of the Mosaic records as, to the origin of mankind from one parent stock, and not from different creations."

"Many facts lead us to believe in the unity of the race."

RICHARD CULL, Honorary Secretary of the London Ethnological Society since its first institution, assumes the unity of the race in his Annual Report to the Society of the progress of Ethnology:

"Our knowledge of human hybridism, if there be such a thing, is still more limited; and we cannot hastily assume, that what is true of the lower animals is also of man, and thus, by an assumed analogy, speak with dogmatism of the genera and species of mankind."

Dr. ROBERT GORDON LATHAM, the well known philologist, who has written The Natural History of the Varieties of Man, and Man and his Migrations, Lond. 1851, holds also to the unity of the Human Race.

Most of these authors are still living, and wrote with a knowledge of the facts of the case before them.

ART. V.-REV. DR. TURNER'S LETTER ON THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCH REVIEW:

REV. AND DEAR ŞIR,

Ir is with reluctance that I trouble you with this communication, the subject of which, however, presents, I think, a very sufficient reason for requesting its admission into your Periodical.

The last number of the Church Review contains some strictures on the edition of the Bible lately issued by the American Bible Society. They may be found on p. 422. As the Episcopal member of the Committee on Versions, under whose supervision the edition was prepared, I feel it my duty not to suffer them to pass unnoticed. It is not my intention to vindicate the right or propriety or expediency of Episcopalians uniting with other Christian bodies in associations formed for the purpose of disseminating the Sacred Scriptures, which they in common with such bodies regard as the word of God, and the rule of their faith. While many of our most honored Bishops belong to such institutions, and while we can appeal to the fact that WILLIAM WHITE, the venerated name which all sorts of Church people profess to hold in highest esteem, was the distinguished President of a General Bible Society, any such vindication would be, to say the least, a very strange work of supererogation. I say little about the charge against the Society of" consenting to take bribes from the revilers of Christ's divinity and atonement," simply because it presumes a degree of moral turpitude, to prove the existence of which, would require not merely ordinary evidence but the strongest demonstration. The writer has not stated the supposed facts on which he bases this very foul charge. Even supposing them to be just such as he presumes; supposing, too, that "the revilers" have offered the bribes; it still charges on the Society the intended and deliberate criminality of "consenting to take them." Of course I would not so degrade myself or the American Bible Societywhich I regard as among the very noblest associations for good which our common country may be proud of-as to vindicate the Institution from such a charge. Rather than accuse your correspondent of so shocking an intention as his language necessarily implies, I am willing to presume that inadvertently and hastily he wrote what his cool and deliberate judgment would greatly modify, if not entirely withdraw. But the ex

travagance of the charge against a numerous body of men of the very highest respectability for religious, literary, practical and useful character, must compel every dispassionate reader of the article to take the subsequent statements with due allowance, and that is, to say the least, very great indeed. It is reasonable to suppose a priori that the unchastened propensity to censure the Society which is developed in this gross attack, has had no slight influence in shaping the statements that follow. The writer does not seem to have considered that such an introduction goes very far to weaken, if not to destroy, the influence of all he says; at least with persons whose prepossessions have not placed them beyond the reach of argument.

Your contributor makes inconsistent statements. He says that "the proposed Standard is no longer the English version at all." Yet in the very next sentence he grants that "the professed improvements in the text are comparatively few, and may be regarded as slight." How is it possible to reconcile these two contradictory assertions? The text and the version are identically the same. The changes therein are "comparatively few, and may be regarded as slight," and yet they make the book "no longer the English version at all!" Truly it passes my skill in interpretation to reconcile such a glaring inconsistency as this. It is to no purpose to say what immediately follows, that "the professed improvements introduce a principle which, if carried further, would destroy the book as a genuine English Bible." The question is not what might be true under certain circumstances, but what the fact is with regard to this edition, which he affirms is "no longer the English version. Moreover, he should have told us what a genuine English Bible is, establishing at the same time the correctness of his description. Explain terms is a good old rule, which every writer would do well to keep in view.

As I wish the reader of these remarks to have the charges distinctly in his mind, I must here quote at large. “When a Society whose endowments were received on a compact to print and publish a recognized work, becomes a Society for criticising and reëditing and improving, that work, it is our business to beware of it, and to ask the question whether such depositaries of a worldly trust, are safe guardians of the sacred oracles. I say further, that the secret managers of the Institution, whoever they may be, are very greatly to be blamed for their abuse of the confidence so blindly reposed in them. While professing to give our countrymen the English Bible, without note or comment,' they have, in fact, become commentators in a dangerous form, and have corrupted the work they profess to pub

lish, by the introduction of unauthorized headings, of which some are grossly unevangelical, while others are virtually anti-Christian. This assertion I am prepared to sustain more fully," &c. The writer talks of sustaining his assertion more fully. MORE FULLY! He has not attempted to sustain it at all. He has made assertions, and nothing else.

He charges the Society with a breach of promise, with such a failure in the matter of a solemn contract as would stamp disgrace on merely business men who profess no religious character. He speaks of secret management, though everything in relation to the institution lies open to the public, and a history of the procedure in regard to the very edition so calumniated has been published to the world. Does the author know what the Society pledged itself to do? I presume not, and should be sorry to think otherwise. The first article of the Constitution which was formed in May, 1816, sufficiently speaks for itself. It is as follows:-"This Society shall be known by the name of the American Bible Society, of which the sole object shall be to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment. The only copies in the English language to be circulated by the Society shall be of the version now in common use;" that is, what is generally known as King James' Bible. The Society does not promise to reprint any particular edition of this version, with a particular set of headings, marginal notes, references, &c. Its contract is limited to the version, in other words, to the text itself. This article of the constitution was formed at a time when numerous editions of the version were in circulation; some with various headings, various references, various punctuations and capital letters, and some with no headings or references at all. And this practice had prevailed not only in this country, but also in England. In all these respets editions differed. No charge of aberration from authority was ever made against these or subsequent similar editions. All were accepted by the Christian community as "the version in common use." This settles the principle, that headings are not of the essence of the version, and may be changed without affecting it or the original pledge of the Society. And the history of the publications of King James' version shows that this has often been done.

The writer applies the epithet authorized to the headings. There is more reason to apply it to marginal readings and notes, and just as much to make it comprehend references, punctuation, capital letters, spelling, &c. It is easy to speak of all these as authorized, but what edition of the Bible is for the Christian community the authoritative standard on these points?

The answer is, no one, and therefore the author's statements are simply a begging of the question, and of no weight at all as argument. If it should be said that a large proportion of the headings in the leading editions are in substance the same as those of the original one of 1611, and that they have become authorized by length of time, it may be replied, that a continuous repetition does not give them authority-that the best of the later editions which have been generally received in the Church of England, among which Blayney's of 1769 may be named as prominent, have altered in many cases, which proves that the respectable editors recognized no such principle of authority-and lastly, that a large proportion of the original headings are retained unaltered in the edition lately published by the Society. This edition, which the author complains of, has not altered "the genuine old English Bible," except, in the mode of spelling a few words, in the occasional use of capital letters and of the articles a or an, in the insertion of a few italics when the original contains nothing correspondent, and sometimes in the punctuation. And in every case, the committee thought that a good reason for the change could be given.

It would extend this Article to an undue length, were I to enter very much into details respecting these various particulars. But the subject demands a few words. In the spelling, the most important alterations are those of two proper names. In Rom. ix, 25, the old name Osee is changed into Hosea, and in Jude, ver. 11, Core into Korah. I was not particularly desirous of these changes, but willingly acquiesced in them, because they produce uniformity and make the words more intelligible to uninformed readers or hearers. The others are not so great as had been before introduced into all important editions, not one of which, for the last 150 years, to the best of my knowledge, follows the spelling of the original edition. The use of capitals and of punctuation necessarily involves somewhat of comment, and indeed so do also the division into chapters and verses, and even the subdividing into words, between which some early manuscripts leave no space. Yet, I suppose, that no intelligent man will question the propriety of all this, and certainly no honest one will say that such points were intended by the language of the constitution, "without note or comment." When the word spirit occurs, its meaning must be intimated, unless indeed it is always printed with a capital or always without one. And it is impossible to punctuate such

The use of a small letter in the word "spirits," in Rev. i, 4, has been objected to. See particularly the note in the Translation of this Book issued by the American Bible Union, 1854, p. 79. "The American Bible Society now