churches embraced in its bounds, eight have entirely Harbinger, Nov. 2, '63. MIDWAY ORPHAN SCHOOL. ignored the ordinance, and the average to each church is one and a half. In the New Haven Central Association, the average rises to six infants per church, and but a single church shews a disuse of infant baptism. In the New Haven East Association, three churches shew no infant baptisms, but the average is less than three to a church. In the New Haven West Association there are two churches reporting no infant baptisms; average less than three. In New London Association, including twenty-nine churches, seven had no infant baptism, eight had but one apiece, while the average is less than two for each church. In Tolland Association, in the twenty-two churches it contains, ten churches had no infants baptized, and the average was not two apiece. In Wyad 391 ham Association, of the twenty-eight churches composing it, thirteen have totally neglected this once cherished rite of the "standing order," whilst the average is but one each. The average for the whole State is but little more than two apiece for the churches. This is quite a change from the Connecticut of the past age, when a neglect to dedicate an infant was considered worthy of admonition. Indeed, at present, the practice is merely nominal, and is evidently dying out. But at no time since their formation were these churches so truly evangelical as they are now. Among many of them precious revivals of religion are in progress, and we opine there will be little lamentation when infant baptism shall totally cease in this land of steady habits.-Boston Watchman and Reflector. MIDWAY ORPHAN SCHOOL. A RETURN to Primitive Christianity should certainly bring into view practical exemplification of that religion which, as an Apostle intimates, adopts orphans and provides for the widow. We are glad to introduce the reader to at least one home for the fatherless sustained by brethren in Kentucky. LEXINGTON, KY. May 5, 1863. Brother Franklin, I spent the fourth Lord's day in April, and the week following, with the brethren at Midway, Ky. I immersed seven persons, one of whom had made the confession before, and received one from the Baptists. The brethren are living in remarkable peace and quiet for the times and circumstances. Midway is the seat of the Kentucky Female Orphan School, which is truly a crown of glory to the brotherhood in this state. I spent a large part of my time in the institution, enjoying the hospitalities of Brother and Sister Broadhurst. I have never seen a school of fifty young ladies so cheerful, so well-behaved, so studious, or so religious. In the last particular it excels anything I ever saw in any institution. The school is opened in the morning by reading the Scriptures, prayer, and singing. During the day each pupil recites a lesson in Sacred History, embracing in the course all the historical portions of both Testaments; and each young lady, by an arrangement among themselves, reads a chapter in private devotion. They have a daily prayer meeting of their own, to which spectators are not admitted except by special invitation. I had the privilege of attending it once, and a more touching scene I never witnessed. Little girls of not more than thirteen or fourteen summers led in prayer with an earnestness and simplicity that were charming to the ears of angels; and oh! how grateful to the ears of Jesus, who delighted in the praises of children. The pupils are nearly all members of the church, and they listen of the school being to make the orphans to preaching with eager ears. The object independent of the world, none are now admitted under thirteen years of age. By the time their education is completed they are old enough to take a position as teachers. Nearly all the graduates are successfully employed in this way, and are ornaments to the social and religious circles in which they move. There ought to be an institution of the kind in every state. Why should there not be one in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois? As for Missouri earnest men had fully decided upon founding one there, when the approach of the war prostrated all their good intentions. May the Lord enable them yet to accomplish their noble purpose! If the rules of the institution would permit I would rather send my daughter to the Orphan School than to any other in the country. Its efficiency and prosperity are owing in no small degree to the exertions of Bro. W. F. Patterson, who seems to be almost entirely devoted to watching its interests and holding up the hands of the principal. While I am writing, let me say that I think the brethren in Kentucky are about to arouse themselves this spring for a mighty work during the coming season. Already protracted meetings are spoken of in every direction, and brethren are buckling on their armour. Bro. Lard is in the state holding a series of meetings, and stirring the souls of the brethren from 392 SINAI NEW TESTAMENT. their depth. A little effort will soon show that there are thousands yet who are willing to be saved, despite the evil influence which is distracting our social relations. Harbinger, Nov. 2, '63. Let us all renew our energies, remember- SINAI NEW TESTAMENT.-No. I. PROBABLY most readers of this periodical | what stands in the Received Text as chaphave heard of the manuscript copy of the ter 16, verse 8. That is to say the 2nd New Testament discovered by Tischendorf Gospel ends with the words: " for they in 1859 in a convent near Mount Sinai. were afraid," the remainder of the chapter Those who remarked the fact at the time as we have it, not being there, notwithof its first announcement will most likely standing that there is every appearance of remember that a high antiquity was claim- this Gospel having been fully completed ed for this Codex, its origin being dated as by the transcriber and without loss or mufar back as the fourth century; and that tilation handed down to us. Griesbach, so its value was considered all the greater early as the beginning of this century, had that it was found to be entire, whereas its marked from v. 9 to end as verses "for the only equal in point of antiquity, the cele- omission of which there is some probable brated Vatican manuscript, known in the ground, yet not so certain as to induce him critical world by the sign "B," is deficient to expel them from the text." Later on, of considerable portions of the New Testa- Tischendorf, before the discovery of the ment. It is not impossible that the writer Sinai Codex, had entirely omitted the pamay find himself in a position, after the ragraph in question. Now, the Sinai Copy lapse of a few months, to furnish the rea- itself is found to be without it. These ders of the Harbinger with a pretty full facts demand attention, for obvious reasons. account of this most precious sacred relic. The writer will feel himself personally Meantime it occurs to him that a specimen indebted to any Christian brother, having of its various renderings will be acceptable the facts at command, who will furnish an to many readers. He will only premise epitome of all that can be alleged in favor that the Common Greek Testament, gene- of the retention of these important verses. rally known as "The Received Text," is The Sinai MSS. reading in Luke xxiv. admitted by scholars to have been printed 21, Elpizomen instead of EElpizomen, reprefrom comparatively modern manuscripts-sents the travellers to Emaus as saying to it cannot be reasonably doubted that it is their unknown companion: "We HOPE now possible to print editions of the origi- that this is he who is going to redeem Isnal N.T. nearer to the autographs of the rael." Will brethren consider whether the inspired writers than that which in this context does not more appropriately cocountry has so long enjoyed the high- alesce with this reading, and whether both sounding title," Textus Receptus." Those together do not indicate a more hopeful who are familiar with such results as are state of mind than is commonly attributed exhibited in Bagster's Large Print Critical to these most interesting men ? Greek Testament, or have used the text of Scholz or Hahn, cannot but feel gratified in finding to how large an extent those "various readings" of the critical editions in which they are unanimous as against "The Received Text" are confirmed by "Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum", - in other words, the venerable copy of whose various readings we proceed to furnish merely a few of the more remarkable. The first fact we may mention is one of a rather more startling character than commonly belongs to mere" various readings." Generally, the readings preferred by critical editors may be described as simply removing a little of the dust of ages from the fair mirror of the divine word. How, if in dusting, an ornament should fall off, leaving a question whether it really belonged to the original workmanship? But for our fact: it is a fact that the Sinai Codex terminates the Gospel of Mark with | Our venerable copy does not omit the term water from the Lord's discourse to Nicodemus (John iii); on the contrary, it not only presents "born of water and Spirit," in verse 5, as Tex. Rec. but in verse 8 reads again, "So is every one who has been born OF THE WATER AND THE SPIRIT" (ek tou hudatos kai tou pneumatos.) This codex corroborates Lachmann and Tischendorf, by omitting John vii. 53, to viii. 11. As might have been expected, Acts viii. 37 is not in this manuscript. The omission of this verse in the editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, had prepared us for this. The Sinai MS. confirms the reading of the Received Text in Acts xxii. 28-"The church of God, which he purchased through his own blood." It reads in Rom. viii. 11, dia tou enoikountos autou pneumatos en humin, thus Harbinger, Nov. 2, '63. CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A SOILDER? taking the part of the text of the Common Eng. Ver., against the marginal reading and the Received Gr. Text! In 1 Cor. xv. 24 we find paradido, not parado, i. e. "shall deliver," not "shall have delivered " In Eph. iii. 9 we note oikonomia-"ad ministration," instead of koinonia, "fellowship;" and in v. 9 phos, "light," instead of pneuma, spirit;" in both cases confirming the four critical editions above referred to. In Phil. iii. 11 the Sinai Copy reads teen exanastasin TEEN EK nekron, "the out-rising that is out of dead ones," thus sustaining the previous conclusion of Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf in their editions of the Gr. N. L. and coinciding with the Vatican Codex and other ancient authorities. For "that man of sin," in 2 Thes. ii. 3, our Sinai Testament presents "the man of lawlessness"-"ho anthropos tees anomia,' &c. thus offering the successive and related phrases-v. 3, the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition;" v. 7, "the secret of lawlessness;” and v. 8, "the lawless one.' In the same chapter, v. 8, this Codex, confirming Griesbach, Scholz and Lachmann, reads, "whom the Lord JESUS shall consume." 1 Tim. iii. 16, where Griesbach, Lachmann and Tischendorf had decided “who" instead of "God" should be read ("WHO was manifested in flesh") has according to the Sinai Codex also hos, "who." 393 last days The Sinai MS. sustains this preference: ep' eschatou ton heemeron touton. In 1 Peter ii. 2, our copy reads, "grow UNTO salvation," confirming the verdict of the critical editors. 2 Peter i. 10: "Give diligence to make your calling and election sure BY GOOD WORKS" -spoudasete hina DIA TON KALON ERGON bebaian, &c. So reads our Sinai Testament. 2 Peter iii. 10, reads euretheesetai, instead of katakaeesetai - i.e. "found" or discovered," instead of "burnt up." 1 John v. as might have been expected, omits "the heavenly witnesses," connecting the 6th and 8th verses thus: - because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness-the Spirit, and the water, and the blood," &c. An additional interest is created by the Sinai Copy, in consequence of the manner in which it reads the first clause of the 6th verse— "This is he who came through water, and blood, and spirit (dia hudatos kai haimatos kai pneumatos), Jesus Christ. Not in the water only," &c. In Jude 14, we find in place of "ten thousand of his saints,' 29 66 ten thousands of his holy angels"-muriasin hagion angelon. In the Apocalypse the Sinai Codex becomes of special value, inasmuch as "the Vatican MS. is defective in that book." It is indeed a matter for profound gratitude that a book of Scripture which has suffered so much in transmission, evidently far more than any other book of the N. T., should be found entire in this most valuable copy. We defer our notice of its "readOMICRON. In Heb. i. 2, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, had already pre-ings" till next month. ferred "the last of these days," to "these October 13, 1863. CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A SOLDIER? THE above important question has be- | come one of great interest to those readers of the B. M. H. who have Christian friends or relatives in New Zealand, in conse. quence of the war which has recently broken out between the original occupiers of that country and the colonists. A number of young men, brethren in Christ, who left England in June 1862, and are at present in Auckland, have been called upon by the authorities there to attend drill for two hours daily, with a view to active service against the Maories. Some of these brethren have responded to the call, seeing nothing, as they say, antagonistic to the laws of Christianity, or unbecoming a follower of Christ, in taking up arms to defend their homes and families, whilst others of them have refused to take up carnal weapons, believing (as one of them states) that the command of our Saviour to return good for evil is universal in its application, and that the law of universal love which he taught cannot be carried out by any one who seeks the life even of his enemy. Our Auckland brethren have been compelled to think and act promptly and decisively, and not only to shew to the world what their principles are, but to prove whether they possess the courage to stand by them, even under persecution and suffering, which appear likely to be the consequence of a refusal to take up arms. These opposite causes of action have naturally caused some discussion, as well as anxiety, amongst the friends and relatives of those emigrants; and my object now is, without giving any opinion on the subject at present, to ask the Editor, and also those readers of the B. M. H. who may have considered the question, to favor us with their views thereon, and assist us to a scriptural answer thereto, seeing that we |