AUTHORISED OR REVISED by F. B.
In this pamphlet Mr. Bentley (for in giving the writer’s name we are not giving away a secret) has done a good piece of work. He has read widely in the subject before embarking on his task. The pamphlet is an echo of the correspondence which took place in the northern press in connection with the Last Twelve Verses of Mark and the Three Heavenly Witnesses (I. John v. 7). In the course of the discussion the relative merit of the Authorised and Revised Versions emerges and Mr. Bentley has done good service in emphasising the right to the place of pre-eminence of the Authorised over the Revised. As a Church we have been charged by those who ought to know better that we have virtually given the place of the “Old Testament in Hebrew” and the “New Testament in Greek” to the Authorised Version as the final court of appeal in controversy. This is a complete misunderstanding and mis-statement of our position. That position is clearly defined in the Confessional statement (Chap. i., sec. 8). At the same time, in the public reading of the Scriptures, it is recognised among us in accordance with the rule laid down in the Directory for Public Worship that “all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament shall be publicly read in the vulgar tongue out of the best allowed translation” which, in English, is decidedly the Authorised Version. In the course of his discussion Mr. Bentley has called attention to a point worthy of notice in reference to I. John v. 7. He points out that the Westminster Divines in the proof texts advanced for the doctrine of the Trinity alike in the Confession (chap. ii., see. 3), the Larger Catechism (Question 9) and the Shorter Catechism (Question 6) this text is quoted. Now, while it is true that at our ordination we are not asked to accept the proof texts of the doctrines of the Confession (the whole doctrine of which we profess to accept) yet because of the time expended on the proof texts (they devoted no less than 76 days to them) and the care with which they were drawn up, it is a matter of some importance in this connection and we are not claiming too much in saying that, those who defended the genuineness of I. John v. 7 are more in line with the Westminster Divines than those who regard the words as spurious. The pamphlet may be had from Mr. Bentley, 35 Buxton Terrace, Newcastle-on-Tyne.