REPLY

T0_^

DU. BOONE'S A^ IN DICATION

OF

COMMEATTS OAT TIIE TRANSLATION OF EPHES. I.

IN THE

DELEGATES' VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT :

BY
THE COMMITTEE OF DELEGATES.
O^J^-^-l^ ALSO,
A LETTER
QN THE SAME SUBJECT,
FEOM THE REV^ J. LEGGE, D. D.
TO DB. TIDMAJV,
8ECEETART OP THB LONDON IIISSIONART SOCIETY.
' 7002.
SHANGHAE :
PRINTED AT THE LONDON MISSION PRESS.
1852.

CF90 M469r

PREFACE.
As a considerable tirae has elapsed since the translation of the Scrip.
tures referred to in the foUowine pasres commenced, it may be well briefly
to narrate the leading circumstances connected therewith. 'in 1843, aU
the Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese that could at that time be
assembled in Honskohg. araoni.ting to fifteen, ahd representing five
difi'erent institutions, met for the piirfiose of taking into consideration
the then state of the Chinesie versions of the Sacred Scriptures ; when
it was resolvpd, to " submit all that had hitherto been doile to a Com
mittee, for fhe purpose of being thoronsrhly revised." It was also re
solved, " That anv translatioiLof the Sacred Scriptures into Chinese,
issued with the approbation ofthe body of Protestatit Missionaries, be
in exact conformitv to tbe Hebrew and Greek originals in sense ; and
80 far as the idiom ofthe Chinese lansruage will allow. In style and
manner also." It was further resolveid, " That the whole body of
Prot6i=<tant Missionaries to tbe Chinese do form a general Cocrimittee,
for the purpose above specified . to be subdivided into local Committees
' of stations, and that the work of revision be apportioned to suoh
stations When ths whole of the New Testameht shdU have been
thus revised, each station shall select one or more of its most experi
enced men to act as Delegates, it heinsr understood that each sta.tioa
shall b'e entitled to one vote only. — and these shall be the final judges
as to thfe pronrietv of each revision ; after which the whole shall be sub
mitted to the Bible Societies in Great Britain and America for their
J acceptance." Further it was resolved, that "the Bible Societies in
J Eneland and America be requested to reimburse any reasotiable ex-
, t penditure which may b'e incurred by the brethren iri miikitig this
J revision."
' \ As it appeared to the Meetiiie that it would be difflcult to find any
term that would suit the views of both Baptists ahd Psedobaptists on the
rendfring' of the word baptize, it was resolved, " to proceed harmo-
— ^, niously in the work of rev sion. emplovinff the talents of Missionaries
of both these sections of the Ohurch to conduct it,, and to bring it to
ras perfect a state as possible ; that, when this is done, should difficul
ties still exist on this subject, each section shall bie at liberty to re-
f-^ commend for publication separate editions of the same version, agree
ing in all other respects, and orily differing as to the rendering of this
term ; and that the revision go forth to the world, not as the work of
one party or the other, but as the result of the coriabined efforts of the
whole "
In 1846. the British and Foreign Bible Society passed tlie followitig
Resolutions : " That an urgent request be. addressed to be Directors
ofthe London Missionary Society, to call the attention of their Mis
sionaries to the importance of proceeding with the revision of the
Chinese New Testament, tm the principles laid down in the circular

reeeivpnl from Hongkong, witb as little delay a« practicable, and to
authorize them to consider this, if not their 'exclusive, at least their
primarv work. 2. That the Drectors of the London Missionary
Sooietv be informed, that the Committee of the British and Foreign
Bible Society are quite prepared to contribute a large-share of the
expenses that will be incurred bv the adoption of the view above
given, and indeed to talte upon themselves ihe rohole expenses of
ihe Missionaries, if their whole time is devoted to tbe work. 3. That
it be further pressed upon the Directors of the London Missionary
Society, to urge their Missionaries to print portions of the New Tes.
tame.nt, as they are prepared, and to assure them of the readiness of this
Society to defray the expenses of printi-ng such editions, or to assisf,
by sending out a printer, whose whole expenses shall he defrayed,
if his time be exclusively devoted to the printing of the Sc'pt'-U'Ps.
4. That this Committee having received, in tbis conference, as well
as from former communications with the Directors of the London
Missionary Society, and from the Directors of the Missionary Societies
in America, sufficient information as to the competency of the
parties now engaged in the revision, ean cheerfully leave it io the
united judgment ofthe Missionaries to determine, when the revir
sion of any parts of the Chinese New Testament may be considered
sufficiently perfected to justify their being printed. 5. That as it
seems highly advisable that the Missionaries should have an -opportu
nity of conferring together at an early period, in Hongkong, or such
other place as may be deemed most convenient ; and tbat as thft dis
tance at which they reside from each other will involve considerable
expense in attending the conference, stich expense be borne by this
Society." Tn the begirining of 1846, the Secretary to the General Committee
of Missionaries issued a Circular to the parties concerned, informing
thera that the work of revising the Chinese version of the Scriptures,
having been divided into parts, allotted to the Missionaries at the va
rious stations, was then in an advanded stage, and would soon be rea
dy* for the inspection of the Delegates. Itwas therefore agreed, that
a Meeting of Delegates should be held in Shanghae, iu June, 1847.
At that period, accordingly, the following persons appeared, and took
their seats as Delegates : , .
1. From the Shanghae and Ningpo station, ' ,,.
The Bev. W. H. Medhurst, D'.D. ofthe London Missionary Spciety.
The Rt. Rev. W.J. Boone, D D. ofthe American Episcopal Mjssipr).
The Rev. W. M. Lowrie, of the American Presbyterian Mission.,
2. From the Amoy station,
The Rev. John Stronach, ofthe London Missionary Society.' <
3. From the Canton and Hongkong station, s .
The Rev. E. C. Bridgman. D.D. of the Am. Board of Cpm. For. Mis.
On the 1st of July, 1847. the Delegates commenced the husiness
of revision; and on the 3rd, if was resolved to postpone the choice
of a proper term for ^Ae .HbZy Spirit, tintil the term to be used for

God had been decided on On the Sth of July, the translation of
Theos. in the 23d verse of the Ist chapter of Matthew c^me up. when
jt was proposed by Dr. Bridgman, seconded by Dr. Boone, tbat, tbe
word Shang-te, which stood in the copy previouslv prepared at one
ofthe stations for that term, should be changed into Shin,. An oral
discussion ensued, which lasted during tbree days, when an adionrn-
ment was agreed to. for the preparation of arguments in reference to
the term under consideration.
On Julv 16, the arguraent in favour of ^hin was laid on tbe table;
August 17, the reply was handed in: and Sept. Id, the rejoinder.
Sept. 28, the argument in favour of Te was presented; Oct, 5, tbe
replv ; and Nov. 4, tbe rejoinder.
During the interval of adjournment, the Rev. W. M. Lowrie, on
his voyage from Shanghae to Ningpn. was drowned.
On the 22d of Nov. the Committee met to record their votes on the
question regarding the translation of Thfios; when the vote nf tbe de
legate for Amov was in favnr of Te. and that of the delegate from
Canton and Hongkong' in favour of !^hin. The two remaining dele
gates for Shanghae and Ningpo, being divided in opinion, were una
ble to record their vote.
The advocates for Te, notwithstanding they considered their argu
raents in favour of that term sufficiently solid, yet for the sake of doing
every thing that lay in their power towards preventing disagreement,
proposed Theen-te, to be used generically for Ood, in the translation
of the Scriptures ; but this proposal, not being concurred in by the
other party, was left in abeyance.
The following resolutions were tben agreed to : "1. That wben this
Committee adjourn, it be until the first Monday in Januarv, 1848, to
allow time for the advocates of Te and Shin to prepare statements of
their respective views for the public. 2. That on the day above named
the Coramittee assemble again for the purpose of prosecuting the work
of revision, the word Tfteos being left untranslated.
During the interval between the former meeting and the 5tb of. Jan.
1848. the Missionaries at tbe Shanghae and Ningpo station elected
the Rev. William C. Milne, as a delegate, in the place of the Rev. W.
M. Lowrie, deceased.
From the 5th of Jan. 1848. to tbe 24th of July, 1850. the Com
mittee of Delegates were occupied with the translation of the New
Testament, which was tben brought to a completion During this
time the members present were. Dr. Medhnyst 700 times, Mr. Stronach
the same ; Dr. Brigdman 673 times, Mr. Milne 620 times, and Dr.
Boone once.
On the 1st of August, 1850. the whole of tbe members were pre
sent, when the following resolution, proposed bv Dr. Boone, and
seconded by Mr. Stronanh, was passed unanitnonsly : —
" The Committee of Delegates.— engaged on the revision of the trans
lation ofthe New Testaiiient in Chinese.' — having now completed their
work, the words TAeo* and Pneuma being left untranslated, accor-

VI
ding to the Resolution' ofthe Committee of Delegates passed in 1847,
— do hereby Resolve : —
" Tliat the version, as it now stands, be offered to the Bible Societies
pf Europe and America, and to all and everv one of tbe Protestant
Missionaries at present engaged, or Who mav hereafter be engaged iil
tbe work of evangelizing China ; with the understanding that all par
ties, who shall raake use of this version shall refrain from altering the
text, as now given out by this Committee, — who reserve to a majority
oftheir own bodv the right to make any alterations th<?rein : this last
restriction, howeypr. not to extend to those who differ frorn us with
respeet to the rendering of the word Plapl'zn, which is to be left open
to various renderings, according to the Resolution of the General
Committee passed in 1843.
" The votes of the memht,rs nf the Committee of Delegates, being
equallv divided on the rendering of" the words Theos arid Pnetima,
this version must either leave their har.ds with the blanks tljat have
been left for these words, or be laid aside as useless, unless art appeal
be taken to some other parties to fill these blariks ; to whicli appeal
this Corhmittee cannot agree. Under these circumstances, hein^
fullv persuaded that several parties will issue, on their own responsi
bility, versions that diffi^r in the rendering of the words Thp'os kti^
Pneuma. and believing that said diversitv of rendering will causeless
injurv, if all parties use the same version, instead of having differ'eftt
versions as well as various renderings ofthese imnortati't words -..^^
" The Comraittee of Delegates resolve, as before mentionefl^, to offer
the ver si oji as it now stands lo the Bible Societies of Europfe arid
America, and to all ttie other parties ahove mentioned, throwing upori
said parties all the responsibility of any action with respect to the
version_thus offered to them, which they may severally deem it best
to take for th^ spread ofthe Gospel in China ; the Comrmittee of De
legates feeling themselves released frora an'v further responsibility
with respect to the rendering of the wo'rds Theos and Pneuma, by
their inabilitv to come to any decision in regard to it iri their body."
Also Resolved, unanimously. "Th^t, as the Chinese have rio definite
article, the word ^g shing (holy) be prefixed to the word Pneuma.,
(at the discretion of tbe Committee, and this without regard to the
Word that may be used as a translation,) in all those cases where it
stands ab.«olutely and refers to the Holy Spirit, in order to render the
serise ofthe text more definite."
Sept. 1 Uh, 185'">. Present Drs. Medhm-st and Bridgman, and Rev..
Messrs Milne and Stronach.
The Rev. Dr. Medhurst, Secretary ofthe British and Foreign Bible
Society's Corresponding Committee in Shanghae, having applied to
this Committee for a certified copy of its version of the New Testa
ment, to he put to press under the direction of the Bible Society's
Cora'mittee, it was moved bv Dr. Bridgman, seconded .by Mr. Stronach,
and unanimously Resolved, " that the Chinese seeretavy of this Com
mittee furnish the certified copy as requested."

Also passed the following : —
''W'l^ereas a diversity of opinion exists respecting the intention of
this Committee in regard to criticisms and suggestions, which may be
setit to them for the improvement of their version, after it shall have
been put to press, — and whereas all the Delegates forming this Com
mittee have been elected members of the Committee on the Old Tes
tament, therefore unanimously —
" Resolved, that this Committee will give all due attention to the
criticisms and suggestion which may be sent to them, as well after as
before the version is put to press, and that they do not propose to put
thi? v.ejiisiou out of thejr ha^nds finally, till such time as the Commit
tee on the Old Testament is prepared to take the same step in regard
to its version."
December 18th, 1850. The Committee met, this day — present
Messrs. Medhurst,, Booiie, Stronach, Milne, and Bridgman, — when the
fly-leaf of an edition ofthe New Testament was brought up for con
sideration; after some conversation, the following was agreed to : viz.
" The New Testament in Chinese, translated by the Committee of'
Delegates ; tl^eJtext, exclusive of the words, representing THEOS
and PNEUMA, being supervised by the Committee of Delegates ; and
the ,blanks, left by them for these words, being filled in by the Shang
hae Corresponding ' Committee of the British and Foreign Bible
Spciety." Shanghae, Jan. 10th, 1851. Present Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach,
Milne, and Bridgnaan.
" Resolved that the Recording Secretary be instructed to call the at
tention of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Boone to the statement contained in the
dai^rch ' Missionary Register,' for March, 1851, page 121; that he
(Dr. Boone) ' has continued, with very little remission, in. the revisiciri.
ofthe Chinese version ofthe Scriptures;' — slnd'Tequest him to correct
the same."
Copy ofthe above was sent to Dr. Boone with the Register, who
replied, that he " regretted very much that the mistake had been pub-
li^ligd ;" adding that he had "never wofkedone hour on the said trans-
lat,ion." Oij the Sjtih of April, lj85,l, the Committee of Delegates met, present
Mespfs. Medhurst, Boone, Brijdginan, Stronach, and Milne, forthe
puji;pose of considering some Resolutions adopted at a conference be
tween deputatioijS frcin the British and F.oreign Bible Society, thp
Ijondon Missionary Society, and th.e^Church Missionary Society, sug^I
gesting the pirin ciple of " marginal 'readings," for the controverted"
¦words for God 9.r.d. Spirit, 'm order to bring out thereby uniform editions
of the New Testament ; when it was the unanimons opinion ofthe Dele
gates, " that the adoptiqJ} of such a plan is Inexpedient, because giv-
I'lrig ,one tranplation in 'the text, anfl 'another in thfe margin, wherever
the' wprds for, God and Spirit occur, would, they think, make each
party responsible for th^ ^erm adopted by the othfer, and render the
antagonisri) more, marked."

via

Oct. 5th, 1852. The Comraittee of Delegates for the translation of
the New Testament, Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach, and Milne, having
had under consideration a pamphlet entitled " Vindication of Com
ments on the translation of Ephesians 1. in tiie Delegates' Version of
the New Testam,eiit," and a paper drawn up in reply to it, resolved to
adopt and publish said paper, as their reply to tha charges in the said
Vindication. November 1st, 1852. The Committee of Delegates on the New
Testament met to-day, present Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach, and Milne,
when Mr. Milne was appointed. Recording Secretary in the room of
the Rev; Dr. Bridgman absent.
It was further resolved, that the Committee should resume its sit
tings, for the purpbse of revising the text already prepared and pubished.
The Committee then proceeded to revise the translation ofthe Gos
pels and Acts, having completed which, they continued their sittings,
for the purpose of revising their version of the Epistles.
Having thus detailed the proceedings ofthe Committee of Delegates
on the New Testament, it may be well to advert to what has been done
with regard to the translation ofthe Old.
On the 18th of December, 1849, the Delegates foir the New Tes
tament issued a Circular, the substance of which was as foUows :
The Delegates engaged hi the translation of the New Testament in
Chinese, expecting to complete their work in the middle of 18S0, sub
mit the ioWo-fi'ing propositions to the Protestant* Missionaries interest
ed in the translation of the Scriptures into Chinese. 1 . Tbat the plan
of having the existing translations portioned out fot revision, as recom
mended with reference , to the New Testaraent, be not adopted with
regard to the Old. 2. That delegates be appointed by the several local
Committees, who-shall be final judges of the levision. 3, That the'
Protestant Missionaries who are interested in the original plan, formed
in 1843, do form themselves into local Committees at Canton, Hong-'
kong, Amoy, Fuhchow, Ningpo, and Shanghae, eaoh being enti-'
tlpd to send one or more delegates. 4, 5, and 6. That the delegates
assemble in Shanghae, in July, 1850.
The above resolutions were agreed to by a majority of the Mission
aries, and the following delegates appointed: for Shanghae, the Kev.
ty. H. Medhurst, D. D. Right Kev. W. J. Boone, D.D. the Rev.W.
C. Milne, and the Rev. J. Lewis shuck; for Ningpo, the Rev.M. 8.
Culbertson j for Amoy, tlje Rev. John Stronach ; and for Canton, the
Rev. £. (J. Bridgman, D.D. There weie also two delegates appointed
fj;)i; Hongkorig, and as many .for Fijhchow, but they did not attend.
Dr. Boone likewise took no share in the translation ; and Mr. Cul
bertson,' after a few weeks attendance, left for Ningpo.
The remainder met in the beginning of August, 1850, and continued
their sittings up to the 19th of February, 1851, during which time
they carried on the translation of the Old Testament, up to the 9th of
Deuteronomy. At ttiis period, Messrs. Medhurstj Stronach, and Milne,
in compliance wilh insiructions from the Directors of the London "¦
Missionary Society, resigned their seats as delegates for the translation

IX

ofthe Old Testament; and the whole of the Missionaries of the Lon-
don Missionary Society resident in Shanghae declared that they would
not consider themselves as represented in any Coramittee of D'- legates
for the work of translating the Old Testament into Chinese, who have
been or may be appointed by the agents ofany other Institution.
;Atithe same time, Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach, and Milne, incom
pliance with the wishes of their Directors, formed themselves into a
Committee for translatang the Old Testament into Chinese, under the
.auspices of the 'London Missionary Society. They resolved, also,
that 60 far as practicable, they would adopt, in the Old Testament,
the style which, when associated with Dr. Bridgman, they had adop
ted in the translation ofthe New ; and.that the result oftheir labours
should be offered to the Bible Societies of Europe and America, and
to all the Protestant Missionaries in China.
On hearing of this step, the local Committees at Amoy and Hong
kong formally withdrew from all connection with the scheme for
translating the Old Testament in Chinese, accqrding to the original
plan adopted in 1843, and declared that they did not Consider tbem-
eelves represented in any Committee of Delegates assembled for that
purpose. . The Missionaries at Ftihchow also are understood to have
dissolv«d their connection with the General Committee ; and the Mis
sionaries at Canton were divided as to the duty of going on with the
version, and sustaining their Delegate.
Of the Committee of Delegates, originally consisting of eleven, seven
declined acting with' the Committee, viz. two from Shanghae, one from
Amoy, two from Fiihchow, and two from Hongkong ; and ofthe six
:stations originally supporting them three withdrew, and a fourth was
divided iiiits opinion. The basis of the Committee of Delegates for
the Old Testament having been thus taken away, the name of " the
Committee of Delegates," for thatpurpose,became no longer sustainable.
Of the foui remaining members, Dr. Bridgman was compelled to
return to America in Feb. ofthe present year, on account of ill-health ;
Dr. Boone, in September, for a similar cause ; Mr. Shuck it is under
stood has taken his passage for America, and is expected to depart in
a few days ; and Mr. Culbertson is the only member now resident in
China, ofthe so. called Committee of Delegates for the Old Testament.
Notwithstanding the slender basis on which their body rested, and
their waiitof translalorial experience, the so-called Committee of Dele
gates, no sooner found that the London Society's Missionaries had
determined to separate from them, dhan they began, without provoca
tion, a course of determined opposition against them.
On the 4th of March, 1851, they authorized the Rev. Dr. Bridgman
lo write to the English and Araerican Bible Societies, saying, that
'* the method of translation adopted by Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach,
aud Milne, (questioned not a little on the New Testament, and much
more on the Old) was not such as they could concur in. In addition
to a questionable degree of concisentss, unwarrantable liberties, as
they thuught, had been taken with the sacred text, which would be

;;iX

.deprecateliby all who; hold that, in,'a,fran3;latioti ofthe inspired word,
•nothing should be altered, notbipg added, nothing taken away.'
This letter was sent, off without any :intimation having been given,
to the persons implicated, of the charge contained therein.: who knew
nothing of it until they saw some aUusion to it in the April number of
the Repository for 1851. They immediately addressed a public letter,
to the Editor of the Chinese Repository, and forwarded it to all the
Missionaries, under date August 1st, 1851, asking whether it was
" fair or honourable in the so-called Committee of Delegates to remark
disparagingly upon the principles adopted by their former associates,
in a letter to a public body with which they both wished to stand on
good terms, without giving those associates a sight of the letter, and
affording them an opportunity of defending themselves." The Editor
ofthe Repository, in the number published on the Ist of November of
the same year, adverted to this letter, but did not give any satisfactory
solution of the enquiry, or explain how the conduct of the so-called
Committee pf,,D&legates could be considered consistent with what
is fair and honourable.
. Whilst the letter of Messrs. MecJhurst, Stronach and Milne,
complainitig of the unfairness of their former associates, remained
Vinapswered, Dr. Boone and: Mr. Culbertson, in the month of Novem
ber, 1851, sent to the Bible Societies of England and America, some
" Papers relating to the Shanghae revision of the Chinese Scrip
tures." In the first part, containing Notes on the Translation of
Genesis and Exodus, Mr. Culbertson says, " It will be for the Bible
Societies of Europe and America to say whether they will print, and
fbr the Missionaries in China to say whether they will distribute,
a version made on such principles." In the second, containing
I>Iptes on the Translation of Ephesians 1, Dr. Boone says, "that
something is made of the Apostle's words which strikes me is not
Opspel." These papers were published for private circulation, with
out, the names ofthe writers being attached to them, and the first inti
mation thereof to the parties concerned, was the reception of them
froni Europe in the printed form, in April, 1852. Some Strictures
qn these Papers were published by Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach, and
Milne, on the 16th of June, 1852, and sent to Messrs. Boone and Cul
bertson, as well as to the rest of the Missionaries in China, and the
Bible Societies at home. In the month of September appeared Dr.
Bpone's "Vindication of Commfcints,&c.", to which the present pamph
let is a Reply,
It will be merely necessary to add, that Messrs. Medhurst, Stron
ach and Milne, after separating from the Committee of Delegates in
February 19lh, 1851, imraediately revised the whole of what had
been done up to Deut. 9, and then proceeded with the translation ofthe
remainder of the Old Testament, -which they had the happiness to
complete on the ZQlh of October, 1852.
Shanghae, Noveraber 15th, 1852.

REPLY TO DR. BOONE'S
" TIN DICAtlON or COMMENTS ON THE TRANSLATION OP EPHES, I.
IN THE delegates' TliESION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT."
A pamphlet, with the above title, has been put into our bands.
With the first part of it, detailing the circumstances which led the writer
to make the comments referred to, we shall not now trouble ourselves ;
but pass ou at once to page 9 of the Vindication, wherein the
author says, that " such a letter as the one written on the translation
ofthe 1st of Ephesians, should not be sent without the parties, whose
translation was commented on, having some notice of said comments,
that they might explain away the objections and justify their own
course;" and that he "sincerely regrets that we should have been sub
jected to the extreme irritation, whicb a supposition that he had
intended a covert and secret attack upon our translation could not but
cause us."
Here the writer admits that the letter should not have been sent,
without some notice of it having been given to the parties concerned.
But it was sent, without such notice, and Dr. Boone himself sent it.
Dr. B. therefore did, according to his own confession, what ought not
to have been done. He further admits that the supposition that he
intended thereby a covert and secret attack upon our translation,
could not but cause extreme irritation in our minds ; he therefore
sincerely regrets that we should have been subjected to the extreme
irritation, which such supposition must have caused us. But Dr.
Boone did make this covert and secret attack upon our translation,
for he sent his letter to the Bible Society in November, 1851, with
out giving us the slightest intimation that be bad done so, and we
did not hear of it until about six months after date. He did therefore
what he knew could not but cause extreme irritation in our minds :
and, instead of being sorry for having done it, he is only sorry tbat we
should have been subjected to the extreme irritation, which could not
but arise from oar supposing that he bad done it. Uis regret, there
fore, i? not for having done Wrong, but for having led us to suppose
that he had done wrong, when he did do it. He shelters himself
under the plea that he did not intend to do wrong. " I had no such
intention," he says, (i. e. to make a covert and secret attack upon the
translation,) " and wrote nothing to the Bible Societies about their
modes of translation, that I did not intend immediately to lay before
them and the public." Bijt he did write about our modes of transla
tion to the Bible Societies, and he did not immediately lay what he
bad written before us and the public. What does it signify to us or

to the public what he intended to do, wben he did not carry such
intention into effect. He tells us that he ought to have done it; he
tells us also that he did not do it, but only intended to do it. He le
velled a blow at us " covertly and secretly" ; he owns that he ought to
have put us in a position to ward it off; and when tbe blow bas fallen,
(which he owns could not but cause in us extreme irritation), he
excuses hiraself by saying that he did not intend to do it covertly and
secretly, but that Tie intended to make us aware of it. How much
better would it have been for him to corae forward honestly and
plainly with the statement that he had done wrong, and that he was
sorry for having done wrong ; this would have been a recommenda
tion to mercy, and, as Christian men, we should have been bound to
forgive bim ; but such absurd pretences, and miserable excuses, only
make the matter worse.
He did not design, he adds, either in public or private to assail
our motives, or to call in question our fairness or honor. No one
says he did ; his saying that he did not, is only brought in here as a
sort of excuse for having done one wrong, on the ground he did not
do another. He made a covert and secret attack upon our translation,
and he excuses himself by saying that he did not intend to assail our
motives, or to call in question onr fairness ox honor J
As he intended to publish immediately (though he did not publish
at all), he thinks our conduct in publishing some remarks regarding
himself and Dr. Bridgman, on January 30th, 1850, and August 1st,
1851,* without privately asking an explanation of apparent inconsis
tencies, "certainly absolved him from any obligation to pursue such
a course towards us." That is, he cites instances of our publicly
and openly making certain statements regarding hira, as fully war
ranting him in covertly and secretly attacking us, without deeming
it necessary to send us a copy of his letter !
On page 27 of our -Strictures, we animadverted on Mr. Culbertson
for saying, " he was under the impression that Dr. Boone requested
the Committee of the Bible Society to furnish us with a copy of his
remarks." We thought then that Mr. Culbertson was wrong in
writing so hesitatingly about this fact, when he could so easily have
made himself swre, by asking Dr. Boone. But it seems now, from
Dr. Boone's own admission, that he himself was not sure. He in
structed Mr. Culbertson to write as he did, because, says he, "I
could not remember having made this request ;" and " I cannot speak
positively on some points that have been brought up." As we re
marked in our Strictures, page 27, "the excuse is worse than paltry,
that he requested the Bible Society to furnish us with a copy of his
remarks. He could and he ought to have done it himself." It now
* The second public letter bere alluded to, was written in self-
defence, after Dr. Boone and others had attacked our principles of
translation ; ofwhich attack we were not aw.are, until we saw some
aUusion to it in the Chinese Repository.

appears that this very paltry excuse is not to be relied on. We have
letters from the Bible Society, and frora the London Missionary
Society, with I'eference to the " Papers relating to the Shanghae Re
vision of the Chinese Scriptures," published for private circulation by
the Bible Society. In those letters, however, no mention is made of
Dr. B. as the author of any part of the papers. As far as the Mis
sionary Society is concerned, it does not appear that they had the
slightest idea of Dr. Boone's authorship. In their communications to
us, Mr. Culbertson alone is alluded to, as the author of the Papers.
On page 11, Dr. Boone says that, in our recent paper, we have
insinuated that his ill-health was " a mere sham." We have done
no such thing ; the Strictures are before the public, and the reader
can judge whether or not, we ha\[e done so. We therein brought for
ward Dr. Boone's statement, that he " never worked one hour on the
translation :" and contrasted it with the fact that he had, during the
sittings ofthe Committee, published one controversial work of 70, and
another of 170 pages. We only said, that " we could not accept his
excuse, that ill-health alone prevented him from attending in the
Coramittee-room for the space of two years and a half : for, even sup.
posing that the regular meeting with others, and engaging in oral
discussion, might have been too fatiguing for a person in a weak state
of health, what was to prevent his attending occasionally, or inspect
ing the work at home ?"
It now appears that he could do, and that he actually did, for the
colloquial version, of Matthew's Gospel, the very thing that we said
be might have done for the Delegates' version. Though he was not
able to work with them (that is with the preparers of the colloquial
version) a single week, he took their work into his own study, and
added what help he could, at such times and such hours as 'he found
himself able. Had he done this with the version for the preparation
of which he was chosen as a Delegate, he might have induced some
of the Delegates to adopt his views, or have had what was erroneous
in them corrected by the reasoning and representations of the majority ;
by which means the unhappy spectacle would have been avoided
of the Delegates differing in public with each other about the trans
lation, after it had been given out to the Bible Society. We said in our
Strictures, that Dr. Boone " manifested an anxiety for the preparation
of the Old Testament translation, after our separation, which he never
displayed before." This statement is borne out by his own admissions.
He says he did feel much interest in the translation, ,(i. e. of the Old
Testament,) and, as his health had been gradually improving, he pro
mised himself much gratification in aiding his brethren to some extent
in their work ; and, though he could not make good his attendance
through one week, he leaves it to be inferred, that during the months
of March and April, 1851, he attended frequently at the house of one
of them. In the summer months, they were kind enough to hold
their meetings in his house, during which tirae there were many days
that he could not sit with them, leaving it to be inferred also that

4
there were not a few days, during which he could and did sit with
them. Contrast this with his never having worked one hour on the
Delegates' version, nor even inspected the work at home, and then
let any one say whether he did not manifest an anxiety for the pre
paration of the Old Testament translation, after our separation, which
he never displayed before. We have done hira no injustice, there
fore, in making the above statement. One reason of his conduct, it
seems, was that the Committee of Delegates on the New Test.iment
was coraposed of much better Chinese-scholars than himself ; leaving
his readers to draw the inference, that after our separation, he did
not think that his brethren had the advantage of him in this respect.
He thought that he could trust us, as far as Chinese scholarship was
concerned ; he did not think that be could trust them. They seem
. to have been equally impressed with a sense of the inferiority of their
own attainments in Chinese : for he says, " my brethern in Com
mittee mere very desirous of my attendance and aid." This sen
tence he has italicized. If it be so, it is right tbat the public should
know how little confidence is felt in regard to the working members in
that Committee, both by Dr. Boone and by themselves.
We sball pass over the digression regarding the controversy as
to Shin and Shang-te, by merely observing that Dr. Boone has
unfairly represented the quotation adduced by Dr. Legge, and not
fully stated the question as it regards the insufficiency of the term
chosen by himself. Dr. Legge will no doubt take care to set him
self right with the public, and we may take seme future opportunity
of returning to the subject, when we have more time.
In our Strictures page 25, we avowed it as our full conviction, that
Dr. Boone undertook to criticize our translation of the New Testa
ment with the view to weaken our credit in the translation of the
Old ; and that his object was to ruin our influence and reputation as
translators, with the view of making out a case of necessity for him
and his hrethren proceeding with another translation.
In order to combat this charge. Dr. Boone has detailed a narrative
of the facts of the case, as far as he himself was concerned. He says,
we do him " an injustice in supposing that his criticisms were the
result of a combined plan to ruin our inflaence and reputation as
translators :" they resulted, he says, from the train of events he has
narrated. We have carefully gone over said train of events, and
raust confess that we feel compelled to retain our former opinion.
The gist of his observations is, that he partially exarained the versioto,
and seeing no material objection to it, cheerfully joined in giving
it out to the Bible Society in August, 1850 ; but that after com
plaints had come to his ears against it, he examined it more fully,
and resolved to denounce it. It is a fact, however, that so long as
we continued our connection with the Old Testament Committee, Dr.
Boone expressed no disapprobation of our version ofthe New Testa
ment ; but immediately we withdrew, he listened to certain observa
tions in disparagement of it, thrown out at meeting of the Mission-

aries over wbich he presided,* without m:iking one remark in reply to
the speaker ; be entertained the complaint of the Ningpo brethren
about the undue liberties said to have been taken in Roraans ; and,
after the publication of our letter of August, 1851, in which we'
argued from his conduct respecting the version, that he did not
disapprove of it, he set to work to criticize it, in an unfavourable
spirit. The question is, — would the remarks made at tbe meetin"
referred to, or the complaints suggested by the Ningpo brethren, or
the criticisms undertaken by Dr. Boone, any of theii have been eli
cited, had we not separated frora the Committee of Delegates oa the
Old Testament, determined to go on alone, and declared that we
should adopt in our version of the Old Testament, the style we had
adopted under the New ? We believe not."
In his narrative be says, that when Matthew was finished, he pro
cured a copy, and read it over carefully with two good teachers,.
These, together with a baptized convert and his school-boys, were
pleased with it, and preferred it to all previous versions, on account
of its greater smoothness and rhythm. Notwithstanding these Chi
nese commendations, however, he felt some objection to it, on account
of its too great brevity and terseness.f Dr. Boone says, that he
afterwards read over John's Gospel in the same careful manner : in
this, he thought a fondness for terseness at the expense of perspicuity
was growing on the Coriamittee, and sometinaes liberties were taken
which he should not have allowed himself ; — yet he observed no de
partures from the original, which would have caused him to hesitate in
pronouncing it a faithful version.
He considered, therefore, that our style and principles of translation
were settled, and fprmed his opinion of the work from the above-
mentioned portions. On this account, be cheerfully joined in giving
forth the version to the Bible Societies. He judged of the whole
from the examination of two books. He went no further with the
examination ; and when tbe work was done, he proposed its being
given out, and rejoiced in its prospective publication. It is no sooner
p4iblished, however, than he commences a course of secret and deter
mined opposition tq it.
But let us hear, how he came to his new views regarding the un-
suitability of the version. The first time he beard that unjustifiable
* This was a meeting of Missionaries in Shanghae, to which we
were not invited.
f Dr. Boone here seeras to confound terseness with brevity. The
latter, though an excellent quality, is not to be studied at the ex
pense of perspicuity. Terseness consists in a certain neatness of
8tyle,~not necessarily opposed to diffuseness. Webster says, that
terse means cleanly written ; neat, elegant without pompousness ; as
terse language or terse style. He then gives a quotation from Harte,
" diffused yet terse, poetical though plain." See also Blair's Lectures
on Rhetoric, Vol. II. psge 24.

liberties had been taken in the Epistles, was from certain parties in
Ningpo, when they, were carrying Romans through the press. The
said parties, he says, hesitated about going on with the edition. Dr.
Boone was consulted, and on examining the passages referred to,
gave it as his opinion that it would be better to cease printing, untU
the Epistles were published from the press ofthe London Missionary
Society. Dr. Boone does not state when this took place, but it was
piobably subsequent to our separation in February, 1851. If the
consultation to whicb he refers took place, while Dr. Boone was in
Ningpo, it was in May or June, 1851.
Dr. Boone says, that he was consulted by the brethren at Ningpo,
about certain passages in the Epistle to the Romans, in which un
warrantable liberties had been taken in the rendering of Paul. He
therefore examined the passages referred to, and gave it as his
opinion that it would be better to cease printing (at Ningpo), untU
the Epistles were published frora the press of the London Missionary
Society. But why cease at Ningpo, and not at Shanghae ? Is the
press at Ningpo to be kept free from contamination, whUe that of the
London Missionary Society is to be allowed to publish these unwar-^
rantable liberties without restraint ? He would say, perhaps, that he
was consulted by the Ningpo brethren, butnot by those in charge of
the press belonging to the London Missionary Society. Granted ; but
was he not a Delegate for the translation of the New Testament ?
Had he not given his sanction to the publication of the work, and
was he not responsible for its cbaracter ? Was it not his duty, the
very first moment that he was made aware of unjustifiable liberties,
to have advertized his co-delegates of the same, to have requested
that the printing on account of the Bible Society might be stopped
for a time, and to have called a raeeting immediately for the consi
deration ofthese passages, tbe rendering ofwhich he had examined,
and found wanting ? Nothing of all this, which he was bound to do,
did Dr. Boone attempt to do; on the contrary, he allowed the agents
of the London Missionary Society to go on printing, the funds of
the Bible Society to be spent, and the publication of what he thought
unjustifiable liberties to continue, without addressing one word of
warning to those concerned. He let them go on farther and farther,
until they had fully perpetrated the offence, and then he set to work
to denounce thera secretly to the Bible Society. This is a course of
conduct, which we will not trust ourselves to describe, but will leave
those concerned to bestow what epithets on it they think it deserves.
It will not avail Dr. Boone after this, to take advantage of what
we have said above, and at some subsequent period to cry out that the
agents ofthe London Missionary Society are pursuing a wrong course,
and wasting the funds of the Bible Society ; for, according to his own
shewing, he knew all this before, and did not raise the warning voice ;
he cannot expect, therefore, that bis doing so subsequently should
be ascribed to the purest motives.
When the Committee of translators of the Old Testament, with

which he is connected, wrote the letter of March, 1851, Dr. Boone
says, he had not exarained the Epistles. Even when he returned
from Ningpo in June of that year, he had not exarained them (with
the exception of the passages in Romans above referred to,) with a
view to ascertaining whether the charg:e of looseness was just or not.
After the Epistles were published, which was in October, 1851, Dr.
Boone says, he examined them for himself, and found a degree of
freedom taken with the inspired writers, which he was not prepared
for, and which had he known, he would certainly have opposed the
giving out of the version to the Bible Societies in August, 1850.
But why did he not examine the Epistles before he proposed their
being given out at that period ? What was to hinder biro giving
the latter part of the work the same careful examination which he
give to the flrst ? He says, " the state of my health was not such
.as to have prevented my reading over the whole version several times,
if I had deemed myself called upon to do so, from any cause ; but as
the work was not yet published, it would have cost my teachers many
hours' labour to have copied it, and made it necessary to lay aside
other work I had for them.* This could have been easily done, if
there had been any sufficient motive for my having the copy made,
but I saw none: I did not propose to myself any private labour
on the version ; no one at that tirae made any objection to the version,
on the score of want of closeness to the original; ofthe style I had
satisfied myself by the examination made."
We have transcribed the above sentence, for the purpose of pointing
out Dr. Boone's neglect of duty. There was nothing to prevent tiis
reading over the whole version. The state of his health was no bar.
The Epistles not having been published was no hindrance ; for he
says, he could easily have got them copied, but he had no raotive for
getting the copy made ; he did not deem himself called upon from any
cause, to read over the version several times ; he did not propose
to himself any private labour on the version ; he had satisfied himself
by the examination made. Here is a Delegate, deliberately chosen by
a large body of Protestant Missionaries in China, as one of their most
experienced men, to be one of the final judges of the propriety of
each revision, who never works one hour on the translation ; when
others have done it, as he says, with great labour and pains, he merely
examines two of the books of tbe New Testament ; and then coolly
says he had no motive, and did not feel himself called upon from any
cause to pursue the examination further, but cheerfully joins in giving
forth the version to the Bible Societies. Some parties, he says, may
* He does not deny that he had, all this time, persons employed
under his direction, in making a copy for the Fiih-cbow brethren, as
stated in our Strictures, page 22; nor does he intimate that he ex
pressed the slightest wish, thaf the Committee would allow him to
look at one of their own copies, which no doubt they would have gladly
done.

8
think his conduct remiss, being as he was a member of the Committee,
in not examining the yersion more carefully for himself, before joining
in handing it over to the Bible Societies : but, as his doing so arose
from confidence in the translators, they are surely the last persons
who should reproach him with the act. We believe that every one
who thinks at all, will think conduct such as tbis remiss. It indicates
a degree of carelessness, with regard to matters of the most grave
and serious nature, unworthy of a Christian minister, and in perfect
contrast with his present extravagant zeal. Dr. Boone seeks to de
precate our joining in any outcry against himself, by saying that as
his neglect arose from his confldence in the translators, they are surely
the last persons who should reproach him with the act. We hope
that we are not so far gone in want of moral sense, as to fail in dis
cerning and denouncing neglect, because confidence in ourselves led
to the same. If his confidence was, as he says it was, misplaced, '
then we shall be among the first to blame him for the neglect, which
that confldence engendered.
He says further, that nothing in all this,— -that is, in his neglecting
to examine more than two books of the New Testament, before he
joined, nay stood foremost, in giving it out to the Bible Secieties,^
nothing in all this is to prevent his discovering faults in the new ver
sion, or, on discovering them, to adopt the means he should judge
most suitable for preventing their doing injury, or procuring their
correction. We think there is something tq prevent him ; namely, a
sense of shame for past neglect. Suppose a juryman were to go to
sleep in the jury-box, soon after a trial commenced, when he had
heard only two issues discussed ; and suppose he were afterwards to
join in giving out the verdict, or even as foreman to pronounce it ;
would he be entitled, when the trial was over, on his reconsidering
the case, to insist upon the verdict being reversed ? Still less, if,
when asked why he did not keep awake, he were to say that he did
not feel himself called upon to do so from any cause, — that he might
have kept awake, but he had not sufficient motive for so doing ; and,
as his lethargy arose from his confidence in his fellow jurymen, they
surely ought to be the last persons to reproach him with the act.
There is also something else to deter him from adopting any means
he judged most suitable, for preventing the faults he might dis
cover doing injury, and procuring their correction. There was a
resolution, with the passing of which he was made acquainted, and
to which he offered no objection, wherein the Committee of Dele
gates invited remarks from all, and promised to give due attention to
the criticisms and suggestions wbich might be sent to them, as well
after as before the version is put to press. It was more especially
the duty of Dr. Boone, being a Co-delegate, to take this method
of preventing the faults he found doing injury, or procuring their
correction. The mode be did adopt was evidently designed to do in
jury to the version, and to effect its destruction.
But let us hear Dr. Boone's own account of this method. " Be-

cause ray criticisms were not sent in to the Committee, but I claimed
and exercised the right of shooting over their heads, and sending
thera immediately to the Bible Society. I am considered an accuser
of the brethren, &c." But w'.io ever heard of snch a right as this ?
A Commission is dppointed lor a certain purpose. One member
does nothing towards its accomplishment ; and vvhen it is accom
plished, be beads the Commission in presenting the work to the parties
for whom it is intended, satisfied tbat it is in the main right. He
afterward thinks he finds it wrong. When errors are discovered,
there is a mode, which all have agreed to adopt, of having these errors
rectitied ; but this cora[)laining member, instead of- taking the course
which had been prescribed, claims the right of "shooting over the
heads" of the others, and appealing to the higher powers, wilh the view
of getting the work of the Coramission set aside. Were such a case
to occur in worldly matters, the man thus acting would be univer
sally blamed. Suppose too a Commission for preparing charts for
the Admiralty ; one of the persons commissioned never assists in
ujaking the survey ; but when it is made by others, he examines a
couple of charts, believes that all is right, and leads the van in offering
the whole to the Admiralty ; a year or more after it is done, when
the charts bave been ordered to be printed, he hears reports from per-
tons not in the Commission to the prejudice of the charts ; then begins
to examine the rest of the charts for the first time, iraagines that^
he finds flaws in thera, and instead of representing these to his co
workers, who declare themselvts still willing to receive suggestions, he
" shoots over their heads," and denounces them secretly to the Admir
alty, with the view of getting the whole work comdemned, and himself
commissioned to make a new set. Who will acknowledge such a
right as this, except those who are preparefi to ignore all rights,
and consult nothing but their own strong will, and individual interest ?
What position would such a person hold in the estimation of his
colleagues? What in the opinion of the world ? Or suppose a con
sultation of medical men, held over a case, in which they all agree
to a certain co'jrse, but one of thein afterwards finds reason to differ
from his brotlier practitioners. Instead of mentioning his doubts
to them, he "shoots over their heads," and states his objections to the
head of the family, with the view of making out a case, why he
should be called in, instead of them. Would conduct such as tbis
be tolerated for a raoment ? and would the right so to do be con
ceded to any man ?
Dr. Boone thinks that he is excused for "shooting over tbe heads"
of his Co-delegates, and sending his u-iticisms directly to the Bible
Society, because, he says, the Committee of Deligates for the iVew
Testament was virtually broken up, when Messrs. Medhunt, Stronach,
and Milne withdrew from the Committee of Delegates for the Old
Testament. The unjustifiableness of this assertion exceeds the boldness
of the claim to " shoot over the heads'' of his Co-delegates, just com
mented 0)1. Dr. Boone knows very well, that the two Committees

10
were perfectly distinct. When sorae of the Committee of Delegates
on the New Testament suggested the propriety of their going
on with the Old Testament translation, at the termination of the
New, on the ground of some expressions contained in the original
resolutions passed in Hongkong, in 1843, Dr. Boone and others
resisted the claim, and insisted on a new Committee being appoint
ed ; in eoroplianee with which, the old constituency was enlarged,
and tbe number of Delegates increased. A new election was made ;
al which one Delegate who had been employed on the New was for
a tirae rejected for the Old, to promote party or controversial pur
poses, and one who had never been on any Delegation for the transla
tion of the Scriptures before, was elected in his room. The two Dele
gations, therefore, were entirely distinct from and independent of each
other. Dr. Boone knew this, and yet he ventures to say, the Committee
of Delegates on the New Testament was " virtually dissolved" by our
withdrawal from the Old. Not only did he know that our withdrawal
from the Delegation on the Old Testament, did not virtually break up
the New ; but he kne<vtbat he and Dr. Bridgman met with us, and
transacted business in our united capacity as Delegates on the New
Testament, after our withdrawal from the (committee of the Old.
(See an account of this meeting held April Stb, 1851, on page 26 of
our Strictures.) He adds, that he has used the expressioin " virtually
broken up, for the members of said Committee could never bave been
brought into continuous session again to attend to any work." We
have already shewn that they were brought into session ag.iin, for a
very important object, and nothing was to hinder their continuing in
session for any length of time, had necessity required it. This state
ment therefore is not true. He says further, " the agreemeat to receive
further criticisms, until the Old Testaraent was completed, contem
plated the members of the Committee who had translated the New
Testament, being constantly together for the translation of the Old, so
that criticisms could be easily considered by them and settled." The
resolution and preamble run thus : — " September 1 1th, 1851.
" Whereas a diversity of opinion exists respecting the intention of
tbis Committee, in regard to, criticisms and suggestions which raay
be sent to thera, for the improvement of the version after it shall have
been put to press : and whereas all the Delegates forming this Com
mittee have been elected merabers of the Committee on the Old
Testament, therefore unanimously resolved, —
" That this Committee will give all due attention to the criticisms
and suggestions which may be sent to them, as well after as before
the version is put to press ; and that they do not propose lo put the
version out of fheir bands flnaUy, tiU such time as the, Committee oa
the Old Testament is prepared to take the same step in regard to ita
version." It was a mere circurastance that all the Delegates for the New
Testament had been elected members of the Committee on the Old
Testament, which' no way affected the constitution of either Com-.

11
mittee ; it is only mentioned in the preamble to the resolution, as
affording a likelihood of the members of both Committees being for
some time in.tbe same place. On this account the Committee on the
New Testament said, that they did not purpose to put the version out
of their hands finally, tin such time as the Comraittee on the Old
Testament was prepared to take the same step with regard to theirs.
The withdrawal of three members from tbe Old Testament Committee,
who happened, to be also membera of the New Testament Committee,
did not in any wise affect their standing or position as New Testament
Delegates. As it happened, also, all the members ofthe New Testa
ment Committee reraained in the same place up to the month of
February, 1852 ; Dr. Boone's statement, therefore, that after the
withdrawal of the three New Testament Delegates from the Committee
on the Old Testament, it would have been impracticable for the
members of the Coraraittee who had translated the New Testament
to meet together, so that criticisms could be considered by them
and settled, is untrue ; and his excuse, that therefore he raight send
his criticisms directly to the Bible Society, because the Committee of
Delegates on the New Testament was virtually dissolved, is ground
less. He not only grievously injured his Co-delegates by so doing,
but he heaped upon them a gratuitous insult, by " shooting over their
heads," when he knew that the Committee on tbe New Testament had
a real existence, and could easily have been called together.
With reference to this last statement, we raay allude to a brief cor
respondence, which took place with Dr. Bridgman on the eve of his
leaving for Araerica, January 31st, 1852. When he then handed
over to us the Records of the Coraraittee of Delegates on the New
Testament, he observed : " Till it be further revised, I cannot recom
mend any furtiher publication of the version." This observation sur
prised us, and we addressed him the foUowing note : " Permit us to
call your attention to the Resolution of the Committee of Delegates
passed unanimously, August 1st, 1850, relative to the giving out of
the version, and another dated the Ilth of the same month, inviting
criticisms. You will perceive that, according to these resolutions, it
was understood that the revision as a whole was completed, and that
as such the Delegates bad offered it to the Bible Societies, witbout
restriction as to the number of editions they should issue. No word
has been uttered by the Coramittee about any further revision on
their own account. But such criticisms and suggestions as may he
sent in to them by others, will receive aU due attention. Some such
have already been sent in, which have been attended to. When any
others come in, which the Committee as a body consider valuable, they
will doubtless pay all due attention to them. These should be sent
in, however, during the present year, as at the close of it Mr. Stronach
will probably have left for Amoy, Mr. Milne foi England, and Dr.
Boone for America, to which country you are now about to proceed.
After this year, therefore, the Committee as sucb will probably not be
able to meet, and the consideration of criticisms and suggestions must
be postponed sme die.

12
" Such is tbe state ofthe case, as far as the Committee is concerned ;
of course, your statement (as above qnbted) is only the suggestion of
an individual, and can he of no weiglit unless agreed to by the Com
mittee. It mav be well here to remind you, thut this is, a« far as we
are aware, tbe flrst intimation given by you to any member of this Com
mittee of your dissatisfaction with the version.* And tbis appears to us
tbe more remarkable, seeing you have bad abundance of op[)Ortunity
of making any objections, or stating your scruples, during the two
years and seven months, when the Comraittee continued to sit at the
translation, and the last flfteen months in whicb the proofs ofthe first
edition passed through your bands."
From tbe above it is evident, tbat we did not consider the Cora
mittee virtually broken up, and tbat we contemplated its being brought
together for the purpose of considering criticisms up to the close of
1852: or even longer if any three of the members could bave been
found living in one place. It is evident tbat, up to that time, we as a
Committee bad never received anv intimation from Dr. Bridgman of
his disapproval ofthe version, still less did we dream of Dr. Boone's
covert attack. Dr. Boone has excused hiraself for attacking the
version, after having joined in giving it out, by saying that he had not
exarained it thoroughly before, he has done so since, and in bis esti
mation it is found wanting. Snch excuse will not avail Dr. Bridg
man. He was present at the Committee during the whole time when
the verston was in the course of preparation : as well as during the
subsequent revision, which was very carefully made. He cannot
therefore plead ignorance of its charncter, when he joined in giving it
out ; we have heard him approve of it highly, and declare stoutly that
he would stand by it to the last. His subsequent desertion from its
interests, weAelieve, like that of Dr. B., to be the res\ilt of our with
drawal from the ComTnittee on the Old Testaraent, according to
definite instructions received frora our board of Directors.
As another reason why Dr. Boone "shot over our heads." and did not
send his criticisms first to the Coramittee, he urges that he had no rea-
* The above remark is opposed to Dr. Bridgmaii's statement, in
his letter to tbe Bible Society, of March 4tb, 1851, that " our method
of translation had been questioned not a little on tbe New Testa
ment :" of course, it must have been bv Dr. Bridgman, as Dr. Boone
clearly indicates in bis Vind. page 19. Individual renderings were
sometiraes objected to by hira, as they were occasionally by us all.
But we can safely affirm, tbat our method of translation, particularly
as it regards alleged liberties being taken with the sacred text,
was never questioned by Dr, Bridgman. He approved of our
version ofthe latter parts of the New Testament more than he did
that of Matthew : be invariably advocated sucb renderings as would
be deemed by Dr. Boone fre'e : and frequently quoted the saying
of his Professor, Moses Stuart, "qui hseret in litera, hseret in
cortice."

13
son to expect tbat they wo\ild bave called raeetings to take thera into
consideration, and correct the faults coraplained of. Tliis is attemp
ting to excuse his own fault, by gratuitously supposing that the Com
raittee would also have been guilty of one. What right had b- to
suppose any such thing ? had not the Committee invited criticisms
and suggestions ? was he not a Delegate, and entitled to make him
self heard ? Even supposing the Committee could have been so
wanting in a sense of duty, as to throw aside his criticisms unconsi
dered, his duty was clear — he ought to bave sent them in to the
Committee, and when that method failed, he mitrht then have resorted
to ulterior measn!-es. But he says, those who had been recently at
work witb us on the Pentateuch, declared that we were resolute in
our determination to pursue the course complained of. What course?
not attending to criticisms on the New Testament, when sent in by. a
Co-delegate ? For a resolution to resist such, could alone have justi-
fied Dr. Boone in his conduct. Perhaps he means that those engaged
with us on tbe Pentateuch, declared that we were resolute in resisting '
some suggestions offered by them. How doeg be kno'v whal those
suggestions were ? or the reasons wbich weighed with us in rejecting
thera ? The suggestions raight bave been offensive to idiom, or con
trary to all translatorial experience, wbich those engaged with us on
the Pentateuch, with the exception of one, certainly did not possess ;
and beoau-'e we were resolute in rejecting these. Dr. B. concludes
tbat we should have rejected his without enquiry. As for the princi
ples defended in our recent Strictures, whatever they were, they were
publisbe 1 after Dr. B. "shot over our heads," by directly sending in his
criticisms to the Bible Sooietv, and therefore could not be urged as a
reason for bis doing so. The fact is, be has egregiously erred inthe
•course of conduct he has pursued, and he bad hetter bave ingenuously
confessed it at once, without employing suoh futile arguments to
palliate his conduct.
Yet he says, "these brethren raisundcrstand very much ray feeling
towards thera, when they suppose my object was to injure them in any
way, or to bring a charge of incapacity against them. I hsive no such
feelings towards tliem : not the slightest personal rivalry in the mat
ter." No ! not when he "shoots over onr heads," hy sending ciiticisms,
coraplaining of our having issued something wbich is not Gospel, to
those who bave the disbursement of funds necessary for tbe circulation
of that which we have been at great pains and labour to prepare, and
that in a covert and secret manner, — when he bas done all tbis,
does he not intend to injure us in any way ? VerUy such non-injury
looks so very much like injury, that whether a man intends to harm
us thereby or not, we had ranch rather he would let us entirely alone.
He speaks indeed very flatteringly of our attainments now, but in bis
criticisms sent over our heads to the Bible Society, he alluded to us
in a manner which we were obliged to call attention to, as in.iicative
of a very different feeling. A stranger comparing his allusions to
ourselves in his two papers, would hardly suppose that they had re
ference to the same individuals.

14
He further says, "I have prayed for divine guidance in their behalf,
and for a blessing on their labours, since they withdrew from the
Committee of Delegates, just as I did before." Really we cannot un
derstand this. Of course we do not disapprove of praying for divine
guidance, even for those whom we may consider misguided ; that is,
that tbey may be brought under better guidance than that which they
have hitherto foUowed. On this principle, we could pray for the
Bishop of Exeter, or tbe Pope. But to pray for a blessing on their
labours is a very different thing. He says on page 57, " they have
adopted principles of translation, which my sense of the reverence due
to God's word, constrains me publicly to oppose. Of the principles
upon wbich their translation was raade, and of the very serious doc
trinal errors taught therein, (unintentionally I sincerely believe,) I
must be perraitted to speak out my feelings frankly, and in the
language tbat comes from my heart." From tbis it appears, that he
feels constrained publicly to oppose tbe principles on which our
translation is made, and the very serious doctrinal errors taught there
in : — yet privately be prays for a blessing on our labours, just as he
did before. He feels bound to oppose them himself, but he prays
God to bless them ! He must excuse us for saying, that we deem his
prayers at utter variance witb his practice.
After an introduction of 20 pages, Dr Boone alludes to his ra-itii
cjsms, and says, "if the objections are either frivolous or unsustained,
then let my criticism be laid to this account (viz. of personal feeling):
but if on the contrary, the defects complained of are of a character to
affect the statement of important Christian doctrines, and the actual
existence of defects is raade clearly to appear, then I hope that, not
onlv indifferent persons, but that Messrs. Medhurst, Stronach and
Milne, will themselves absolve me irom any such motive, and not
suffer their feelings of regard for me to be lessened, by my pointing
out improvements necessary to the greater and more extensive useful
ness of their work."
Here we may observe, that Dr. Boone's feelings towards us, andthe
consistency or inconsistency of bis prayers on our behalf, have nothing
to do with the justice of his criticisms, or the weight of bis objections :
if these be well sustained, they will deserve attention, and we hope
that our feelings towards him will not prevent us from correcting
those passages, which affect the statement of iraportant Christian
doctrines, and availing ourselves-of the improvements suggested by
him, as necessary to tbe greater and more extensive usefulness of our
work. Just criticisra must be attended to, from whatever quarter
it comes, or with whatever motive offered ; only we may observe, that
Dr. Boone has, by the course of conduct pursued, damaged the cause
of his own criticisms As it regards ourselves, we shaU endeavpur tq
repress any feeling of indignation that might arise from the recollection
of his conduct towards us, and, in examining his critical suggestions,
avail ourselves of them, as if nothing had occurred to interrupt the
harmony of feeling between us^; but we must aay>thatbe would have

15
drawn us to tbe consideration of his criticisras with more grace and
better hope of success, if he had presented thera in a proper manner,
and called our attention to them in tl e flrst instance. This course of
conduct, indeed, we had a right to deraand of him, and had done
nothing to forfeit. As it regards bthers, we conceive the general
feeling will be, on the examination of Dr. Boone's notes, that the more
just the criticisms, the greater tbe pity, if not the blarae, tbat they had
not been offered at an earlier period, and in a proper manner. The
better a man can write on the subject of biblical criticism, after the
work is done, it will of course be presumed, that so much the more
valuable would have been his assistance, while the work was in pro
gress. Dr. Boone says himself, that there was nothing in tbe state
of his health to prevent him reading over the whole version several
times, if be had deemed himself called upon to do so. If the criticisms
he has now presented be just, there is the stronger reason for his
having done, what he says he could have done : and Dr. Boone stands
charged before the whole Christian world witb the most criminal neg
lect, in not doing what he could have done, but did not do.
We may mention awotber thing which calls for animadversion.
Dr. Boone as a Covdelegate, was we repeat it in duty bound, if he
had any complaints, to make them in the first instance to us. This
he did not do, but "shot over our heads" and made them directly to the
Bible Society. He has now drawn up a number of new objections
against our translation of other passages, and given them to tbe world
at the same time that he has sent them to us. As we had published
our Strictures on his Comments, we do not complain of his publishing
his Vindication of his Comments. But that gave him no warrant to
repeat the offence complained of, and publish a new list of objections
against other parts of our translation, which also should have been
first sent to us. In our Strictures page 25, we have already adverted
tO' his misconduct in this respect, intimating that he ought to have
taken the method pointed out by a sense of common justice, as well as
laid down by tbe resolution of the Committee of which he was a mem
ber, and " if that proved unavailing, it was then time enough to adopt
what should have been only taken to as a dernier resort, namely, the
appeal to the Bible Society." Without attempting to defend his con
duct in this particular, though he knew it was wrong, he coolly repeats
the offence, and brings forward a new string of charges which had
sever been made before. It would be but treating him as he deserves
to pass by these remarks altogether, as evidently not made by one
who seeks the improvement of the version ; but r.s we have already
said, we shaW endeavour lo suppress our justly-indignant feelings,
at such a reiterated violation of alt the rules of fairness, and proceed
to the consideration of his cTiticisms, as if they had been forwarded to
the Committee in tbe proper way.
In treating of the principles of translation. Dr. Boone has in his Vin
dication quoted Ernesti, as we did in our Strictures. He has enlarged
his quotations a little by prefixing § 188, wbich we considered merely

16
introductory, and by quoting tbe whole of § 189, regarding the Latin
and German languages, which we did not think applicable to the case
in hand ; he bas also quoted from an Engli-^h translation of Ernesti s
work, different from the one wc possess ; but as they do not differ
raatnially, we acce[)t the one as well us tbe olher. lie bas relerred
likewise to § 192, 193 and 194, in wljich Ernesti gives "cases where
we must adhere to the mode of translatin.qt ad verbum :" but Dr. B.
has forgotten to tell his readers, that we have in all the cases given
by Ernesti translated od verbum. Dr. B. then refers to § 195 as a
very important rule : in our translation of Ernesti it runs thus: "A
fourth case of such necessity occurs in obscure passages, where we
can scarcely affix a sense, but where there are several interpretations
possessing some, and nearly an equal appearance of probability. To
translate such passages into good Latin or English, we must in the
first place assume the right of determining their sense ; a right which
we might assume in a Commentary, but not in a tianslation. Casta-
lio wilh great propriety remarks on 1 Peter, 4:6. ' I do not under
stand this, and therefbre I render it word for word'."
Dr. Ammon, in commenting on this rule says, "obscure passages
refer to such as are utierly obscure and inexplicable, the number' of
which is daily diminishing by the diligence and sagacity of interpre
ters, as may be seen in the lists of Wolflus, Bonitzius and Zeunius."
We conceive the passage quoted by Castalio as no longer belonging
to the number of the inexplicable ones; still less Ephesians, 1.23,
which Dr. Buone would refer to that category.
Whilst Ernesti is before us, however, we cannot help quoting § 196 :
"Any one who has previously been trained to translat on, under a
good master, may by the observance of the above rules, botb translate
rightly, and be enabled to judge of versions, whether they go to
excess in studying purity of style ; or whether, on the other baud,
they adhere too closely to the forms cf the original. With respect to
these points, the right of judgment is sometimes assuraed by raen,
who are not sufficiently acquainted with the idioms of either language.
But since versions are principally intended, not for the learned, who
can read the original, bnt for others, and especially fbr the common
people ; it is always safest to err on the side of perspicuity, even in
cases where it is not absolutely necessary to desert the phraseology
ofthe original. Jerome well observes in his epistle to Pannnachius,
on the best method of interpreting : ' Let others hunt after syllables
and letters : do ihou look for the sense'."
§ 197. " Though these rules are so clearly just, that they neither
are, nor can be, denied by any person of inibrniation ; yet, as often
happens witli universally-admitted truths, tbey are practically denied,
both in writing and judging of versions. ** * * Upon tbe whole, it
is difficult, or rather impossible, in a version of the Scriptures, to
please all men, because the religious opinions of raen, and the argu-
irients i'or those opinions, ofltn depend on a literal version, and are
destroyed by a fair translation."

, 17 '
Dr. Boone, in his zeal for close translation, has referred to the au
thorized English version as a model, quoting Selden who says of it,
that it is " rather translated into English words than into English
phrase." We cannot conceive this to be an excellence. The English
as a people have become accustomed to it ; but, had it to be retrans
lated, we cannot help thinking that a different plan would be followed.
Dr. Horsley says, that the authors ofthe Enulish version "prescribed
to themselves sorae rules which it may not be araiss for all translators
to follow." One of these rules (vvhich perhaps Dr. Bioue's eye did
not catch.) they state to be, " we have not tied ourselves to an uni
forraity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, expressing the same
notion in the same particular word. Thus to raintje the matter, we
thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom. For is the kingdom
ofGod become words or sytlahles? Why should we be in bondage
to thera, if we may be free ?-— use one precisely, when we may jse
anotlier no less fit as commodiously ?"
Dr. Boone has italicized aiiother remark of Horsley's : " Their
adherence io the Hebrew iiJiom is supposed at once to have en
riched and adorned our language.'" Does Dr. Buone think that
the infusion of Hebrew idioms would have tbe same effect if in
troduced into Chinese ; or dues he imagine it at all likely that they
will be so introduced ? When the authorized version was given forth
in England, the language as we have it at present was in the process
of formation, had comparatively lew books in it and was not above
two or three centuries old. Is that the case with the Chinese ? The
English people were then profes.stdly Christian, and were therefore
predisposed to receive with reverence, and te incorporate with their
coraraon Sfieech, phrases and words borrowed frnm the records which
they considered sacred. Is that the case with the Chinese ?
We must be excused for dwelling for a moment on the different
circumstances, in which Kngland and China are found, when the trans
lation of tbe i^criptuies is attempted into their respective languages.
The. language uf England is heterogeneous. Welister enumerates
27 different languaaes, which have contributed of their elements, to
form « h.at we now call the English tongue. It was, np to the time of
the invention of [irinting. borrowing from every quarter; there was a
propensity iu English writers of that period, to cucumber their Saxon
style with Latin words and phrases. Id uras also, previously unknown, ^
crept in and were readily adopted. The Chine.se, on the contrary, is
homogeneous ; as far as we know, it has botrowed from none ; the
written language and st.\ le em|)loyed by Mencius, before the Christian
era, is the same in effect, as that in use now. and the same which
every candidate at the literary examinations must write in, in order
to succeed. The Chinese have indeed received a few expressions
through the iniroduction of Budilhism ; but very few : we only know
of one or two in common use, such as Poo-sd. (a man canonized after
death for his viitnes.) It is also another singular tact that, though
the Buddhists attempted the introdnction of many terms in the hooks
of their religion, they never attempted to alter the idiom, or thought

18
of correcting and improving the Chinese style. The TartaV^. though
in possession of the Chinese throne for the last two linn Ired years,
have not introduced one word into the language, nor iiltt-rel tlie modes
of expression in a single particular. It is more than imperial power
can accomplish. In f»ct it cannot be done, even in England, now.
Carlyle has attempted by his Germanisms, as he thinks, to enrich and
adorn Our language ; and v\hat h is been the result ? scarcelv an inili-
vidual has imitated him ; the literary world has universally scouted th'e
idea, and some writers havetnr'ed the thing into ridicule, calling his
affected style, Carlyleism. Then look at the literature of the Chinese.
For one book that existed in the English language, when the authori
zed version was raade, Cnina now possesses its thousiiiids. and as well
Iriay o'ne'atteriapt'tO'rofl back the tide ofthe ocean, as to stem fhe'tor-
rerit of tiieir style; it \vould be as eas\ to carry the n'hole of Palestine
to China, as to trarisplSint'the Hebrew idiom and style into tlie HoWery
land. Dr. Geddes i^ extraVag'S-nt in his praise ofthe English tei's'ion, and
Dr. Boone bas over-done ibe thing by quoting him. He s'aiys, " Every
Sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to
have been weighed witb the nicest exai'titude, and e>f|ires-;fed either in
the text or Inarefin, with the greatest preiision." But dots this agree
with What the translators (above quoted) say of theirown work '?
Dir. Boone again quotes with emphasis a se'tence froin Ge l^es,
that tbe authorized version ''-may serve for a lexicon of i'he Hebrew
language, as iveU. ns for a translation."' Does Dr B wish that
this should be said of the Chinese translation ¦? If he doeS, can he
expect tbat it should at the same tirae be free from ohucurity ? and if
so, will he undertake the task ?
It is not our object to depreciate the authorized English version;
but, when such extravagant sentei.ces are qucitt-d iu praise of it, and it
is at the same tirae held up for our nioilel in translating info Chinese,
it is time that we should say something respecting it. We liaVe'only
to refer to Carpenter's Biblical Companion. PiTt I. Section II. ('banter
VI. for an exhibition of its excellencies and defe. ts ; and may qunte
from the copy of Ernesti, which we possess, the following ophiion
of C. H. Terrot, late fellow of Trinity College, Carabridge : — " Much of
what is here said by Ammon. in reference to Luther's version, is appli
cable to our own authorized version. It was an admirable work for
the age in which it was written ; but since that time, emendations
have been made, in every de()artment of biblical criticism. A new
edition, with tbe errors corrected, with a revised |)Uhctuation, and omit
ting the pernicious divisions of chapters and verses, might be of tbe
highest utility."
With regard lo the Ckinese version, horoeVer, it is unnecessa-ry
any longer to debaie about ike principles of irdnsloilon. Tkese
have been settled for usi {?i» we have shewn on page 37 of onr Stric
tures,) by the meeting of Missionaries in. Hongkong, at which it
was resolved, tkat the translation should ''be in exact conformity

19
to the Hebrew and Greek, originals in sense ,- and, so far as tke
idiom of tke (Chinese language toill allow, in style and manner
also." lie-tldes. these principles were adopledh-y the Bible Society
(see page 38 of fhe Strictures), wklch engaged on tkese grounds
to patronize the mork. It will nol do. iker'efore, after men have
been employed for years on a work, according to certain princi
ples, tojhrow the mork lo the ro'inds, or heeolessly scout those
princ/.pi$s. Tkere tkey stand ; and what the several parlies have
to da. i,s- lo shew nketker these principles kave or have not been
violated The principles laid down in Hongkong, are so exactly in accordance
with those estublished by Dr. Camii.bell, in the Dissertations prefixed
to his transhilion of the Gos|)els, (Dissertation x. Part i § 1.) tbat we
cannot resist qu,oting from him: "The first thing, without doubt,
whicb claims bis (ihe tnnslator's) a'tention is, to givea just represen
tation of the sense of the original. This, it must be acknowledged,
is the most essential of all. The second thing is, to convey into his
version, hs much as possible, in a consistency with the genius of the
laiiL'uage yvhich he writes, the author's spirit and manner, and, if I
may so expiess niyself. the very character of his style. The third
and last thing is, to take care, that the version have, at least, so far the
qualitv of an original performance, as to appear natural and easy, such
as shall give no handle to the critic to charge the translator with
^pplving vyords impro|)erly, or in a meaning not warranted by use, or
corabin'ug tliem in a way wbich renders the sense obscure, and the
constriictioti ungrammatical, or even harsh."
(What follows we have condensed for the sake of brevity.)
" To adjust m liters so as tp attain all these objects, will be found
not a little ardnuns. Xil pursuit of one of the ends above mentioned,
we file often ip daimer of losing sight totally of another. It may happen,
t,h ;l I caiiiipt do. justice to the sense, without frequent recourse to cir
cumlocutions ; and in endeavouring to exhibit the author's manner,
and to confine mvself. as nearly a.s possible, to the same nuraber of
words, an i the like turn of fxnression, I may very imperfectly render
his sense. And in r.g ard to the third object, it is evident, that when
the two languages differ very much in their genius and structure, it
must be exceedmgly difficult for a translator to render this end per-
fectlv connpatible with the other two."
" There are tv o extremes." he says, " in translating," the one
" a close ami literal, and the other a loose and fiee translation." "It
often happens, tbat peoi)le agree in words when their opinions differ.
What I may consider close, anotiier would denominate free, and vice
-persd. Indeed a good translation ought to have bolh thpse qualities.
Toavoid all ambiguity., therefore. Ishall call- one extremely literal,
and the other not onlv loose but licentious."
"The defenders of the former m inner," be says, "would, if possible,
have nothing subject.d to tbe judgment of tbe interpreter ; and insist,
above ^U thiijgs 00 rendering the same word in the original, wherever

20
it occurs, or however it is connected, by the sarae word in the version.
They tbus produce, "a raere jargon of words, corabined ungrammati
cally, and therefore unintelligibly. This manner of copying a foreign
idiom raakes, in certain cases, downright nonsf^nse, and, in other
cases, fails to convey the meaning, nay, sometimes conveys meanings
the very reverse of what is intended." " That this is not tbe way to
answer the first and principal end of translating is evident. Instead
ofthe sense of the original, it sometimes gives us riomnriqht nonsense,
and not seldom makes tbe author say. in another l.inguage, the re
verse of wbat he said in his own." " The third end of translating, that
of preserving purity and perspicuity in the language into which fhe ver
sion is made, is nol so rauch as airaed at by any of the literal tribe."
"Few, without raaking tlie experiment, can imagine it possible, by this
mode of translation, completely to disfigure, and render unintelligible,
what is written witb plainness and simplicity in their mother tongue.
Yet nothing is raoie certain, than that fhe most perspicuous writing
in any language raay be totally disguised by this treatment. Were
the ancient Greek or Latin classics lo he thus rendered into any
modern tongue, nobodv could bear to read them. Strange indeed,
that a tfeatment should ever have been accounted respectful to tbe
sacred penraen, whicb. if given to any other writer, would be uni
versally couderaned, asiuo better than dressing him in a fool's coat."
"Aloore raanner of translating," he continues in substance, "is some
times adopted, not for fhe sake of insinuating artfully the translator's
opinions, by blending'fbem with the sentiments of the author, but
merely for the sake of expressing with elegance tbe serise of the . ori
ginal. If we examine such a translation by the rules above mentioned,
we shall find, that as lo the first and principal end, conveying the
true sense ofthe author, it.is generally suecersful. As fo the second,
the conveyance ofthe spirit ind raanner of the author in a just ex
hibition of the character of his stx le, ifs failure is frequent. Instead
of the simplicity wbich characterizes tbe historic style of holy writ,
complexity and ornament are apparent. Another thing attempted is,
when tbe,same ideas recur, to express them almost always in different
words and varied phraser." "But if," adds Dr. Campbell, "the liberty
taken witb the diction extended no farther than to reject the Hebra
isms, which, how perspicuous soever tbey are in the original, occasion
either obscurity or -ambiguity, wben verbally translated, and to sup
ply their place by siraple expressions, clearly conveving the same
sense, no person who is not tii'ctured wjth the cabalistic superstition
of the rabbinists, could censure their conduct." "As to the other qua
lities of Scriptural style, perspicuity and purity, free translators seem
in general observant of thera. To tbe latter, they are sometimes
censured for sacrificing too much ; but it is certain that the excessive
attempts of others to preserve in their version, the oriental idiom, have
renderedthe plainest passages unintelligible, and given bad Latin for
good Hebrew." " Comparing thera both," Dr. C says, "though I
consider both these interpreters as in extremes, 1 ara far from thinking

21
their performances are to be deemed, in anv respect, equivalent. It is
not in ray power to discover a good use that can be made of Arias'
version, unless to give sorae assistance to a school-bov in acquiring
tbe elements of the language. Castalio's, with one great fault, has
many excellent qualities."
We have quoted thus largely from Dr. Campbell, on the evUs of
literal versions, because we believe that, on the principles now for
ihe first time laid down hy Dr. Hridgman, and .advocated by Dr.
Boone, according to which "nothing is to be altered, nothing added,
nothing taken away,'.' a version would be produced exhibiting all the
bad qualities of Arias Montanus. We have also quoted Dr. C's. ex
hibition of the other mode of translation, because we believe that it
will be found on enquiry, that we have attained in a great degree to
its excellencies, and raostly avoided its def-cts. Any one reading
our version of the New Testament through, will, we are persuaded,
acknowledge tbat we have succeeded in giving the sense of the
sacred writers, and that we have so written in Chinese, as may
serve to recommend our version as a valuable work in that tongue ;
thus adhering fo the first and third of tbe rules laid down by Dr.
Campbell. With regaid to the style of the sacred writers^ which-
is said to be characterized by its simplicity, perspicuity and purity,
we have aimed to imitate these, as far as the idiont of the Chinese
languaye will allow. Dr. B. himself is a witness to tbis effect.
" I thought," he says, " the translation of Matthew by my brother
Delegates, better than anything I had yet seen in Chinese ; the
renderings were in general close ; some of tbem strikingly apt. and
beaiitifnl ; and the style, though not tbe one 1 thought likely to be
most useful, was yet preferred by the Chinese t consulted, fo that of
previous versions." " There were the same things to admire in fhe
translation of John as in .Matthew ; there was abiinriant evidence of
great labour and pains, and of fine Chinese scholarship ; and though
there was sometimes a liberty taken, which transgressed the rules I
would lay down for mvself in Iranslntiig an inspired author. I obser
ved no departures fnun the original fhat would have caused me to
hesitate in pronouncing it a fait ful version." This opinion referred
to the historical portions of the New Tesfament, which beinsj simple
and clear in tbe original, were so rendered as to appear simple and
perspicuous in the version. When Dr Boone came to the concise,
involved, and frequently obscure .style of Paul's Epistles, he found that
of tbe version, concise, abrupt, aud sometimes obscure, and thereupon
condemned it. In this very circumstance, however, appeared its ex
cellence, inasmuch as the authors had imitated, as far as the Chinese
idiom would allow, the style and manner ofthe sacred writers ; thus
following Dr. C's. second, as. according to gener.U acknowledgment,
they have his first and third rules. Regarding the other fault attribu
ted by Dr. C to free translators, viz. expressing tbe same ideas alraost
always in different words and phrases, we are conscious of having
scrupulously avoided that ; as it was our rule, as much as possible, to

22
translate the same word, when meaning the same thing in tbeorigina',
always by the same term in fhe version.
In'discussing the critical part of bis subject. Dr. B has quoted
largely from practical writers on theology, and from sermoiie inttided
for the pulpit, insinuating that, because we have not adopti^d noiiie of
tbe views set forth bv sucb writers, nor so constructed onr vprsion that
such views raight come easilv out of our text, we have failed, in "ur
dutv. Our husiness was to translate according tp Ike sense, t'ollowiiig
tbe style aud manner of the original, as far as the idiom, of tbe Chinese
language would allow. In order to translate according to the sense,
it was necessarv for us to endeavour to ascertain fhe seiv=e. For this
purimse it was our dntv to consult the best critical helps we could
obtain ; such as commeularies, grammars and lexicons. We could
not have been expec:ted to wa'le through all tbe loipes. which haye
been written on practical theology, to ascertain critically the sense pf
any given passage. Some of the works quoted by Di. Boone, consist
of thirteen, and even twenty- one volumes ; if wg bad ra i,de it our business.
to eo throui/b all these, iu, order to find out whether anv, rendnring we
gave of particular texts might bv possibility b** u,nfav()|nrable to the
theories maintained b\ tliese voluminous yvriters, the time ctmsuwed
in fhe Iranslafion ofthe New Tesfament, wfiich was complained of as
too long, wonld have heen extended to tenfold the duration. Besides,
which, preachers and praj-tical ex).o.sitors are not the most u,sefu.l|
guides fn translators. We raay and we ought to bear ip mind the.
consensus Chri.<.tiannrum. regarding the main doctrineii pf the
Gospel ; but we could not be expected to consult their writings to
any considerable extent.
Let us look, however, at the authors quoted by Dr Bopne ; Burkitt,
Simeon, Honker, U>hi'r, Beveridsje, Leighton. the Articles of the
Church of Englr.nd. '*a late em nent divine.' and tbe Hev. W. Jay.
Only one of these has published any commeufarv on the Scrintures ;
his work is thus entitled. " Expository Notes, with Practical Oh,
servatioiis on the New Testauienf of our Lnrd apd Saviovir Jesus
Christ: wherein fhe sacred text is at large recited, the sense explained,
&c By William Burkitt, M. A." We need do no mare than cife
the opinion of Hartwell Horne on tbis autnorifv. "The first edi't'en
of this deserveilly popular work was printed early in the l^*t century ;
and its jyra«/w^?/ utility has caused it to he several Ijnies reprinted.
It does not profess lo dh^cusx crillcal questions, bnt is yery useful
{or the inferences it deduces from the sacred text. Bnrkitl (says Dr,
Doddridge) ' has many scheme-^ of old sermons ; his sentiments
vary in different parts of the work, as the authors from whom he tooH
his materials are O' Iko lox or noi '." Is Buikitt a fit man f o be trust
ed on critical questiuns, or (considering the last sentence quoted from
Doddridge) on any question ? Could translators raake any use of
such a commentator, or are they to be blamed for so rendering aa not
to give countenance to all his views ? The other names iflentipned
by Dr. Boone are unknown to fame as critica pf tli^ New Testamept

'23
'Hb6l<ei' is cplebrated for nothing but bis " Laws of Ecclesiasfical Po
lity ;" U-lier fur his '• Annals of the Old and N w Testaments," his
" '1 realise on the Septuagint," and various sprmcms ; Beveridge for
his ecclesiastical and practical works ; Leighton for a Commentary on
the fir-t Epistle cf Peter, which is wholly prucllcal ,¦ and Simeon
for his •' l-lotse HomileticEB. or !)is(Onrses (in the form of s'keletons)
upon the wnole .Scrn.ture-, " in 21 vols. 8vo ; the title of which work
sufficiently indicates, that it was not adapted for aiding in cntical
re-ieah;li. No one, we presume, would ever recommend the Articles of
th'e Church as critic. d helps, and the " late eminent divine," we do not
know Tbe Rev. W. Jay. has written largely on prailical religion,
bii't we are liol aware of his having done anything in the field O'f
Biblical ciit cisra : so that, whatever flse he may be quoted for, we
should Hot expei t to fiud bim refrred to as an anthority on this
subject In quoting Jay, Dr. Buone has introduced a passage.
Which reflects very snvc-fely on those who invent "new docfrines," and
are •• shy of the tniu..>s which the Hc)lv Giio-t teicheth ;" but as Dr.
B hiraself does notsupposj us guilty in this respect, we cannot see
why he should have made t' e quotation ; unless il were to ground on
It tbi' remark, tnat it may "serve as a caution to us all not to tamper
Wifb'God s'holy 'word, or'yiehl one lota to heathen ])rejndues ;" a liomi-
letic which might have been spared. If I e n>eaiis to bint thai we have
tampered with God's vvord. or yic-ldcd tu heallien pre,udices. we deny
the charge, and deem it a snffi(;iei!f refutation to say, that even sup
posing il true that vve had fallen into a change of phraseolcgy, it is not
such a change as could arise from heathen prejudices ; lor the heathen
have no more prejudice against the docirine of our tieing chosen of
God In IJhrisI as our federal head, than they ha.ve against fhe idea
of our being ciiosen by Gol on acciiu .t of Chrisi ; hut even granting
that they have a prejudice against tins doctrine, which they have not,
they wriulcl nut have imagined th.it it vvas sbadovved forlh by fhe sim
ple word in To speak, therefore, of the translators having in this
I'espect yielded to heathen prejudices, is out of place. 'I'he only
leaning that vve have been enabled tu discover in our teachers, is a
desire to have the sense we wish to convey clearly exjiressed in idiom
atic (/h'inese But this can bardly he cailed a prejudice.
We object also tu the method adoplnd by Dr. B himself, and
recommended by'bim toothers, of testing vvhelher a version is obscure
or not. by taking a portion of "Pauls Epistles, which are conlessedly
obscure in any language, aud sulnnilting it to men who have never read
the epistolary part of tiie New Testament; and if they cannot agree
about the sense, to pronounce the version obscui-e. Suppose thevery
same passage, Eph^s. 1 : 13, which Dr B. has laid before his teach
ers, were, in the authorized veisiou, to be submitted to half a dozen
persons, who, though acquainted with the English language generally,
" had not so much as heard vvhether there be any Holy Ghost," who
were not aware that the Huly S|urit had been "promised" by the
Father, and Who did not know anything about the tropical signittuation

24
of tbe word "sealing'' inthe conftrmafion of believers; wbat would
be the result ?— what would tbey be able to make of being "sealed
witb tbat Holy Spirit of promise ?" More especially if the half of
them had been fold, over and over a^iain, by the person employing and
suppoiting them, that the words rendered " Holy Spirit" meant Holy
God ; while others, from some recollections of their own, were
possessed with the idea that the term in question meant " most excel
lent ;" what could have been expected as the result ofthe enquiry ?
what, but a confused jumble of ideas, which the parties would try to
help themselves out uf, by suggesting some alteration or transposition,
in order to elicit a tolerable sense ? Now, would tbis be a fair method
of testing the clearness or oljgcurity ol' the authorized version ? Or
suppose vve take the 14lh verse, and submit the rendering of it given
in the authorized version to the same parties, who knew nothing
about the " inheritance" of t'bristians, or the "purchased possession,"
or tbe " redemi)tion" by which it was obtained ; or could not imagine
that the heing " sealed bv ttiat Huly Spirit of proraise " was the "ear-
nest" of said " inheritance ;" or further, how all this could be to "the
praise of bis glory ;" what wuuld they make of it ? Just let any Eng
lish reader, apart from the knovvledgef which is supplied by other parts
ofthe New Testament, trv tbis passage in our authorized versiun, and
say, whether it will not I e found very obscure? Should any one pro
pose that the whole of the authorized version be rejected, because this
passage was obscurely rendered, would the Bible Society listen to
him ?* Dr. B. in proposing fhe rendering of this text as a test of clear
ness has not acted lairlv ; particularly when, according to his princi
ples, the business uf a translator is to "take up .'^aint Paul's rcords
and render tiiera," " nothing being altered, nuthing added, and t\o-
t\iin^ taken away." Suppose we had done this, in the verses before
us, would Ihe translation have heen less oliscure ? Why d d not Dr.
B., with his six teachers, try his skill on these two verses ? altering
nothing, adding nothing, taking nothing away, and yet making
thera plain ? We hid in our ."strictures called upoh him lo present
the Apostle's words exactly to the Chinese, aud had assured bim that,
if successful, he would bave received our cordial tbanks. We again
call upon hira to do it ; and vve have no doubt the whole Christian
world will think, that il he does not, he will fail in his duty.
But Dr. Boone has not only adopted this unfair method himself,
he has likewise recommended it to others. He bas seriously begged
all his Missionary brethren who bave been tkree or four vears in the
field, and who can put plain questions to their teachers, and under
stand their answers, to put certain queries to them, and writedown
* We can safely affirm, that all those passages of the New Testa
ment, which are plain in the original, are plain in our version, and
sometimes plainer than in the English. In fact its general intelligi
bility is its prime feature. Dr. Buone has, however, passed by all
these, and complained that passages, obscure in the Greek, are obscure
also in Chinese .'

S5
theii: replies. They must " conscientiously abstain from giving them
the slightest hint what words are to be supplied, or what the meaning
is." All this, " no matter how nonsensical" as be himself says, i.s
to be written down, an 1 sent tu the Bible Society, at the same time
that it is forwarded to Dr. B. and the translators. We wonder tbat
Dr. Boone could not See the unfairness of this proposal. Missionaries,
who have been but three or four years in the field, and whose ideas of
the requirements of Chinese style must be very crude, are to ask the
opinion of untaught heathens regarding the most abstruse passages of
Scripture, without giving them the slghtest clue to the meaning ;
and then to take their answers, "wo mailer kow nonsensical," and
send them to the Bible Society, ai the. same time tbat tbey are for
warded to the Delegates. And all with the view of ascertaining
whether or not the translation is obscure. We venture to say, that
such a test would issue in the condemnation of any translation under
tbe sun. Take our authorized version, and submit it to plain Eng
lish readers, totally unacq.uainted with religion, and ask them what is
raeant by "heavenly />/aces," in ver. 3. ? What is the meaning of
the clause " in love," in ver. 4. ? What of " the beloved," in ver. 6. ?
What of " all wisdom and prudence," in ver. 8. ? Regarding the
above phrases, as well as many others occurring in this chapter, bibli
cal critics ofthe greatest research and acumen have not been agreed ;
how then can we expect that those entiiely ignorant of the subject
should at once be able to discern their meaning ?
It will be observed that we have italicized the words, "send them
to the Bible Society ai ihe same lime that they forwaid them to the
Delegates," to intimate that we consider tbe proposition unfair in an
other point of view. The Delegates have invited criticisms and sug
gestions, proraising to give them all due attention. The proper
course, therefore, to have suggested to tbe Missionary brethren, would
have been, to send the queries and replies obtained first to the
Delegates, tbat they might examine them, and have the opportunity
of making the passages more plain if requisite; and then, if they did
not attend to the suggestions, to forward thera to the Bible Society.
But Dr. Bopne has no idea of tbings being done decently and in order;
he would have the parties publicly accused, and perhaps conderaned,
before giving them what is their due, — an opportunity for correcting
or defending their renderings.
In his former notes on Ephesians, Dr. B. observed that he had sub
mitted certain passages to his three teachers, who said tbat they
understood thera so and so. In our reply we said, that they must
have been a sfrange class of teachers so to understand thera. In his
Vindication, Dr. B. sumraons six teachers to his aid, and gives a full
and particular account of their standing and attainments, with tbe
view of shewing not only their excellencies, but, as they misunder
stood certain passages, the obscurity oL our version. Wi? know
nothing of his teachers, but wbat we have learned of them from Dr.
E.'s Vindication. Let us examine the account he gives of them.
D

2b
He sayg, " four of thera are Sem-tsaes," and the two others are " fair
scholars." To give the reader some idea of wbat a Sew-tsae is, we
will inform hira, tbat it is a title of the lowest degree of literary, rank,
attained by writing from a theme at the initiatory examination. The
therae is always given from the Four Books, and is to be treated in a
certain way. Should a candidate understand the passage set before
hira, aud draw up a short essay on it, in the stereotype form io which
all such essays are drawn up, so as to please the examiner, he may
succeed in getting a degree. No questions are put to hitn as to hiq
general knovvledge, and his acquaintance with other portions of the
plassics is not in the slightest degree tested. The student hag been
previously stuffed with the Four Books, and trained tq string toge»
ther sqch phrases as are expected to appear in these essays.. It is
evident, therefore, that a young man fresh from schpol may some
times succeed in gaining a degree, without one particle of general, intelli*
gence ; and it is attained by hundreds iu each district city pf the
empire. Those who do succeed generally attain their degree of iSfeuv
tsae at an early age. The Chinese call it " entering school," a»d look.
on it only as an incentive t,o seek further advancemerit. The majority,
however, stop, here ajid ne.ver afterwards improve, while' they forget
most of that with which they had been crammed for their degree. We
have in our employ one whp calls himself a Sew-tsae, (ag myriads,
do), who is in all senses of the word a stupid fellow, and tuaUea mpst
egregious mistakes in his own language.. He transcribes weU, but that,
is all ; and is employed in copying, at less than onelhalf the salary of
others who do not boa,st of such a degree. We have had to aid us in
the translation, two persons who had attained the Keu-jin, or secoud
degree of literary rank ; one of these had been a magistrate, of a dis.trict
city ; but we had to turn them both away, fqr want of general Intel-,
ligence and capacity. They might have been once well supplied with
a certain kind of Chinese lore, but, if they had, it was evident that
they had forgotten it, or did not know how to use it,. We. do naX, say
this, to intimate that Dr. B.'s six teachers are of this class, hut to
shew that a raan's having attained the rank of Sew-tsae or KeUrjin,
is no guarantee for his being a well-informed person. We will judge
of these men, as fo their hterary character, by what they have done, in,
assisting Dr. B. in his Vindication. It wUl be sufficient to our pur
pose to examine the opinions they have given, as to the intelligibility
of Ephesians I : 13, 14, which we pronounce to be, in our version,
clearer to the Chirtese reader, than it is in the authorized version to the,
English, supposing both parties equally unacquainted with other
parts of Paul's Epistles, and with Christian phraseology generally.
The question to be decided is, whether the obscurity complained of
arises frora the ungrammatical construction of the sentences, or from
-the teachers' carelessness and general want of knpwledge. The first
witness called is Woo-seen-sang, who has been 35 years a Seto-tsae,
who has had among his pupils 31 persons who have, afterwards taken
the degree of Sew-tsae, and one that oi Keu-jin. Dr,. B. says, that

27.

^»

he is "unquestionably the most learned ofthe six ;" while he thinks
the opinion of Jbis man is of raost iraportance." He explains as
follows : "MW Shing Shin is the Holy Father, Holy Son, and

Holy Spirit, M 10, M:^M^,]

i.1. ,. ^i.- J, ^ i - ,- -: — - • — ^•" Here is an evidence
that this tirst-rate teacher, whatever his attainments previously were,
has, in his interpretation of Chinese phrases, been spoiled by his inter!
course with Dr. B. Dr. Boone has made up his mind to use the
word Shin for God, god, gods ; of course, the Chinese about him fall
in with his views, and, in speaking or writing for hira, understand the
term in that sense. Nevertheless, we venture to affirm that no Chi
nese teacher, thioughout the empire, would, of his own accord, under
stand Shing shin as this man has explained it above. If Woo is
famUiar with his own classics, he must know that the terms under
review occur therein in the adjective form, in the Sense of " sagelike
and inscrutably intelligent." If he had consulted, to any extent, the
book which he had to comment upon, he would have found Shin em
ployed therein as a concrete, referring to a person capable of indivi
dual will and action : he would have found the word Shing attached
to it, under those circumstances, as qualifying that person. His first
impulse might have been to understand the phrase in the former
sense, and his next in the latter. But most cei tainly he could not have
understood it in the sense which he has written down, unless his
views of Chinese terms had been corrupted by Dr. B's. influence,
and unless he had been animated with a desire so to write as to please
bis employer. We defy any Chinese to understand the phrase Shing
shin in the sense of " Holy Father, Holy Son, and Holy Spirit " of
his own accord, and from his own impulse. This, however, makes
nothing against Woo's general ability. Let iis now make some en
quiry into this point. He has had placed before him the following
sentence in Chinese : "B^^M^ Bf B^ ZMW
F|J ¦^ which we have rendered, " Ye have believed in Christ, and
then received the sealing ofthe Holy Spirit that was before promised :"
or literally " ye believe in Christ, and then receive that Which was
promised Holy Spirit's sealing ;" this we believe to be the true ren
dering, as arising from " the simple grammatical construction of
the sentence employed." The Shing shin " Holy Spirit " is evi
dently seen to be in regimen by the sign of the genitive case which
immediately precedes it. It is qualifled by the phrase fyf ff^ Wr
which stands immediately before the sign of the genitive case, and it
thereby appears that the Holy Spirit has been protriised .- it is further
governed by the p|j ^ " sealing " which follows. The sign of the
genitive case is not supplied here, because the proper place for it is
before "the Holy Spirit." The governing of Shing shin, " Holy
Spirit," by pfj ^ yin ming, " the sealing," is sufficiently indicated
to the Chinese by the position of the two phrases : the former of two

28
substantives, wben not in apposition, being alwavs governed by the
latter. The pin ming " sealing" is governed bv tbe word ''received."
The last thing raentioned in a string of substantives in regimen being
understood by all Chinese scholars to be the ob-inet of the verb. A
sirailar sentence might be thus constructed : J^ ^Tf P/f '^K Bff 'O
>^ K "^ M "he then struck off tbe head ofthe great officer who
had been imperially appointed :" or literally " be then struck off tbat
which was imperially appointed great officer's head." Let us see now
bow the learned Woo understands tbe sentence quoted in our version.
He does not attempt to construe tbe sentence as it stahd.s, and wUl
nnt take tbe trouble to find out what the writers mav have meant, but
proceeds at once to alter tbe whole construction of the sentence, and
give a raeaning of his own. He commences with leaving out the
relative " that whicb," and then transposes the words Shing skin,
" Holy Spirit," placing thera 6«/bre, instead of after the word "pro
mised." where thev reallv stand ; arranging thera thus : ^^ ;§: ^f
fU ^ ^ 1$ IS H^ ^ f n ^- Such a process witb the Eng-
lish sentence would corapletely alter tbe sense ; as if one were to say,
" tbe sealing which the Holy Spirit promised,'' instead of " the sealing
of tbe Holy Spirit that was before promised ;" thus making the Holy
Spirit ihe promiser, instead ot the thing promised. Such blunder
ing, in utter defiance ofthe order of the. words, and of the grammati
cal construction of the sentence, shews fhat the said Woo, whose
opinion Dr. B. thinks ofthe most iraportance, is not at all to be relied
on.* If Dr. B.'s Vindication is correctly printed. Dr. B. is as little
to be relied on as bis teacher, for in rendering his teacher's words
into English, Dr. B. has raerely said, " they thereupon received
the Holy God's sealed declaration :" leaving ont tbe word promised
altogether, notwithstanding his teacher had plainly expressed it,, though
in a wrong place.
Next coraes Chau Seen-sang, who explains Shing skin to mean
" the Trinity," which we attribute to the sa ne cause as that wbich in
fluenced Woo. , He also connects the " proraise" vvith the "sealed"
declaration," and makes out the Holv Spirit to be the author of the
" proraised declaration," instead of being connected vrith tbe subject
of the proraise, in deflance of the plain gramraatical construction of the
sentence : we raust, therefore, consider hira as equally ignorant or
careless with his corapanion Woo.
Tsau S.een-sang, tbe third teacher cited, has fallen into the same
mistakes with the two others, doubtless from the same causes, com-
* It may be urged on behalf of Woo, however, that his first error
about Sking skin, into which he was led by Dr. B. has been the cause
of his subsequent blundering ; for, if the parallel sentence wbich we
have bere given were placed before him, it is more than probable that
he would translate it correctly. ^

29
mitting the additional blunder, (either his own or Dr. B.'s) of leaving
out tbe word promise, though it stared him in the face, in the passage
commented on.
The tburth witness to be examined is Koo SiJen-saiig, who seems
in a difficulty about the sense, as he is unable to flx a definite meaning
to the phrase Shing shin, Holy Spirit. His first impression, derived
frora his Chinese associations, is, that it is an adjective, meaning
"most lofty, most excellent:" and that the "proraiser" must be
understood of Shang-ti (Gud), in which case the sign ofthe geni
tive case before Sking skin " raost excellent," would be redundant.
This is the view of the passage to which he inclines, for be thus
reads it: — "received Shang. ti's proraised most exoellent sealed de
claration," Shang-ti being understood. He thus elicits a mean
ing sirailar to that which the translators intended, with the exception
of his misunderstanding the sense in which tbey had used Sking shin.
Holy Spirit, which he might have ascertained, had he read the book
regularly through. But mark the force of innovation on a mind
otherwise inclined to understand words in their usual sense. He had
been accustomed to hear Dr. Boone, and those about hira, use the
word Jftp Shin in the sense ofGod, and he feels insensibly drawn to
iraitate them. His second opinion, therefore, is that Sking skin is a
noun, and refers to Shang-ti, or God. But if we make it a noun, he'
says (that is in the sense of God promising), the relative thai wkick
is redundant. It would then read, — " received the promising Holy
Shin's sealed declaration." But this is a sense which he does not
incline to, because in so doing he would h^ve to leave out an irapor
tant word ; and, giving the translators credit for having intended to
write sense, he has translated tbe words as be found thera.
The fifth witness, Seu Seen-sang, has committed the same blunder
with Tsau, like him also leaving out the -morA promised.
Tseen Seen-sang, like Koo, says that Shing skin may mean "most
excellent,'' or may refer to Shang-ti. He makes either Shang-ti or
Christ the proraiser, not as Woo and Chau, who think (in deflance of
the graramatical construction) that the Shing skin is the proraiser.
Our conclusion frora tbis view of the whole is, tbat the obscurity
coraplained of arises partly from tbe teachers having been previously
misled by Dr. B 's wrong use ofthe term Shin, and partly from their
own carelessness or want of intelligence.
Before commenting on Dr. Boone's criticisms, we will animadvert
on the unfairness displayed by hira, in not acknowledging, in his
Vindication, the ervoneousness of some of the "Views taken up in his
Comments, or not defending tbem as correct, when he came to treat
ofthe same passages : instead of which he sUently gives up his posi
tion, without confession or explanation.
Thus in his notes on Ephesians 1 : 3. Dr. B. said, that, in transla-
lating our version of this verse, he placed the word " of" in brackets,
because there was nothing for it in our Chinese. In our Strictures \ve
replied, that he therein " displayed a lamentable ignorance " of Chi.

30
nese; for the Chinese word yin, rendered by him "because," not only
must be known by any one conversant witb the language, to mean
" on account of, for the sake of ;" but is distinctly put down by
Morrison to signify this. In his Vindication he says, "that yin may
be rendered either because or because of" two out of bis six teachers
render it because of; and yet Dr. B. doesjiot retract his as
sertion, that there 'is " notking for ' of ' in Chinese," or confess to
his own " lamentable ignorance" of the language.
In translating the 5th verse. Dr. B. formerly said, that his teachers
understood the phrase "predestinated us by Jesus Christ," (rendered
" having in mind Jesus (/hrist he predestinated us,") to mean " we
having in mind JesusChrist, he (i. e. God) predestinated us." Dr.
B. added, " I believe ninety-nine Chinese in a hundred would under
stand it just as my teachers do." In our Strictures we said, that we
believed just the contrary ; a Chinese scholar of considerable eminence
quoted by us, said " I dare to contradict the assertion. They could
not understand it to mean so. It does not mean so." In his Vindi
cation, Dr. B. has adduced the translation given by his six teachers of
this phrase. One third of them have given it according to his view,
and two thirds according to ours. Dr. B. himself now says, tbat the
idea which the raajority ofthe teachers get from the passage is " Shang-
te (God), remembering what Jesus had done, predestinated us to be
sons." Thus instead of 99 in 100 being for him, 66^ in tOO are
against him. Yet there is no acknowledgement tkat he was wrong,
or that his teachers had refrahied from contradicting hira, when he
said that it was so and so, or that he himself had misunderstood the
words of his teachers.*
In commenting formerly on our translation of the latter part of the
6th verse, " wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved," ren
dered by us " causing us to receive gracious gifts by his beloved Son,"
Dr. B. said, " the complete change of the sense in the paraphrastic
rendering of the last clause will not escape your notice." We addu
ced in reply Bloomfield's rendering " bath favoured us with his grace,
i. e. richly imparted grace to us ;" also Robinson's, " with which
grace he hath graced us, i. e. richly imparted grace unto us." We
also pointed out that Bloomfield had rendered the phrase, " in the be
loved," " by or through the beloved one." Dr. Boone not being able to
set aside these critical authorities, and seeming determined at the
same time not to acknowledge himself mistaken, asks in his Vindica
tion, " what Christian heart does not feel the difference of this phrase-
* Dr. B. in his Vindication, referring to the Chinese scholar of
considerable eminence, says, tbat " without having seen or consulted
these teachers, he undertakes to contradict my statement flatly."' Dr.
B. himself has since consulted his three teachers, and three others
besides them, on this very point, and finds that the majority of them
are against him : yet he does not admit that the Chinese scholar refer
red to might possibly be right in saying, " that it did not mean so ! t"

31
ology ?'' This appealing from critics' heads to Chri.stians' hearts, in
a question that concerns criticism, and not experience, is a very un-
woithy method of escaping a difficulty, or avoiding the acknowledge
ment of a raisconception. He knew that we had not exhibited a
complete change ofthe sewse, that is, the real sense of the passage.
We had exhibited a different view of the passage from that given in
the authorized English version ; but almost no critic of note sanctions
the rendering in that version. Bloomfield in bis Digest says, the
verb employed signifies "to bestow a favour or benefit." With "in
the beloved" Rosenrauller compares the Hebrew Beth, which sig
nifies "by means of, and because of." Macknight renders it,
" whereby he hath highly favoured us on account of the Beloved."
In commenting formerly on the 10th verse. Dr. B. gave a defective
rendering of our version, leaving out twn important words "to arrive
at" and " completely," the insertion of whieh would have materially
tended to obviate the objections he had brought forward against the
incompleteness of our version. This we pointed out in our Strictures :
saying, " The objector, in his translation, has omitted some important
expressions and ideas contained in tbe Chinese version, and then
says, that the translators have" packed" the words of the Apostle into
the remainder. He must surely be sensible here of having failed in
j,ustly representing; us. If not, he will compel us to think as little of
bis candour, as we have done of his judgment." Here was a distinct
charge of neglect or want of judgment, in regard to which we gave
him an opportunity of setting himself right by subsequent acknow
ledgement ;, and a clear premonition tbat if he did not, we should
"think as little of his candour as we have done of his judgment." Let
us now turn to his Vindication. He therein says, " The translators
themselves have rendered this verse," and, as they " complain of my
translation,, I gladly give their own." He does not in the least attempt
to defend the omissions he erringly made, from which it is to be in
ferred that the charge of want of judgment is correct. Neither does
he confess, that he had failed in justly representing us, nor raake the
slightest apology for having said, that we had " packed" the words of
the Apostle into the defective representation he gave of our version.
He compels; us now, therefore, to thiuk as little of his candour as we
did then of his judgment.
In commenting on his translation of otir veraion of the 13th verse,
we, complained that Dr; B. had mistaken the Chinese phrase, " received
the, sealing of tbe Holy Spirit tbat was before promised," and had
rendered. it,. " received the promised deelaration sealed by the Holy
Spirit," connecting the "promise." with the. " dfeclaration sealed," and
not as he should have dbne. with the " Holy Spirit." We remarked in
our Strictuirea :; " SxicliiiiBic,OTrect translating from Chinese into Eng
lish, shows that the objecter is not a fit man to comment on themerits
or demerits of a translation from a foreign tongue into Chinese."
In his Vindication he has given wba* he caUs a literal rendering
from the Chiaese, which, though fiuM* of blunders in this very sentence,

32
has exhibited the connection between the " promise'' and " the Holy
Spirit" correctly. This, however, witbout any acknowledgement of his
previous error, or any attempt to rebut the charge, tbat he was not a fit
man to comment on Chinese translations. In tbe I4tb verse, we pointed
out a similar mistake fhat had been raade by bini, saying that he had
misunderstood the phrase, " which is an earnest of our obtaining an
inheritance," and thought it raeant, " that we having obtained the
earnest of an inheritance," connecting the " obtaining" with the " ear
nest," and not as he should have done with the " inheritance " In his
Vindication, notwithstanding three of his teachers sanction our view
ofthe matter, be retains bis error, without admitting that he might
possibly be wrong in tbis particular.
In commeuting forraeriy on the 18th verse, we complained that Dr.
B. had not done the translators justice with respect to the phrase
which stands in the Chinese version for " the riches of the glory," by
simply renderinu it " riches ;" the phrase consisting oftwo charac
ters, which mean " affluent abundance." In his Vindication, without
acknowledging that be had failed in doing the translators justice, he
adopts their rendering of the Chinese phrase, and calls it the "affluent
abundance of tbe inheritance of tbe saints."
In our Strictures on his former comment on the 19lh verse, we
coraplained tbat Dr. B. had raisrepresented us, by rendering the sen
tence, "the Lord possessing a power irsurpassably great," by the sim
ple phrase "the Almighty Lord." In his Vindication, he takes no
notice of his mistake, but siraply quotes our translation. There are
various other passages in which his inaccuracies have been .pointed
out, apparently to his own conviction, for he adopts our renderings,
and yet without any acknowledgment of his former mistakes.
To the list of Dr. B's. improprieties, pointed out in our Strictures,
and neither acknowledged nor defended in his Vindication, we may
add the very glaring one, that while he continued a Co-delegate, and
while the Resolution stood on our books inviting criticisms, he ad
dressed a letter to the Bible Society, both criticizing and condeinning
our version, without (as he ought to bave done) sending the said
criticisms first to us, and then, if not attended to, to tbe Bible Society.
Tbis conduct he has not attempted to defend, and we firmly believe
he never can.
We will now proceed to the consideration of Dr. Boone's criticisms,
exhibiting, according to bim, the most serious objection to our trans
lation, " which will be deprecated," he thinks, " by all those who hold
that in a translation of the inspired word, nothing is to be altered,
nothing added, and nothing taken away."
Ephesians 1:3. " Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who, on account o/ Christ, causes us to receive spiritual bles
sings in heaven."
Here Dr. B. objects to the words "en Christo" being rendered
" on account of Christ :" adding " this is a meaning wbich en in this
connection never has." " They can find, I fancy, no authority for

33
such a rendering of en, in connection with a person." " In looking
over the lexicons and commentaries within my reach, I cannot find
any authority for giving to en in this context the meaning of propter."
Premising that this objection, occurring in wbat professes to be a
Vindication of Notes on the translation of Ephesians 1, does not occur
in said Notes, but is for the first time taken up in the Vindication, we
offer in reply the following suggestions.
Nothing can exceed the indefiniteness of the Greek prepositions, as
used in the New Testament, and of ew in particular. The translators
of the authorized version have adopted no less than 49 methods of
translating it in English, a list of which may be found in the English
man's Greek Concordance of the New Testament. It is too much to
insist, therefore, that a Chinese translator should observe an exact
uniformity in representing this preposition. Dr. Boone, however,
confines his observations on this subject to the word " en in connection
with a person." With this limitation, we flnd en, rendered in the
authorized version by 16 different prepositions ; in, passim ; within,
Matthew 3 : 9 ; between, Romans 1 : 24 ; among, 2 Corinthians 1 : 19 ;
of, 2 Corinthians 2 : 12 ; through, Galatians 3 : 14 ifor Ike sake of,
Ephesians 4 : 32 ; because of, Matthew 26 : 31 ; with, Ephesians 5:18;
for, PhiUippians 1 : 26 ; by, 1 Thessalonians 4:1; unto, 1 Timothy
3 : 16; before, Matthew 14 : 6; to, 2 Corinthians 8:7; upon,
Luke 21 : 23; toward, Luke 2 : 14. The above renderings of era with
a person are frequently repeated, in several places in our English
Testament, and we are sure that Dr. B. could not make any Chinese
preposition answering to en, stand for it in all these places, and make
sense. Winer says, " It is time to relinquish this absurd enallage of
prepositions." Will even he undertake to adopt one mode of render
ing en, wherever it occura, and engage that it should make sense ?
The passage to which we would call Dr. B.'s attention principally, is
Ephesians 4 : 32, " as God (en Christo) for Christ's sake hath for
given you." We conceive this to be paraUel with tbe one under
consideration, " God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in
Christ," Tbe agent is the same, the favours conferred are equivalent,
and the mode or reason of their conveyance. It is in botb passages
en Christo .- in the one of these our translators have rendered it in
Christ, and in the other,/or Christ's sake. In which were they ri^ht,
and in which wrong ? or rather, may it not be supposed tbat they
thought they were conveying the same idea in both instances ? Dr.
B. says, that on account of Christ is a sense which en Christo never
has. "We conceive tbat he ought now to retract that assertion, though,
from previous specimens of his conduct, we have little reason to ex
pect that he wiU.
But let us see how the word en, in this connection, is understood
by lexicographers and commentators.
Robinson in his Lexicon says, "In the sense of propter, en does
not occur with a dative of person." He gives abundant instances of
its being used ''^pUfefe^sauxi^motive, exciting cause, in, at, or by,

l\7.\il? rMTT'MfTV OrUAiif *

34
i. e. because of, on account of, propter ;" among the rest, one which
is applied to persons, 2 Corinthians 6 : 12, "Ye are not straitened in
us," and we do not see why he should restrict it in other places to
things. Winer, to whom Robinson refers, says, "En 'is never con
nected witb proper names in the sense of propter." But in one of the
passages which be quotes, era is evidently used in the sense of prop
ter, in connection with a personal pronoun ; such as Galatians 1 : 24,
" They glorifled God in me ;" which Bloomfield says means "on my
account," and Hewlett, "on my account, or because of me." We
think also that Winer has omitted to quote several passages where
en is used in connection with a person, in the sense of propter ; viz.
Ephesians 4 : 32, already commented on ; and Ephesians 4:1, "I the
prisoner ofthe Lord :'.' where the authors of the English version have
not dared to put "ira the Lord." Bloomfleld says, tbat "en here is put
for dia, in the Lord's cause." Macknight, " for the Lord." Clarke,
"for the Lord's sake." Boothroyd, "on account of the Lord." Grotius
"propter." Barnes, " in the cause of the Lord." We think, there
fore, we have critical authority for disputing the correctness of both
Robinson and Winer, that "En does not occur in the sense of prop
ter, with a dative of person."
But let us consult other lexicographers : Stocking says, that one of
the significations of en is ob, propter .¦ quoting Ephesians 1 : 4, and
Revelation 14 : 13, " Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord ;"
which he would read, " on account ofthe Lord." Bretschneider gives
propter, as one of the signiflcations of en ; quoting 2 Corinthians
6: 12, Revelation 14 : 13, " to die in the Lord," which ne renders,
" propter doctrinae Christianfe confessionem mortem pati." Schleus-
ner has the sarae view of en. Most of these lexicographers refer to the
Hebrew -2 Betk, used in Genesis 18 : 28, 2 Kings 14:6, and Jonah
1 : 14, in the sense of on account of, for the sake ef. Parkhurst
gives the sense of en as meaning on account of, quoting Matthew 1 1 :
6, offended in me, and Ephesians 4:1.
We will now turn to the different commentators on this passage.
Bloomfleld says, "En Christo is put for dia Christou," by or through
Christ. Doddridge says, in Christ means, "in him and for his sake."
Macknight has translated era Christo, "through Christ," which he
bas paraphrased to mean " through his mediation :" referring to § 167,
of his Preliminary Essay, where he says, en, means " for, on account
of, through." Titinus, Vatablus, Estius, and Menochius, have render
ed it, " per et propter Christum, ejusque merita :" ,Calovius explains
en Christo by "per Christum, ut Christus sit causa meritoria nostrae
benedictionis." Crocius says, " In Chrifto, id est per et propter
Christura, seu per ejus satisfactionera et meritum consequimur quic
quid consequimur." Grotius bas it, "per Christum tanquam causam
secundariara." Barnes tells us, the sense of ira Christ is, "through
Christ, or by means ofhim." Thus we conceive that the authorities
are not entirely against us, in rendering era, " on account of," in this
\

35
Let us see now how other .Chinese translators have rendered it.
The Harmony of the Gospels and Epistles executed by the Romanists
has it " on account of Christ ;'' Murrisnn, tbe same ; Marshman, " by
or through Christ ;" Batavian version, " because of Christ ;" new
editions ofthe sarae printed by the American Missionaries at Singapore
and Canton, the same ; Gutzlaff's latest, " by or through Christ."
Thus no Chinese translator, from tbe early Romanists down to the
present day, has ventured to use the " preposition answering to in"
in this connection.
Thus the critical commentators, and all the Chinese translators,
have given to era the sense of by or through, and on account of. Tbe
one denoting the agent, means, instrument, or cause ; tbe other, the
reason, behalf, or sake, for which a thing is done. Under the circum
stances, it does not appear to raake much difference, whether God
gives us blessings by and through Christ ; or whether he bestows the
same blessings on account of Christ ; hence the fluctuating between
the two which is so observable in the writers and translators above
referred to.
Dr. B however, wishes it to be so rendered that another meaning
can be got out of it : saying, " the phrase stands connected with im ¦
poitant Christian doctrines," Perhaps he wishes to have the idea
conveyed of God's blessing us with all spiritual blessings in Christ, as
our kead. If so, why did he not suggest a Chinese term by which
that idea miglit be conveyed. The addition of the words " as our
head," would have been a transgression of his own canon "nothing
add." We ask him, therefore, which of the Chinese " prepositions an
swering to ira" he would propose, with the view of conveying the idea
of ira one as our head. Let him take whichever he pleases, we are
very certain he will never get any Chinese reader, of his own accord,
so to understand the phrase. The reason is, because the doctrine of
our being in Chrirt as our head has been brought to this verse, and
not fetched out of it, through the medium ofany translation whatever.
We have to remark, further, that if a "preposition answering to our
iw" had been employed in this verse, it would have yielded no sense to
the Chinese. We are aware that suoh a preposition has been era
ployed elsewhere, with reference to the essential union ofthe Father
with the Son, and to the mystical union of Christ with believers,
when spoken of in connection therewith. Al so with reference to the
union existing between Christ and his people, when spoken of figura
tively, as branches in the vine. But in the passage before us, the
the reference is to neither of these. We conceive it to be to Christ,
as the reason on account of whom, or the means through whom, bles
sings flow from God the Father to us, and have so translated it. Dr.
B. thinks the reference is to our being in Christ as our head. But
in every instance in which that connection is spoken of in Scripture,
the preposition in is not employed. Indeed it would sound very
awkward to speak ofthe body being ira the head, in any language.
It can only be proper when speaking of our being in Christ federally.

36
and this is an idea which could not be brought out of any Chinese
preposition answering to in. The employment of such a preposition
with tbe view of getting that meaning out of it, would only involve
the sentence in obscurity. In Greek, Latin, and the cognate European
languages, a " preposition answering to our in" might have yielded
a sense equivalent, as it has been generally understood, to by and
through, or on account of ; but in Chinese the employment of such
a preposition would not have served that purpose ; and as it would
not have served the purpose of expressing the idea of our being in
Christ federally, it would have served no purpose at aU, and have
been in fact unintelligible.
In this verse, as Dr. B.'s teachers seem to have understood " our "
in the sense of " my," in order to prevent any possible misapprehen
sion, we wUl add the sign of the plural.
We now come to the fourth verse, " chosen us in him," which we
have rendered " on account of Jesus.'' Dr. B. says, that the objec
tion he has to this is " much the most iraportant that he has to urge
against any rendering in this chapter, inasmuch as the translators
assign a cause for God's eternal election, which is neither in accor
dance with the words of the Apostle they are translating, nor with the
teaching of the Scriptures in other parts." The view he takes of the
passage, according to Burkitt and Simeon, is that God has chosen us
in Christ, who is the federal head of his people, as Adam was the
head of the whole human race : and he adds, that " the weight of
authority against rendering era in this passage on account of, is so
great, as ought to have prevented the' translators putting- their own
private opinion into the text, and to have constrained them to an ad
verbum translation."
Here then is a difference of opinion ; we have translated " chosen
in Mm," " chosen on account (if him," and Dr. B. thinks that we
should have rendered it chosen ira him, because it meant ira him as
our federal head ;¦ adding that the weight of authority is great against
us. The question is, which is right ? Let us look flrst at the au
thorities in favour of either. Dr. B. has quoted Burkitt and Simeon,
and alluded to several others, none of whom, as we have seen, are
celebrated as critics ofthe New Testament.
But whom have we on the other side ?
Bloomfleld says, " that God hath selected us, or has shown us raarks
of peculiar favour by and through him, i. e. Christ." In his "Digest"
he says, " The en answers to the Hebrew J. Beth, and signifies by,
through, or (as some render) ''Seeawse o/." Macknight has transla
ted " through hind," as in the third verse. Grotius has "per ipsum."
Barnes says, " The choice was not without reference to any means of
saving thera ; it was not a mere purpose to bring a certain number to
heaven ; it was with reference to the mediation of the Redeemer
and his work. It was a purpose that they should be saved by hira,
and share the beneflts ofthe atonement." Zanohius explains, " Deus
elegit nos in Christo," by saying, " nos propter Christum electos

37
esse." Crocius says, " Sunt qui dicunt elegisse in Christo, id est, ut
per Christum, tanquam mediatorem, servarent. Miki magis placet,
notari causara peopxee quam nos Deus elegerit, ut sensus sit, elegit
nos in Christo, id est, per et propter Christum, ut habet Confessio
Helvetica et Hyperius." Thus we conceive that the authority against
our rendering it on account of, is not so great, as to have constrain
ed us to an ad verbum translation.
Let us now see how it has been rendered by previous Chinese
translators. The old Romanist version has translated " in him," by
on account of him ; Morrison, tbe same ; Marshman, the same ; Ba
tavian version, out of regard to Christ : new editions of said version
published at Singapore and Canton, the same ; Gutzlaff's last, ira
Christ. Thus Gutzlaff is the only Chinese translator who has ven
tured to render it as Dr. B. would have it. It is known to us that
Dr. Gutzlaff, in the later period of his life, changed his views com
pletely with regard to the free and close methods of translation, and
adopted the very opposite o'pinions to those held in 1835, when he
cooperated in the production of the Batavian version. His only en
quiry at that time was, bow will the Chinese understand any given
word or phrase ? His aim since has been, to give corresponding words
or phrases, closely rendered, for the most unusual of the Hebrew
idioms, perfectly regardless whether the Chinese understood it or not.
Hence his version ofthe Old Testament exhibits a mere slavish at
tachment to the letter. Not a single Chinese understands it. This
change of view may account for his having altered the phrase in ques
tion (though he has not altered the 3rd, 6th, 7th and 1 1 th verses) in
his last edition. It is attended, however, with one good effect, that
of enabling us to test the meaning of the phrase, in its connection.
Having placed it, with this view, before our teachers, we flnd that none
of them understand it.
But as we have the phrase rendered by Gutzlaff, in one instance, as
literally as Dr. Boone himself could wish it, let him now try to get
his view out of it. He wishes the Chinese to understand that God
chose us in Christ, as our head. Let him take Gutzlaff's rendering
of it, and place it before any Chinese he pleases, learned or rude, and
see if he can get one of them so to understand it ; or let him, in defi
ance of his own canon, insert the words " as our head," or " as our
federal head," and see if he can get them to make out his meaning
then. We predict his utter faUure. The reason is, that the "preposi
tion answering to ira" in Chinese, would not convey that sense : a word
something like with reference to, or having respeet to Christ as
our federal bead, would alone get out that meaning : but such a word
would be equivalent to the word chosen by all the other Chinese
translators, which Dr. B. condemns.
After all, what is this peculiar idea which Dr. B. wishes to bring
out and on which so much depends ? God chose us in Christ. Was
it before we were in him, as our head, or after? Was it with reference
to our being in Christ as our federal head, or wholly independent oi

38
it ? If be says before, and wholly independent of our being in Christ
as our federal head, then he did not choose us ira Christ as our federal
head. If he says, after and with reference thereto, then the transla
tion we have given of it, in conformity witb the view of the majority of
critics, is correct.
But Dr. B. says, it assigns a cause for God's eternal election, which
is not in accordance with Scripture : viz. that God chose us on ac
count of Christ. What is the word to which he so much objects? On
account of, out of regard to, or for the sake of Cbrist ; that by virtue of
which anything is done ? Does Dr. B. mean to say that God had no
regard to Christ when he chose us ? if so, how is it said that he chose
us ira Christ ? and if this be explained to mean, in Christ as our
federal head, how could he so choose us without having regard to
Christ ? and if regard was had to Christ, when God chose us in him,
then it is not wrong to say that God chose us on account of Christ.
Dr. B. quotes Burkitt as saying, " God did not choose us for the sake
and obedience of Christ foreseen," bow then did he choose us in him?
The Chinese word which we have eraployed is indicative of relation ;
God's choosing us on account of Christ, may mean, either on account
of our federal union with Christ, or on account of something which
Christ had engaged to do for us. It is as indefinite as tbe Greek
preposition, indicating generally our relationship to Christ, but not the
precise nature of that relationship, and therefore adapted for the use
to which we have applied it.
Dr. B further alludes to our having translated "in the beloved" ver.
6, " hy his beloved Son." The Chinese word employed is used in the
sense of propter, as well as in that of per, and in this respect is similar
to tbe term used in the 3rd and 4th verses, all intiraating with refer
ence to, on account of. Macknight, who translated era by through,
in the 3d and 4th verses, renders the same word here by "on account
of the beloved." Bloorafield, " by or through the beloved one."
Rosenrauller, " by means of, and because of." We may observe here,
that the Romanist version, Morrison, the Batavian version, and Gutz
laff have all rendered "ora aceoMwi of his beloved Son." The " iii
whom" of the 7th, and " in whom" (put by Bloomfield into the 1 Ith
verse), we have translated " on account q/'.Christ," on the same prin
ciple. In these renderings, we can point to the Romanist version,
Morrison and Marshman,* as having done the same. The Batavian
version has because of, in tbe 7th, and depending on, in the Ilth.
Thus all the Chinese translators, in every instance in which era occurs
with a person, in the above verses, have rendered on account of,
* Let it be observed here, once for all, that the authors of these
three versions have always been reckoned among the most extreme
literalists : no one has ever found fault with them for their departures
from the sacred text. Yet even these men thought it necessary to
render the preposition era by on account of, in almost every instance
in which we have been found fault with for doing the same.

39
because of, by ox tkrougk; except Gutzlaff orace, in the 4th verse,
which we haye seen is to the Chinese unintelligible.
WhUe upon the subject of the Greek'preposition era. Dr. B. com-
plains of our having rendered it, in Ephesians 2 : 10, "we are those
whom Shang-ti made : Shang-ti predestinated us to follow the good ;
because o/" Jesus Christ he made us, and causes us to do good ;" ad
ding " we have here a reason assigned for man's creation, I never
saw assigned any where else." This is another instance of Dr. B.'s
unfairness ; he knows (or ought to know) that " the best ancient and
modern commentators are agreed, that by the workmanskip and
created here must he understood, not our natural and original crea
tion as men, but our figurative and spiritual creation as Ckristians."
(Bloomfield.) This creation we have said is "hecause of Jesus Christ ;"
the Romanist version and Morrison have done the same. Macknight
renders it " through Christ Jesus," (referring to his Preliminary Es
say § 167, in which era is said to mean for, on account of, througk).
It is the creation of believers, or the new creation that is here spoken
of; if we had inserted the word "new," Dr. Boone would have com
plained of our transgressing his canon "nothing add ;" now that we
have simply used the word create, he affects to understand it of man's
creation in general, in order to direct against us a severe sarcasm !
His shaft wUl, however, fall harraless to.the ground.
In our rendering of Ephesians 2 : 13, a new term occurs for ren
dering "era with a person," which has not been commented on before.
" But now ira Jesus Christ, ye who sometimes were far off, are brought
nigh, &c." Dr. B. says, we have rendered in by " imitating (or
reverencing) Cbrist." As this mode of rendering the pbraae wiU
have frequently to be referred to, we might as well discuss it here.
Bloomfield says, iw Christ means " by Christ and his religion ; or we
ma-y, with Koppe, supply 'beingi q. d. halting beeri united to Christ,
i. e. become Christians." We adopted this view, which is simUar to
the one given by Macknight, " in the Christian church." We had met
with the phrase in this sense before, Romans 16 : 7, " who were in
Christ before me." This could not mean being in Christ as our
federal head, or interested in God's electing love : for in this respect
one Christian cannot be said to precede another : but, it must mean
soraethhig external as well as internal, something capable of being dis
cerned by others, viz. a Christian profession, accorapanied by what is,
in the judgment of charity, deeraed true union with Christ. The
sense being thus, as we conceived, ascertained, the next questioii was,
how shaU we express that sense ? Any Chinese word " answering to
the preposition era" we thought would not convey ^e sense of the
Apostle. We therefore decided on using the word tjV tsung. Mor
rison gives as one of the meanings of this term, "that which is gener
ally honoured and sacrificed to ; the point to which men and things
turn, as water to the ocean, and aU raen to court." He quotes a
phrase in illustration of this idea : " all rivers regard the sea as the r
supreme bead." He then says, '" il occurs as a verb, m reference to

40
the person vpho is regarded as a supreme head, or most honourable
of a community ;" adding another quotation, " Confucius, a plain
citizen, has had his doctrines handed down for more than ten genera
tions, and students of moral science honour him as their supreme
head." We have found it was also used in the sense of professing a
certain religion, or adopting the views ofa given master in science.
We have therefore used it wherever the profession of Christ's religion
wasjhe seijse intended, i. e. in Acts 11 : 26. We thought that was
the meaning of the word ew, in Ephesians 2 : 13, andwe used it there.
Dr. B. objects to our translation of Ephesians 3 : 11, where ew
Christo is rendered on account of Christ. Barnes says, this means
" with reference to him ; or which were to be executed through him."
So Bloomfield. The Romanist version and Morrison have " on ac
count of ;" the Batavian version " out of regard to," and Gutzlaff
"by." In Roman 8 : 1, Dr. B. has discovered that we have adopted an
other mode of translating era Christo, by " being in him ira heart .•"
and complains of our adding the word heart. On referring to Stuart,
we find that the phrase means, " those whoare truly and .spiritually
united to Christ, corapare 2 Corinthians 5 : 17. Erasmus, rightly,
' Qui in Christo insiti sunt.' The ground of the idiom is the spiri
tual union which exists between the Head of the Church and its
members." Hodge says, " To be in Christ Jesus signifies to be
intimately united to him, by having his Spirit dwelling in us." We
conceived that the word " ira " alone would not convey this id^a, and
therefore added " tke heart," to indicate that it was mentally, sph'itu-
ally. Dr. B. says, " we are not in Christ, by the exercise of our
affections, by love, but by faith." The Chinese word employed
means mind as well as heart, and is applicable as much to the exercise
of faith as love. See Roraans 10 : 10.
Dr. B. then passes on to the consideration of 1 Corinthians 15 : 20, ,
22, for the purpose of attacking a new mode of translating ew Ckristo
which he has found there. By the way, however, he thinks it worth
his whUe to criticize our translation of aparche, rendered in the
authorized version " the flrst-fruits," but in our translation " the
flrst." Robinson, in his Lexicon, says, " the term is used speaking of
persons, as the first in time, first in anything, i. e. the first- of whom
any particular thing may be predicated ; a firstling ;" adding, " Christ
is called the first mho has risen from the dead." Bloomfleld
says, " Jesus Christ was the first (to rise) of those who have died
and risen again io die no more." There may be, he says, an allusion
to the flrst-fruits of the corn. We did not think it necessary to ex
press every possible allusion, when, in attempting to do this, we might
obscure the sense. The idea of flrst-fruits can only be expressed in
Chinese by a periphrasis, and to employ a periphrasis here, where the
allusion is only a matter of supposition, would be throwing unneces
sary obstacles in the way of the reader. Dr. B. then finds fault with
our translating " them that slept" by "the dead," and asks " of whora

41
w^s Christ the first-fruits, of aU deceased men, or of all the righteous ?"
We refer him for answer to the words of Bloomfield quoted above.
There is uot in the passage any particular reference to the righteous
or the wicked, and Dr B. would find some difficulty in proving, that
the word slept is used in the New Testament of the death of the
righteous only. See Corinthians 7 : 39, and 1 1 : 30. Robinson says,
" It is spoken of the sleep of death, for io die, to he dead." Dr. b!
adds, " tbe translators may have given tke sense of Paul, but as this is
disputed, how can it be known that they have done so ?" intimating
that, when there is a dispute about the sense of a passage of Scripture
translators are not to choose, among the various senses given, the one
which appears to them most suitable. We utterly dissent from this sen
timent; it is a rule by which no translator can be bound; and, were it
adhered to, would produce a mass of indefinite phrases'which would, as
Campbell says, " lead the unlearned reader into an opinion that the ori
ginal, which is susceptible of them, must be totally indefinite, equivO,cal,
and obscure." We have raet with passages in which several senses,
all more or less sustained by good arguraent, have been suggested,
where the authors of fhe coraraon English version have "settled
the question" by taking one of thera. See Mark 7 : 3. Dr. Boone
continues, that we ought to have given the Apostle's own words,
"Ihe first-liruits of them that slept," and if the reader could not
understand it, he could, under instruction, look up the equivalents
in the Old Testament. Tbis goes upon the principle of translating
figurative expressions exactly, whether they be, or be not, intelligible.
To this we object, and urge in our defence that no translator has
adhered to it. Not to mention nuraberless other instances, one occurs
to us in 1 Timothy 5 : 4, where children are called upon to render
a reco»8pew«e to their parents, which is rendered in the authorized
version " requite their parents.'' Why were not the Apostle's own
words given, which could in this instance have been easily under
stood, without reference to the Old Testament ? A good rule in this
respect has been laid down by Houbigant, not to depart from the
ancient modes of expression, unless for one of the three following
causes : " primo, si Hebraiami veteres, cum retinentur, fiunt Latino
in sermone, vel obscuri, vel ambigui ; secundo, si eorura significantia
minuitur, nisi circuitione quaedara uteris ; tertio, si vergant ad aliam,
quam Hebraica verba, sententiam." We conceived that the phrase
now commented on, if rendered literally, would have been obscure
and ambiguous, and therefore gave what we considered the sense of
the Apostle.
Remarking on the 2Ist verse. Dr. B. objects to our translating dia
by on account of, quoting Robinson, who says, that " dia, with the
genitive, indicates the person by or through whose agency an effect is
produced." He has omitted to mention, however, that Robinson in
the same paragraph has stated, that dia means also through ihe
fault of, quoting this verse; by which he would have it understood
that death came through the fault of Adam, i. e. through what he did.

42
Of course, the latter part of the verse must be understood in a similar
manner, as the two merabers are antithetical ; and thus the sense
would be, the resurrection of the dead was the consequence of the
desert of Christ, or through what he did. If the latter clause is to he
understood of the person through whose agency an effect is produced,
so must the former.^ But who will say, that death is an effect pro
duced by the agency of Adam ? Adara ti'ansgressed, and in conse
quence of his fall, death is come into the world. It may be that
we are raised again by the agency of Christ, but if fhat truth were
exhibited in the translation of this verse, the antithesis would not be
preserved, which we conceive the Apostle had in mind. In translating
Romans 5 : 12, 17, we have used y^ e for dia, instead of |2) yin, as
inthe verse under consideration; but on showing tbe two modes of ren
dering tbe Greek preposition to tbe Chinese teachers, they declared
that both raeant the sarae thing : in the Imperial Dictionary, the
one is explained by tbe other.
The 22nd verse. Dr. B. says, presents a case of the most reraark
able liberty he ever knew to be taken by a translator ; " as in Adam
all die, even so in Christ shall all be raade alive :" wiiich we have
rendered "those who pertain to Adara die, those who pertain to Christ
rise frora the dead." The flrst thing he has to complain of is fhe
omission of the word "as" and "so.'' If he bad been better ac
quainted with Chinese style, he would have seen that these words are
sufficiently exhibited by the form of fhe sentence. It is to be observed,
also, that if the words as and so had heen inserted, the Chinese reader
would have applied them to the effect produced, and not to the
manner in which they were produced, and would thus have discovered
a contradiction. They would have said, the cases are different ; in
Adam all men die, in Christ they are all made alive. How can you say,
as the one, so the other ? If you were to tell them, as through Adara
all men die, so through Christ all are made alive, they would under
stand it ; but then they would ask, is it so ? are all men made alive
through Christ ? We considered that the view taken of the text by
Bloomfleld was the just one. "As in consequence oftheir relation
to Adam all men are born mortal, and at length die ; even so, in and
by Cbrist, shall all be made alive. In other words, our connection
with Adam hrougki us deatk, our connection, wiih Ckrisl, life."-
Dr. B. quarrels with our rendering "all in Adam," by " all that per
tain to Adam." Here we may remark again, that the two members
ofthe sentence are antithetical, those in A, iam, -and those iw Christ.
Ifit be urged that we were all in the loins of our first father when he
fell, and therefore the word in in the first raember may be rendered as
we have translated Hebrews 7 : 10, we may answer, that this could
not be affirmed of believers wilh regard to Christ. "To preserve the
antithesis, sorae word must be chosen thnt will carry us through both
menibers of the sentence ; no word, we conceive, would do this so
well as the one we bave chosen. W.e know that some persons rnake
the " all shaU he made alive," to refer to all men ; we conceive, how-

43
ever, that the clause ew Ckristo settles this question, as all mankind
never can be said to be in Christ. Dr. B. says, "in daeiding this
question, how important is the phrase ira Christ!" We admit thatit
is important, but what does it mean ? Dr. B. attaches to it in other
places, the meaning of" in Christ, as our federal bead ;" to be thus
in Christ denotes, undoubtedly, the being a Christian, and this is the
meaning we have given to it. So also have others. Boothroyd says,
" It is only of all believers that the Apostle is speaking here, as they
are said to be Christ's at his appearing." Doddridge, " we Christians
h^ve a joyful persuasion for ourselves and for our brethren, that in
Christ we all shall also be made alive." Billroth thinks it can apply
only to believers, as the others cannot be considered en Chrislo ; and
Olshausen, who takes tbe opposite view, is unable satisfactorily to dis
pose of the phrase era Ckristo. Grotius says, " In Christo, id est per
Christura, oranes, nerape qui participes sunt naturae Christi ;" adding
"verbum zoopoiein in sensu beatse resurrectionis habuimus." Dr.
John Brown, in his late work ou "the Resurrection of Life," says,
" The sentiment of this verse is, all who die, die as connected with
Adam ; all who attain to the resurrection ofthe dead, attain to it as
connected with Christ." John Alexander says, " 'All in Christ,' and
'all in Adam,' seem to denote two classes ; the one including the
whole posterity ol Adara, who are naturally subject fo deatb and cor
ruption ; the other, all good men, who are the heirs ofthe resurrection
and the world to corae." Dr. B. however deeras it a disputed point,
and thinks that translators ought not to be allowed to settle it for
themselves. But how have tbe authors of the English version acted ?
They have " settled the question," by saying that " all shall be made
alive." Dr. B. in concluding his remarks on this passage, says, " Let any
one consider what would be the effect on his raind, if after being
accustomed to such a translation as tbis (the Chinese), in bis mother
tongue, be should study Greek, and read the passage in Saint Paul's
own words." We might surely retort the question, as to the English
translation of this text, believing tbat the Chinese version of it is
more conformable to Paul's words, than is the English "authorized
version." Then follows a string of questions, which we conceive
are put by Dr. B merely with the view of exciting suspicions,
unsustained by argument, against our version. "Would Christians
in England and America allow any men in those countries, however
learned, thus to substitute their own words and ideas in the place of
the Apostle's, in the Bibles read in their churches, and at their fire
sides ? Could the Bible Societies circulate among those speaking
English a version raade on such principles, by any Coramittee of un
inspired men, no matter how learned or pious they might be ?" Here
it is assuraed, that " in tbe Bibles read in our churches, and at our
firesides," i. e. in the authorized version, the words and ideas of ttie
Apostle are given. As thousands of passages are disputed how
can it be known " that this is always done ? Does the fact

44
of the authorized Version beiiig " appointed to be read in churches"
ensure its correctness ? It is intiraated that the Delegates consist of
a Comraittee of " uninspired men." Granted. 'Were the translators
appointed by King James one whit raore inspired ? Does the fact of
the Bible Societies' circulating their version, araOng those speaking
English, prove tbat King James's men were inspired ? Are fhe Bible
Societies never to circulate a version made by uninspired men ? But
it is to "a version made on such principles" that Dr. B. objects.
What principles ? " Substituting their own words and ideas in the
place of the Apostle's." We deny tbat these are our principles, and
here lies the sting of Dr. B.'* question. We conceive that we have
given tbe ideas, that is the sense of the Apostle, as we engaged to do.
Dr. B. has not shown that we have not done so : and yet he insinuates
that we have " substituted our own words and ideas in the place of
the Apostle's," and he has thrown out this insinuation with the view
of inducing the Bible Societies not to circulate our version. .
Dr. B. questions whether we have rendered some of the passages
above commented on, as near as the idiom of the Chinese language
will permit ; because " a phrase for ' first-fruits,' can be formed in
every language," and " there must be a verb to sleep in every lan
guage," &c. The sentence " first-fruits of them that slept " is a
Hebraism, which does not exist in Chinese, and which, if literally
rendered, would not be understood. As long as you adhere to the
Hebrew idiom, you do not come near to the Chinese idiom at all.
Ypu can come near to the idea by clothing it in Chinese phraseology, _
but for this purpose the idiom must be changed. Teii-ot justly says,
" a translation absolutely literal must, in raany instances, give a sense
foreign to the original. Idioms of this kind must be rendered by
corresponding idioras."
Dr. B. closes his reraarks on this passage by saying, that "if the
translators have made the Closest rendering of Saint Paul, that the
idiom of the Chinese langbage will allow, then dogmatic theology is an
impossibUity in idiomatic Chinese." This we deny ; but, in Chinese,
as in every other language, if we wish to teach theology as a science,
our main stay liiust be the originals. No School of Divinity is con
tent with translations. If the Chinese are ever so far advanced as to
have Christian colleges and professors among themselves, they must
refer, as we do, to the originals.
In order to show, that we could have rendered era with a person, by
a preposition answering to ira, he refers to our translation of John 10 :
38, "the Father in me and I in him." See also John 14 : 10,. 11,
"where the mufual union ofGod and Christ is spoken of." Bloom
field says, that " these words denote union of the closest kind, and
conjunction of one and the same Divine energ-y. The Father was in
the Son, and tbe Son in the Father, inasmuch as the Son bath the
same, and can do the same as the Father." He further says, they
denote, " the essential union and mutual indwelling of the Father
and the Son, and of the Godhead in the human nature." This con-

45
substantial or essential union, this conjunction of one and the same
Vnme energy, must be looked upon as one of the ravsteries of the
T hn 4" on ' ^"/,y>*=>-«f°^e be translated ad verbum. So also in
John 14 : 20, and 17 : 21, where the raystical union between Cbrist
and believers is spoken of in connection with the union which sub
sists between the Father and the Son, the one phrase should be
translated like the other. In John 15: 4, 5, 6, 7, Christians are
saidto hem Chnst figuratively, as the branches in the vbie : here
the allusion renders tbe expression distinct, and a preposition an
swering to m could be employed. In John 6 : 56, a similitude,
though of a different kind, is used, and the context renders the
expression intelligible. John 1 : 4, does not belong to the same
category ; life in Christ, and Christians in Christ, are very different
ideas. With our literal rendering of ew in the above passages. Dr. Boone
contrasts our rendering of the same word in the Epistles, and first
refers to 2 Corinthians 5 : 17, " If any raan be in Christ he is a new
creature," which Dr. B says, is rendered " those who reverence (or
iraitate) Christ, these are new-made men." We have already given
our definition ofthe word, wbich Dr, B. renders "reverence (or imi-
tate.) It includes the feeling of reverence and supreme regard. It
is manifested outwardly in entire consecration to the service of the
person honoured, but is supposed to include in it the sincere feeling
of respect, from whicb the outward raarks of regard raust spring.
The question is, what did the Apostle raean by "any one being in
Christ ?" Bloomfield would understand by it not merely being graft
ed into tbe body of Cbrist by baptism, but being reaUy "united to
him, in faith, love, and obedience.'' Macknight says it raeans being
" united to Christ by faith " Matthew Henry says, " a Christian in
deed." Clarke says, " a genuine Christian." Grotius has it, " qui
Christum profifetur est velut horao novus." How can this be better
expressed in Chinese than by the term which we have employed ?
Barnes thinks that the word "therefore," verse 17, "iraplies that the
reason, why Paul infers that any one is a new creature who is in Christ,
is that which is stated in the [irevious verse ; to wit, the ckange of
views in regard to tke Redeemer, to which he there refers, and
which was so great as to constitute a change like a new creation."
" The affirmation," he adds, " is universal ; 'if any man be in.Christ,'
that is, all who become true Christians." In all this he agrees with
our version which reads, " he who has a supreme regard to Christ is a
new creature." The word to wbich Dr. B. has the strongest objection
is -^ tsung, which we have translated "to have a suprerae regard for,"
and which he thinks may be rendered " to reverence, or imitate ;" and,
if taken in the latter sense he says, " it makes St. Paul teach undis
guised Socinian doctrine." We shall first examine wbat authority
he has for translating it imitate, and then enquire how the employ
ment of it here can be said to make Saint Pual teach Socinian doc
trine. With regard to the first point, we have looked through Kang-

46
he's Iraperial Dictionary, and the ancient compilation caUed the
Shwo-wan, but find no hint of such a meaning. None of the Chinese
and English Dictionaries give that view of Ihe word. But Dr. B.
thinks he bas found it in the large thesaurus, called' the Pei-wan-
yun-foo, the meanings given in which Dr. B. quotes as follows : "-^
tsun, honourable or to honour ; ^^ fa, to imitate, as in the phrase
^X 5(S heaou fa, an ancestor ; and ^ choo, a lord." He ought to
have added, "to regard as a Lord." But the chief point of enquiry is
regarding this wordya, whicb Dr. B. translates "taimitate as in the
phrase heaou fa." Here it is to be observed that the phrase he has
quoted, as if it were adduced by tbi*. compilers of the thesaurus, to
illustrate the word tsung in tbe sense of imitate, is not quoted in the
part referred to, hut is supplied hy Dr. B. Further we may remark
that it does not suit his purpose, for the word fd, in the phrase
adduced by him as an example, is used as a substantive, not a verb.
Morrison gives tbe meaningof it under :5^ heaou, "to iraitate ancient
examples," where the word heaou, means to imitate, and the word fd,
" ancient examples." Again, in the phrases quoted by tbe thesaurus,
as illustrative of the uses of the word tsung, this word is always the
last in tbe phrase, and therefore is to be understood almost always as
a noun, and not as a verb ; in such cases it cannot mean to imitate.
There are a few instances in which it is eraployed as a verb, but these are
of a nature similar to those already quoted on page 40 from Morrison,
in the sense of viewing with supreme regard. We have examined
the other part of the thesaurus where keaoufd occurs, to see if tsung
fd is used in tbe sense of imitating an example, but though several
hundred phrases are adduced, the phrase, tsung fd is not met wilh.
We admit tbat fa, whicb means a law, is used as a verb, in the sense
of raaking something a rule or law to one's-self. But that idea is not
conveyed by our English word imitate. There is all the differeuce
between the two ideas, that exists between tbe words lam and exam
ple. Tbe former is a rule of action prescribed for the government of
moral agents, to which they are bound to yield obedience, in default
of which they are exposed to punishment. The latter is a copy or
model which is proposed, or is proper to be iraitated. If the word
tsung is to be understood in the sense indicated bv_/a, it would convey
tbe idea of " follow" rather than imitate, as in the phrase, " Be ye
followers of God as dear children," Ephesians 5:1; and "Be ye
followers of me, as I am of Christ." 1 Coi. 11 : 1. Thus tsung Ke-
iuh, would be a follower of Christ. Where is tbe Socinianism in say
ing, tbat a follower of Christ is anew creature? Does Dr. B. take
tbe word " follow " only in the sense ol copying tbat which is exter
nal, in regard to the conduct of others. We have not so understood
the phrase as used by Paul. Let any oneset hiraself to "follow" God
and Christ, and see whether a mere copying of externals will .fulfil the,
requirements suggested by the phrase. Does it not include all the

47
excellencies of the most perfect moral character, and those in the
highest possible degree ? But we deny that even this, " the making
of anything arule or law to one's-self," is tbe chief raeaning conveyed
by the word tsung. Its prime meaning is to venerate in the highest
degree, to regard as tbe bead or master, to submit to with all the
powers ofthe mind and heart. When used with reference to a reli
gion, or the founder of a religion, it means to yield the whole soul to
the guidance and authority of tbe same. Employed »s we have used
it, in connection with Cbrist, it signifies the regarding him as the
object honoured in the characteristic institutions of Christianity, the
yielding tu hira all religious obedience, and the adoration of bim as
one with the Father, the head over all things to his church. Of
course, it includes the iraitaliou of his example, but its prime signifi
cation is submission to kis authority . The Chinese explain it as the
point lo which all men aud things turn, as water to the ocean, and
all men to court. Dr. B- says, his teachers supposed that it was used
in the sense of " reverencing virtues and imitating them :'' but how is
reverence for virtue displaced, in rivers hasting to the sea, or men to
court? He says, " I cannot think of any other; but I hesitate to
give it as theirs, for it makes Saint Paul leach undisguised Socinian
doctrine. ' The imitators ul Christ are new creatures.' 'Ye imitate
him to obtain completeness'." Here mark how our unfair antagonist
drops the word reverence, and retains that of imitnle, in order to
insinuate that tbe word teaches Socinian doctrine. Socinians profess
to look upon Chrisi as an example only: thinking thai the imitating
of Christ constitutes a true Cbristain. We have translated the being
in Clirist, or the being a true Christian, by a word which he renders
imitating Christ, and thus, he says, we make Saint Paul teach undis
guised Socinian doctrine. Ungrounded insinuation ! He knows that
neither Kang-be nor Morrison give any sanction lo the meaning
wbich be has-attacbed to tsung. He knows that the primary mean
ing given to tsung in the Thesaurus is " lo honour." He knows
thalthe phrase which he has quoted, as though contained in the The
saurus in illuslralion ofthe sense of imitate, is nut to be found there.
He know-5 thai be bas not produced a single phrase from the The
saurus in whicb Isung is used in the sense of imitate : and yet be bas
dropped the primary idea of the word, and taken the half only of the
one given by his teachers, as though it were the whole, — merely to
give' a colour to the statement, tbat the employment of such a b rm
makes Saint Paul teach undisguised Socinian doctrine ! He talks of
" hesitating to give il as ours," while he has lett it standing without
qualification, al the end of his note. In the flrst instance in which \he
renders our word tsung, page 40, in translating 2 Cor. 5 : 17, he calls it
¦ " reverence (or imitate)." In the note attached lo the same, he calls
it "reverence and iraitate." A little further on it is imitate alone ;
and on the 45tb page, where he sums up our various raodes of trans
lating the preposition iw, he has " 4thly, imiLalors (or revere.icers) of
Christ ¦" and "6thly, imitale bim lo obtain completeness. We is

obliged to own tbat the first raeaning of the word is reverence ; he
thinks, however, that it might be rendered imitate : then he graduaUy
brings imitate forward as the most prominent meaning, and finally
settles it as the sole rrieaning ; and that after having said, " I hesitate
to give il as theirs." " Iraitators of Christ," is not the meaning of
tbe word as it is employed by us. Its more significant correlate
would be what the eariy Christians used to exclaim, " none but Christ!
none but Christ !'' and if this does not express what a real Christian
is, we know not what does.
Dr. B. says, that we have translated 2 Corinthians 5 : 19, " God
was iu Christ reconciling the world to himself," " God commissioned
Christ;" the impropriety ofwhich is too apparent, he says, to need
comment. Bloomfield in his Digest says, "It was God himself who,
by Christ, reconciled th* whole world to himself." In his commen
tary he says, " En Chfisto may be taken either with the preceding ,
(and thus the meaning will be, that God reconciled the world to him
self by Cbrist) ; or witb the following, by whicb the sense will be, that
God was in, i. e. united to Christ, reconciling, &c. The latter mode
is the raore simple and natural. According to either view, the doc
trine of Christ's Divinity is strongly attested." Macknight translates,
" God is hy Christ, reconciling the world to himself." Boothroyd,
" God tkrougk Christ reconciled the world to himself" Barnes says,
" God was hy Christ, by tke means of him, ikrougk kis agency or
mediation." Wetstein says, " God through Christ hath reconciled
the world lo hiraself." Flatl, " througk Christ." Calovius has it,
" reconciliatur a Deo per Christum facta." The terra employed in
the Delegates' version raeans " to charge with, to commit to the care
of, to engage or coraraission." The Roraanist version has got J^
e, by Christ, which yields a sirailar sense to the term we have chosen.
We now come to the consideration of Colossians 1 ; 28, where we
understand the word perfect tu mean perfectly instructed. Bloom
field has it, " (as the best commentators explain) possessed of a perfect
knowledge of Christ and the Gospel." Macknight says, " perfect (in
knowledge and virtue) in Christ's church." Estius and Menochius
say, " Perfectum, 'i.e. perfect^ instructum ; iw Christo, i. e. in his
quae ad fldem et cognitionem Christi pertinent." We had used
^^ ^ leen ta, for perfect or perfectly instructed, in I Corinthians 2 ;
6, and we thought the same expression suitable here. " In Christ
Jesus," Doddridge refers to the time, " when he shall appear to make
up his fin d account :" and Bloomfield says " present, as courtiers do
any one to a sovereign." We thought the expression might refer to
the Apostle's presenting the subjects of his ministry perfectly in
structed before their flnal judge, and therefore connected the " in
Christ" with " present." On reconsidering the subject, we are in
clined to take the view which Macknight and Estius give of it, and to
consider the " in Christ" as belonging to " perfect," or perfectly
instructed ; we shall therefore correct our version in this particular :

49
and read " that we may present every man before God; perfectly in
structed in the knowledge bf CHrist."
We now come to the important passage Colossians 2 : 9, " In him
dwelleth all the fulness ofthe Godhead bodily," which we have ren
dered "tbe full perfections of Gbd are altogether inherent in Christ."
Dr. B. coraplaifis of this translation, intimating that we should have
eraployed a term significant ofnature. Bloomfield says, the full sense
is " for in Hihi all the tomplete perfection essential to the Godhead
abides." We have translaited "Gbdhead" by the same word which,
we used for God : it is difflcult to' speak of fulness abstractedly, in
Chinese ; in Colossians 1 : 19, IheyM/raess which it pleased the Father
should dwell in Christ, we have rendered by "full perfection." We
thought the same term applicable here, and employed it. (See Barnes
on Col. 1:19, and 2: 9.) Macknight says that " the word ^/erojwa
signifies not on\y full hut finisked, perfect, complete ;" raost Chris
tians believe that the fulness of the Godhead consists in the fulness of
perfection and government which is essential to the Godhead. Dr.
B. wishes that the word nature had been eraployed ; it would be dif
ficult, however, to speak of the fulness of nature. Robinson says,
Tkeoles means "the Divine nature and perfections." Not being able
to express botb, we took the latter of the two, and left the former to
be represented by the word God. Boothroyd intiraates that " the ful
ness of the Godhead or Deity signifies the full and entire perfection
thereof." The phrase " the fulness ofthe Godhead" has been render
ed by the Boraaiiists, " the whole substance" thereof. Morrison, the
same. Marshraan, " the whole perfection" thereof. The Batavian
version, the same. Gutzlaff's last, " all the fulness of God :" but the
expressionyM/raess is by him exhibited in a form wbich is unidiomalic
and unintelligible. None of the Chinese translator^ bave attempted
to exjiress the word naiure. As Dr. B. is so urgent about it, he
shopld haye shown how it ought to have heen rendered.
Regarding the word bodily there has been a variety of opinions.
1. Corporeally. 2, Truly. 3. Substantially. Bloomfield says, "the
whole Divine nature is not only in part but fully, without absence of
any part of it, in Cbrist." Dr. Pye Smith renders it, inreaiiiy. Storr
says, " the whole Divine perfection is in Christ," " in whora alone is
supreme Divine perfecticm '' Michaelis has it, " for God wholly fil
leth hira." Seller says, " In whom the whole fulness of the Deity
dwelleth." Jacobus Capellus says, somaiikos means " Totaliter:
corpus enim pro quovis toto ponitur, ut Rom. 6: 6." Thiis is the
view we have given ofthe phrase, represented by ^J^seih, "altogether,
entirely." Dr. B. says we have omitted it, and asks whether it be an
oversight? Is his not observing it in our translation an oversight?
Tbe Romanist version has rendered bodily by a phrase which means
" all blended together in one mass." Morrison, tbe sarae. Marsh
man, the same. The Batavian version with Gutzlaff has got "sub
stantially ;" but the phrase employed is unidiomalic, and in the con
nection unintelligible.

50
.To bur rendering of the 10th verse. Dr. B. takes strong excep
tion. He has, however, not translated our version exactly, by saying
" ye reverence (or imitale) him to obtain completeness." He should
have said, "ye regard hira with the, highest veneration, and obtain
completeness." 'The word rendered by Dr. B. ^o, does not mean in
this fionneclion in order io, but is what the Chinese would call an
empty character. The meaning of the phrase is " the consequence is
ye are complete and perfect." Exaraples of the eraployment of this
character in suoh a,way are given in Premare. In Matt. 16 : 24, we
have employed the same word, where the sense could not be in order io.
Our attention having been called anew to this verse, we have con-
sVjlted all the commentators on it, and find most of them give to ew
Christo the sense of by or through. Bloomfield says, " amply, pro-
V(de,d by him, with whatever is necessary to salvatipn." Macknight
renders it, " ye are made complete by him." Dr. Pye Smith, " filled
by bim." We therefore think it would be belter, to render, " you by i
him obtain complete fulness.'' The Romanist version has it, " you
on account of hira obtain fulness." So Morrison and Marshman. The
Batavian version and Gutzlaff have both rendered it, " you depending
on him obtain fulness."
In quoting 2 Tira. 1: I, Dr. B. has made a raistake in translating
oiir version. He bas said, " Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to
proclaim Christ Jesus' doctrine which promises tife." He should
haye rendered it, " to proclaira the doctrine of life which Jesus Christ
promised." He seems wholly unacquainted with tbe.use and mean
ing ofthe Chinese relative here employed. One of the rules given in
Rerausat's Elemens de la Grammaire Ckinoise is as follows : " 146.
The relative pronoun, whicb is the object of the Verb of the incidental
proposition, is rendered by pff so, which is always placed after the
subject, and hefore the verb of that proposition. In all these phrasiss,
we must avoid taking for the antecedent of the relative, the word
wkick precedes, and which is the subject of the verb tbat governs
this sarae relative. E. g. Q ^ ^^ ^ H; ^ X- What
you do not yourself desire, do not do to others." 'This rule Dr. B.
has .infringed in the translation he has given ofthe above versCj which
is constructed precisely on the sarae principles with the one quoted
from the Chinese classics. The Chinese relative is in both cases
placed after tbe subject, and before the verb of tbe proposition.
The word wbich precedes is the subject of tbe verb, which verb go
verns this sarae relative, and the word which precedes is not its ante
cedent. Dr B. bas raade the relative, the subject of the verb "pro-'
mise," instead of treating it as governed by the verb ; while the real
subject of the verb, "JesusChrist," he has joined with," doctrine" to
constitute the antecedent. (This blundering in regard to one of the
plainest points of Chinese Gramraar, we would not have noticed so
particularly, had we not observed soraething simUar to it in his trans
lation of our version of Ephesians 1: 13, given on page 29 of his

51
Vindication : where, instead of saying "received the sealing ofthe Holy
Spirit which was promised," be has said," and thereupon received
which (or whom) promised Holy Shin's sealed declaration.") As to
the passage before us, it appears to us on reconsideration, that the
life is to be obtained through Christ, the proraise of it was given by
tbe Father, and Paul was made an Apostle to proclaim this proraise.
Bloomfield has il, " that I might publish the promise of salvation
through Christ;" He thinks the meaning of kata is iw order to, for
it indicates " the end and tendency of the Apostleship." The sense
given by Macknight is, " an Apostle on account of (publishing) the
promise of life wbich is by Cbrist Jesus." Grotius says, " Deus me
voluit esse Apostolum, ut annuntiarem oranibus promissum vitse
eternae, quae per Christum nobis' contigit." We therefore think it
would be better to translate it, " to proclaim the doctrine of life, pro
mised by God, and obtained by Jesus Christ."
In 1 John 4 : 15, 16, Dr. B. has discovered that we have had an
other mode of translating ew with a person : viz. " in heart communes,
or bas fellowship with." Robinson says, tbat the word ew is " spoken
ofthose witb whora any one is in near connection, intiraate union, one
ness of heart, mind, and purpose :" quoting several of the passages
alluded to by Dr. B. as instances of tbis word being used of such a
union with God, and vice versa. . The phrase, ew auto einai, in tbis
sense, first occurs in 1 John 2 : 5, where Bloomfield says, "This and
other phrases (such as tbe koinonia, in 1 John 2 : 5, 7), denoting
coraraunion with God, are raeant to denote moral assirailation to God,
which can only be attained by the profession and practice of tbe reli
gion be enjoins." Dr. Pye Smith says, " we enjoy a raental and
moral union with the Father of raercies, by the faith, devotedness, and
obedience, whicb we exercise towards hira : and this union is also,
concurrently and equally, wilh our Gracious Redeemer, since it is
only by a spiritual union with him, tbat we can enjoy the favour and
love of the Father." Macknight calls it "feUowship with God and
his Son Jesus Christ." Clarke says, " we bave coraraunion wilh him
by the Holy Spirit." Grotius says, " Esse in aliquo, aut manere (in
tota enim hac Epistola pro eodem surauntur) est araoris vinculo ei
jungi." We concluded, on raeeting with the phrase in this Epistle,
to express it by communion of heart, and we have found it yield a
suitable sense. Bloorafield says, treating of the phrase in this passage,
that it means, "really united wUh God in mutual love."_
Dr. B. objects to our translation of fhe phrase " God is love :" our
version of which he renders " There are none whora Shang-te does
not love." The sentence, as we have given it, stands thus : " God
(is) not not love." Two negations in Chinese make an affirmative,
and render it the raore eraphatic, (see Morrison) ; as if it were said,
" God is certainly love, or the very essence of love." Storr aod Flalt
say, " The substantive agape stands in the place of the sjperiative,
Deus longe omnium am'antissiraus." Schlensner and Calovius say
the same. The reason of the sentence beiug thrown into this form is.

52

the difficulty of representing it in any other. Fust, love is an abstract
qualitv, and it is unusual to speak of a person being an abstract
quality. Secondly, the substantive verb, according to Chinese idiom,
is not sucb a manageable word as it is with us, owing to the circum
stance tbat all tbe words used for fhe personal verb are used as appro
priately for other things. The Chinese would prefer leaving out the
substantive verb altogether, as Gutzlaff has done. But he has added
the word benevolence to love. We thought, therefore, fhat the sim
plest and raost expressive mode of rendering it would be by the
double negative. Grotius has it, " Deus charitasest : i. e. plenus est
dilectione. Tale illud, ' Tu quantus quantus nil nisi sapientia es ?"
So also Calovius. Macknight says, " God is love, without any mix
ture of malevolence.'' Clarke says, " an infinite fountain of benevo.
lence and beneficence to every huraan being. He hates notking ikat
he has made. He cannot hate, because he is love:. This seems to
be the essence of the Divine nature : and all other attributes to be
onlv modifications of this.".
Dr. B then refers to our translation of 1 John 5 : 11,12, which he
says has affected hira raore than any other. He first objects to our
translating the word gave by mill give. Here we admit that the sign
ofthe future had better have been omitted : though Macknight para
phrases the passage "God will give to us who believe eternal life."
He then remarks on our translating " this life is in his Son," by " we
must rely on his Son to obtain it." Bloomfield, in his notes on the
New Testament, quotes Liicke, who says, "this eternal life is granted
to us in his Son, i. e. tkrougk belief 'm him." Macknight and Booth.
rovd translate " tkrough bis Son." Rosenmiiller has it, "and this
salvation is attained through his Son." Clarke says, " it comes by
and througkh'im." Hewlett says, "in his Son : rather by his Son,
or tkrougk the mediation of his Son." Grotius says, " In pro per,
et est pro contingit. Hoc vult, Deum nobis per Jesum aperuisse vi
am veniendi ad vitam aeternam, idque per eundem Jesum." So Me
nochius, " per fidem in FUium." Dr. B. asks, " Can any uninspired
men be trusted to alter God'a word in this way ?" All the translators
and interpreters of John's Epistles are uninspired men. In order to
translate properly, the sense of the inspired Apostle must be given in
the words ofthe language into which men are translating. The sense
of the Apostle's words could not be given to fhe Chinese by a literal
rendering ofthe word iw. Wedenv that we have altered the sense.
In the 12th verse. Dr. B cries out against our rendering," have the
Son" by " in heart have fellowship with the Son :" and asks, " Is
there no verb to kave in Chinese ? Should not St. John, in a pro
fessed translation of h's own Epistles, be allpvyed to speak his own
words ?" Bloomfield. in his Digest, quotes I?o,?enmiiller, who takes.
the worda " have the Son" in the sense of" e^teepjing the Spn as the
Son ;" referring to Matthew 14 : 5, which the authorized version haa
trnnshted " they counted him as a prophet." Was there no verb
io have in English, that our translators render eckei hy count ? Should.

.53
not Matthew, in a professed translation of his own Gospel, he allowed
to apeak his own words ? Hardv. Vorst, Piscator, Gomarus Meno
chius and Titinus, explain " amp|.-clitur per fidem affectuosam et
obedientem." But Bloomfield prefers (with Benson) to fake tbe have
for holdfast, not unlike ihe having in one's-self in the I Oth verse.
Hewlett says, " Tbis forra of expression is equivalent to the union of
faith, love, and obedience. It is to have a deep and lively impression
of the Saviour's merits written on our heart, a constant rverence for
his Divine word, and a sincere disposition to practise it." Macknight
translates, " He who acknowledgeth tbe Son.!' According to Guyse,
" having ike Son intimates being vitally united to, and so having a
special interest in. the Sqn oi God : not having tke l?on. means through
unbelief rejecting bim." Robinson says^"<o kave God and Cbrist,
means lo hold fast to them, i e. to acknowledge with love and devot
edness." We conceive that the formulae. " have fellowship with him,"
1 John 1 : 6, "dweUeth in God. and God in him ;" I John 4 : 16,
and tbis expression "halh the Son ;" 1 John 5: 12, all mean sub
stantially the sarae thing, aud bave therefore translated them alike.
Morrison and Marshman have translated literally, and, as there is no
article in Chinese, (nor is tbe mode of distinguishing by a capital letter
employed) it reads, " He that has a son, has life ;" which would be
understood of a raan's having a son born to him, and not of bis ac
knowledging tbe Son of God with love and obedience. In our autho
rized version the strict adherence to literalism has yielded an inade
quate sense in Phil. 3:9." not having raine own righteousness." So
in Rev. 2 : 24, 25. In 2 Tira. 1 : 13, our translators have very pro
perly translated haveh-y hold fast. So in 2 Peter 1 : 15, "have"
is rendered " able." In Heb. 6 : 9. it is rendered "accompany." In
short our translators have employed 36 methods of translating the
Greek word, echo, regarding many of which Dr. B. might as well
a^k, " Is there no verb to have in English ?"
Tn all the above criticisms brought forward by Dr. B. ke kas
cautiously abstained from suggesting , in a single instance, any
translation of his own ; notwiikstanding' we had called upon kim
(in page 37 of our Strictures) lo do so.
After fhis.long digression, regarding our mode of translating the
preposition en, in discussing whicb Dr. B. has occupied twelve pages,
we come again to the consideration of Ephes. 1 : 7, against our trans
lation of which be says, he formeriy took grave exception, saying, in
fact that something was raade of the Apostle's propositions which it
stiuck hira was not Gospel. We were not, however, able to divine
the meaning of his statement. Dr. B. now giyes us his objections in
detail ; and says, he thinks the exjception he took is fully sustained.
Ist, he obiects to our rendering "in whom" by "because of Jesus
Christ." 'We have already shown, on gpod authority, that the preposi
tion era is capable of being so rendered ; apd is so interpreted by critics.
In the present instance, Bloomfield says, "In wkom render through
whom." Vatablus has it, "per g[uem," We conceive that in the

.54-

pre~sent instance, "through his blood'' is connected with, and explana
tory of, " in whom ;" as if the Apostle bad said " through whora, i. e.
through his blood." Bloorafield so views it, for be says, "render
' through whom we possess (i. e. to wbom we owe) the redemption
(procured) by his blood'." We thought it would simplify tbe style, in
Chinese, to connect tbe two phrases together, and instead of "in wbom,
through his blood." to say "because .lesus Christ shed bis blood."
Redemption and tbe forgiveness of sins seemed in apposition, we
therefore put thera together : but of this Dr B. does not seeth to
complain. His prime objection, and that which he had in view when
he said, it struck bim itwas not Gospel, is2dly, that "wbat tbe Apostle
speaks of tbe manner of our justification ' according to the riches of his
grace,' the translators here make tbe instrument or means of our justi
fication." We have in eur Strictures quoted Robinson as giving to
kata, tbe meaning of, hy virtue of, through, by, &c. We have'
translated '' by tbe riches of his grace," "relying on his great favour."
His great f ivour or grace is the real cause of our gelling this redemp
tion : not our relying upon it. Tbe word rendered " rely'' is here
used in the sense of hy. If it be asked, whose favour is meant, we
refer tbe enquirer to tbe words of Macknight. " Here kis grace may
be eitber Christ's grace, who is tbe nearest antecedent, or God's gracej'
who is spoken of in vei-se 6, and whose grace is described in the pro
gress of the discourse, verses 8,-9, 10. I think the Apo'stle 'meant
God's grace, because in Scripture, and even by our Lord himself, our
redemption, together wilh all blessings which precede or follow it, are
said to bave originated in Gbd's grace or goodness." Thus it appears
that in the original, and in the English version, it does nol seem very
clear from the order ofthe Words, whose grace it was. The person to
whom reference is raade has to be gathered frora the context, and from
the general doctrine of Scripture. So in the Chinese : " tbe riches of
his grace" may refer to tbe nearest antecedent, Christ, or to the more
distant antecedent, God, "^fbe glory of whose grace" spdken of' in
the 6tb verste, is similariy expressed. Does Dr. B. complain tbat we'
have not made it more distinct than the original, or than the English'
yersion? What has he done, tben, with his canon, nothing '<i/<er,
nothing atfc? ? We have iiow looked caiefully at his Vindication,
as well as his Notes, and we must pronounce the charge, tbat "some
thing is made ofthe Apostle's propositions which is not Gospel," to
be unsubstantiated. Srdly, Dr. B. objects, that " what the Apostle
niakes the interraediate cause, instrument, or means 'through his
blood,' the translators make the procuring cause." We baVe men
tioned two causes of our redemption,' viz. the shedding of Christ's
blood, and the riches of bis (or God's) grace ; we have not 'said which'
was the intermediate, and which the procuring cause. Itis true. We
have put the one first, and the other last. But so has the Aposile.
Bloomfield says, tbe redemption is procured by Christ's blood, artd if
We had made it the procuring cause, we should not have differed much
frCm him. But we have left it as undeterrained as it was in the ori-

55
ginal, allowing the reader to find out which cause was first in pro-
ducing tbe effect i;eferred to. The whole of wbat Dr. B. has said un
tbis passage constitutes a species' of refineraent, according lo which
any writer raay be made out to be heretical.
Dr. B. says, that our translation of Romans 3 -. 24, is open to the
same strong animadversion : where, according to him, we have raade
the Apostle teach directly the reverse of his own doctrine on the sub
ject of our justification. , Dr. B. renders our translation of tbat verse
thus : " But Jesus Christ having made ar, atonement for sin, tbose
who rely upon his (Christ's) grace are without labour rendered rigbt-
eous-J' He has not, however, rendered our Chinese correctly. The
whole; paragraph must be considered together. In tbe 21st verse the
Apostle says, " Now God without the law justifies men, which doc
trine IS made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets:
that is, God accounts righteous those who believe in Jesus Christ, ge
nerally bestowing this favour on all who believe, without any distinc
tion whatever; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God ;
but since Jesus Christ has made an atonement for sin, we relying on
his (God's) favour (or by his grace) are, without any regard to our
own efforts,, accounted righteous." It wUl be perceived that we have
m-Ade kis favour to mean God's favour, which all our teachers, who
carefully read the passage approve of. One of thera thought that the
pronoun, Ais should be referred to the nearest antecedent Christ, but
on co.psido.ring the, vyhole passage, and perceiving that God was the
principal pgrsop spoken of, and thatit was God -viho justified us,
owned at once that he was wrong, and that the grace by which we
werej.ustified, was God's grace. , We had transposed the two clauses,
". by bis grace" and " through theredemption," for the sake of easy
rea,ding in Chinese, but it makes no difference as. to the sense ; the
Chinese still considering the grace to belongto God.* Dr. B. con
tends tbat we bave neither translated ad verbum nor ad sensum.
We deny the charge. Every word of the Apostle is expressed : fcr
just'ified there 'is '1^ ^g ch'hing e; for freely, there is ,^ jf)
puhlapu, and for by his grace, we bave ^S^ lae ke gnan.
Hodge says, this is (lone " ira a manner which, is entirely gratuitous."
We have sp represented it, , fir. B. qays, that dorean refers lo God,
to bis manner of justifying; we make il refer, be says, to the justified.
-This shews the impropriety of those selling up to criticize, who have
never had any experience iu, the work of translation. Had Dr. Boone
attended occasionally, or even corresponded with his. brelhren on the
subject of their trapslation, of ,thif word, he would have found it no
easy matter to represent it, either in the active or passive forra. The

¦* Should, Dr. B.- still contend that the view 'be bas represented is
the real ^ense in Chinese, we Can only say that it, is a matter in which
Chinese scholars disagree, and, we leave the reader to draw his ovvn
conclusion, as to which view is the correct one.

56
Chinese have no suitable word to represent this idea, in conformity
with the proprieties of the language ; hence we have been obliged to
translate it differently in alraost every passage in which it has occurred.
RobinsorLsays, it means freely, without requital : we have rendered
it, wilhout any regard to our own efforts, and conceive that we
have approached as near the sense of the Apostle, as the idiora of the
language vvould adrait.*
Dr. B. agaiu complains, that the phrase by his grace, has been
translated, me relying on his grace, thus niiaking grace the ground
of the sinner's reliance. To this we may reply, that we cannot al
ways retain the active or passive form of the verb in Chinese, hut we
are obliged, in Order to make the sentence readable, frequently to
change the one for the other ; the sense however is the saine: see Rev.
13: 16, and Acts 27: 27, in tbe original. The word rendered relying
• on, like a sirailar one in Eph. 1: 7. means in fact by ; and it matters
not whether we say, relyi-tig en his grace we obtain Justification,
oi-by the exercise of his grace we obtain justificatidti.
Dr. B. says, we have made the Apostle teach directly the reverse of
his own doctrine. Tbis is not true. 'I'he Apostle's doctrine is, "that
aU who obtiain justification, raust obtain it gratuitously and only by
virtue ofthe redemption that Christ has accomplished." Sluart. Had
we set forth that a sentence of acquittal and reward was possible di
the ground of law, we should have made the Apostle' teach the d'irect
reverse of his own doctrine. Bui this we have not done : and' we
defy the most captious objector to extract that doctrine from the words
we ha've employed'.
Dr. B. has here added a sentence to insinuate that we have made
the Apostle teach' the direct reverse of his ovvii dbilrine, which we
consider the most unfair and disingenuous of his whole Vindication.
" There are many in the west," he says, " who say ' that as Christ has
died for us, we do the best we can, and rely upon God's grace for the
rest.' " We have never heard such a sentiment as the one here attri
buted by Dr. B. to " many in the west." As we have heard it. the
statement assumes the following character. " We must do what we
can, and trust to God, or God's mercy for the rest:" without any
reference to Christ's' death. The persons we have heard expressing
themselves thus, do not think of Christ's grace instead of bis' blood,
but of wkat tkey can do, as the main ground of their reliance. We
have never heard of the sentiment, as Dr. B. has stated it, and it
strikes ua that it has been made to assurae the peculiar forni giVen in
the Vindication, in order to call attention to a resemblance between' the
phrase "God's grace" or "Christ's grace" in our versitm, andthe same
expression as said to be used by the people of the west.
* Barnes, in commenting on tbis word says, " This'word'stands
opposed to tbat which is purchased or obtflinei/ by labitur, or which
isa matter of claim. It is a free undeserved gift, not merited by our
obedience to the law, and not that to which we have any claim."

57
Dr. Bopne continues, " The object ofthe sinner's reliance, is the
atonement of Christ; and 1 here say again, ' it strikes me it is not
tbrospel,' to make ' Christ's grace' instead of his blood the object ofthe
P.nnei s reliance " When Dr. B. penned his Vindication," he knew
lull well that there was nothing in our translation of the Apostle's
words to correspond to the words ' we do tke best we can,' and rely
on God's grace ' for the rest.' Not only is there nothing to represent
them, but the very coutrary doctrine is slated in the version we have
given, viz. thatit is ' without any regard to our own efforts:' and we
can safely affirm, that a Chinese oould no more extract the idea of our
' doing the best we can' frotA onr \ersion, than a Greek could from
the words of the Aposile. Why then were they added ? or why was
this allusion to what ' many ih the west say' made ? but to insinuate
that we bad given a handle to many in the east to say the sarae ; with
the view of damaging our version in the eyes of the friends of evangeli
cal truth at home. The throwing out of such groundless insinuations,
vvith the object of bringing our work into suspicion, indicates a dispo
sition of mind which we should not have expected from a fellow-mis
sionary. But Dr. B. is not content with mere insinuations : he re
peats his former charge. " I say again, ' it strikes me it is not Gos
pel,' to make ' Christ's grace,' instead of his blood, the object of the
sinner's reliance." Where did Dr. B. get the words ' instead of his
hloodV Are they contained in our version, even according to his
own erroneous representation of it ? Does he not know that they are
purposely added by himself, and that without the slightest warrant
from the document before bim? And why were they added ? but to
serve as an excuse for his having made an extravagant charge, the im
propriety of which he did not like to confess.
Look at his own rendering of our translation of Rom. 3 : 24, "But
Cbrist Jesus having made an atonement for sin, those who rely upon his
grace, are without labour rendered righteous." Dpes that vvarrant
his saying that we raake Christ's grace instead of his blood, the object
of the sinner's reliance ? Does not the atonement stand forward as
the reason why we may seek justification through grace ?* Look again
at his rendering of Eph. 1: 7, upon which the charge was flrst grounded
of our making something of the Apostle's words that was not Gospel ;
" Moreover because Jesus Christ shed his blood, we through 'his great
grace obtain redemption, &c." Is this making Christ's grace, insieud
* While caUing attention to Dr. B.'s version of our words, we
cannot help asking, where is the unevangelical sentiment herein ex
pressed ? Even allowing that it meant Christ's grace and not God's,
what poor sinner could be misdirected here ? If this be not Gospel,
what is? Do any of our fellow-missionaries, or ministers at home,
preach any"bther doctrine than whal could be fully maintained from
these words ? By the utmost amount of refining and straining nothing
at all verging on incorrectness can be extracted from it ; and we are
quite sure that no Chinese would get any heretical notion from it.
H

58
of his blood, the object of the sinner's reliance ? Is not the shedding
of Christ's blood sel forth as the ^roMW^, on which we may rely?
How much better it would have been for Dr. B. to bave said, ' I
was wrong in raaking such a charge against these brethren ;' rather
than vainly endeavour to establish it, by adding words ito our transla
tion to make oiit the sense objected to ; which words he knew were
contradicted by the very tenor of the passage commented on.
Dr. B. then quotes our words (see Strictures, p. 30) that it was his
duly to have admonished his Co-delegates, and to have advertized the
Bible Societies, tbat we had made soraething of the Apostle's words
which was not Gospel. In the same paragraph we made our meaning
more plain by saying, tbat " if he discovered faults, it was his duty
to have.iaddressed the Committee, who had invited criticisras. and sug
gestions. Instead of this, he sent in his criticisras to the Bible Society,
without inforraing us of what he had done. In conduct like this, it
strikes us there is something not according to the practice inculcated
in the Gospel.'' We referred to Matt. 18: 15, 17. where tbe order
in which trespasses should be denounced is plainly set forth ; first ad
vertize the parties themselves ; if that prove unavailing, employ reraon
strance in tbe presence of friends ; and when these methods are unsuc
cessful, appeal to all whom it raay concern. Dr. B. has now found,
or thinks he has found,, an impropriety in our rendering of Rom. 3 :
24. not commented on before : he denounces it in no very measured
terras, sending forth his denunciations in a printed form, to the Bible
Societies and all the Protestant Missionaries, .a< the same time that
he makes tkem known io tke parties concerned ; and then calls
upon us to justify him, in ca.Uing our attention, at the same time with
that of other parties, to our translation of this verse. \^e answer,
that we do, not justify hira, and we say again, "in conduct like this,
it. strikes us there is something not according to the practice inculcated
in the Gospel."
Beraarkingon Eph. I: 9. Dr. B. says, that" according to his good
will which he hath established," is a very insufficient rendering of
" according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself."
The sense of the phrase en auto is disputed. The Vulgate has it in
ipso, viz. iu Christ; accordingly the Roraanist version has rendered
it ow a,0fiQunt,of him. Morrison has in this instance departed frora
Jji&.copy, and translated, " according to the good pleasure which he
himself established." This does not differ in meaning from the ren
dering we have chosen, while it reads awkwardly in Chinese. The
Batavian version and Gutzlaff have both omitted himself. Why did
not Dr. B. suggest some method of bringing in this word?
Dr. B. complains that in the 10th verse, the translation which we
have given, " when the appoir^ted time should arrive" is not a proper
translation ofthe phrase, " that in the dispensation of the fulness of
time." Doddridge says, " in the economy of the fulness of time, or
when that time was fully come, which he had judged most suitable."
Tindal renders it, " to have it declared vvhen the time was fully come."

59
We found Some difficulty in expressing the word dispensation in
Chinese. Robinson calls it " a disposition or arrangement of things :"
used with reference to time, it must mean tke time previously arrang
ed or determined on. The Romanist version, Morrison, and Marsh
man all have it "in the fulfiUing ofthe time previously arranged:" the
Chinese would express these words by one word ke, a fixed period, an
appointed time, that which ought or raust be : this we have employed,
adAin^ the -^ord arrive, or fully come ; and conceive that we have
expressed tbe sense ofthe passage in idiomatic Chinese. Dr. B. says,
that the Batavian version has got a better rendering of the phrase
" dispensation." That version has it " when the time came that the
period was fulfilled, according to the decree of Heaven." Had we
employed such a suppleraent as fibis, we are quite sure that Dr. B.
would have been the first tu cry out against it, as favouring the Chi
nese notions of fate, and sanct'oning their practice of ascribing «very
thing to the will of Heaven, instead of tbe decrees of God. And how
inconsistent this is wilh his canon, ' nothing alter, nothing add,' we
need scarcely remark.
Dr. B. says, that the latter part of this verse, especially, is rauch,
better done in the Batavian version. In tbat version, the one Greek
word anakephalaio, is expressed by "universally bind together, unite
in one, and cause to revert to." Eight words for one ! Even Gutz
laff's, which Dr. B. quotes, has the two first clauses a.bove raentioned.
Any one of the three would be sufficient to express the idea of the
Apostle, and yet Dr. B. approves ofthe eraployment of all, perfeclly
oblivious of bis canon, ' nothing add.' The authors of the Romanist
version h-.ve employed a term which signifies to rectify, to assist :
and translate tbe Greek word by " rectified all things to revert to."
Morrison has followed them, simply adding the word "one" after
"revert to." No Chinese can understand either translation. 'After
a comparison of the' whole, we stUl think that our rendering, "take
and cause completely to revert to," coraes nearest the sense of the
Greek word.
Dr. B. animadverts on a remark of ours, that "all the significant
words ofthe Apostle, that contribute anything to the sense of the
passage have been faithfuUy translated :" and, without enquiring
whether or not they have, he proceeds to condemn the principle of
translating only' tbose words of an author, which contribute anything
to the sense. We need here only refer to the original resolutions
passed at Hongliong, that the translation was to be in exact confor
mity to the originals ira sense .• of course, this went on the presump
tion that the translators were to ascertain the sense, according to the
best of their ability. In so doing, it became their province lo ascer-_
tain what words did, and what did not, contribute to tbat sense. If
this be dangerous ground for translators to go upon, it is ground upon
which they were placed by the unanimous vole of their fellow mission-
aries, and by the sanction of the Bible Society. It cannot be pretend
ed that every single word contributes to the sense of a passage, or

60
that every word, necessary in one language to express the sense, is
equally so in another. JBut lei us see whether or not we have ex-
pressed all the significant words. We considered that " the dispensa
tion of tiraes" raight be expressed in one word, and have therefore
employed only one. Fulness is expressed ; so is gather together in
one ; so is all tkingt ; so is in Christ ; so is iw heaven and earth.
If it be said, that there are several little words in the Greek which
we have not noticed ; we reply, that this is the case also with the au
thorized English version, which has omitted one fifth of the Greek
words in this very verse. The sarae raay be said of every other trans
lation. But Dr. B. should have furnished us with his translation,
expressing all the words of the Apostle, whether significant or insig
nificant, and still making the whole intelligible to the Chinese.
To our translation of the 1 1th and 12tb verses Dr. B. objects, he-
cause in whom is rendered ow account of whom. Bloomfield has,
by and through; Robinson, througk; Macknight, by; Grotius,
per ipsum ; Romanist version, ow account of ; Morrison, the same;
Marshman, the same ; Batavian version, depending on ; Gutzlaff,
by. Dr. B. further objects, that we have said, predestinated io ob
tain an inkeritance, when the Apostle has said, we have obtained
an inheritance. The A\>oBt\e has said, we having been predestina
ted have obtained an inheritance ; whieh agrees pretty nearly with
what we have said. But Dr. Boone says, "it is disputed whether the
predestination here is to the adoption of children, ver. 4, or to tbe
inheritance directly ; and that it would have been raore proper in us
to have left it in the same undecided state in which it is left in the
EngHsh version." Whatever the inheritance be, it is not specified
in our version ; it raay as well refer to the adoption of children, ver.
4, as to " the favour of being to tbe praise of his glory, for having
first trusted in Christ ;" see Barnes : or to the inheritance of the "pro
mises made to Abraham," according to Macknight and Boothroyd.
Dr. B. complains that we have omitted " according to the purpose"
after "predestinated," and " counsel" before "will," on the ground
of their being pleonastic ; and asks, " who say so ?" We reply. Koppe
says So : and Bloomfield says, " the Commentators say so." He him.
self, in his Digest, scruples about going the whole length with them,
saying, " it is a sort of pleonasm, which is meant to be strongly
energetic." But we may be allowed sometimes to differ from Bloom
field : Dr. B. does (see Vindication, page 54). He asks again, who
sayg, " that a translator has a right to reject anv wordr of his author
he pleases, whenever it pleases him tp style them pleonastic ?" &c.
Whenever translators think they have good reason for considering a
word pleonastic, or conceive that they Cannot make the sense stronger,
in the language into which they are translating, by employing every
reduplicated expression, it is their practice to orait what they deem
redundant, and no one flnds fault with thera. Thus in Jaraes 3 : 4.
we have in the Greek, " Wherever the orme, impetus or impulse, of
the governor wUleth." Doddridge says, " I know not how weU to

61
express the force of tbe Greek word here employed, which admirably
represents the irripetuosity with wliich in a storm a man at tbe helm,
on a critical occasion, turns his hand." Our English translators,
however, have deemed it sufficient to say, " whithersoever
the governor listeth:" and yet we have never heard any one find
fault'with them for so doing. To condemn the authorized version
on this account), would be like cutting down a beam, in order to re
move a cobweb. Dr. B. says, that the phrase we have employed in
Eph. I: n. is not particularly strong. This we deny. The first of
the two words used to express predeslinafed according to his pur
pose, means all arranged and prepared for whatever may occur,
previatisly arranged, to deliberate about. The second raeans to
fix, settle, deeide. If Dr. Boone still thinks that " according to his
purpose determined beforehand," may be expressed idiomatically in
Chinese, why did he not attempt to express it ? None of the versions
hitherto made exhibit the sense more emphatically and exactly, than
the short but expressive phrase we have chosen. In summing up his
list of liberties, which we bave already commented on. Dr. B. men
tions another, which he had not adverted to before, viz. our supplyr
i.ng the word inheritance after predestinated. In tbis we dp not
know whether he means to object to our supplying the word inheri
tance, or to our placing it after predestinated. If the first, we can
only say, it is supplied in the English version, which he recommends
us to follow; if the latter, we have tbe Greek on our side, in which the
participle "being predestinated," in construction, goes before theverb
have obtained, &c.
On the 12th verse, Dr. B. remarks, that what the Apostle writes
passively, we have made active ; instead of saying, "that we should
be to the praise of his glory," we have said " causing us to praise
him." The Romanist version, Morrison, and Marshman have aU
done the same. There are two views given by commentators : the
first, that we should afford material for the Divine praise and glorifica
tion : the second, that we should glorify bim with our hearts, tongues,
and holy lives. Barnes says, " that we should be the occasion, or the
means of celebrating his glory, or that praise should be ascribed to him
as the result of our salvation." Macknight has il, " that we should
occasion praise to God." Bloomfield says, that " the P^'^e f his
glory " is a Hebraism, for " to his praise and glory.' Dr. B. thinks
that the two words praise and glory should be expressed We con
ceive that in this verse, they mean veiy neariy the same thing. Ite
Greek word representing the first, is admitted by .iU to mean, applause
commendation, praise; and the very flrst meaning given by Robinson
to the second is praise, applause, &c. „„,.,.,. .„„
Against our rendering of the I3tii verse, Dr. B. objects, that we
have omitted the word " also " in the ph>'a;e " >« >vhom ye also
trusted :" and in the phrase "in whora also, after t'.iat y^ Jf>"c"?nese
were sealed." Dr. B. has not told us m what part of the Chmese
Tentence he would introduce the aho. If introduced as it is m Eng-

62
lish, it would convey the idea of the ' persons addressed having aVso
'trusted, as well as done something else; and believing in h'lm also, as
well as in some one else.' We know of no way in wbich these parti-'
cies could be introduced in Chinese, without a circumlocution.' It is
a pity that Dr. B. did not throw some light on this matter.
Dr. B. says, that the vvdids "after tbat ye believed "'are omitted in
our translation : biit he has himself in translating our version in his
" Notes," written down the words " believed in Christ ;" he there
fore checked himself, saying, " if it is maintained that these words are
translated, then the words ' in whom ye also trusted ' are omitted."
But frora whence did Dr. B. get the word trusted ? "Risum teneatis
araici I" from tbe English version, where it is supplied: the Greek
has nothing for it. Macknight supplies inherited ike promises, from
ver. 1 1 , with fully as rauch authority. But Bloomfleld says, " both
these subauditions are too violent, and break up the whole construc
tion." He says, " it is belter to suppose a parenikesis, and then a
resumption, after the Apostle's usual manner." Dr. B. may perhaps
urge, that this should have been imitated : but is be aware of the diffi
culty of imitating such a style in Chinese ? If be thinks it easy, wby
has he not atterapted it? adhering strictly, however, tO' his canon,
" nothing alter, nothing add, nothing take away :" remembering at
tbe same tirae that this is thevery verse, our translation ofwhich, he has
occupied three pages of his Vindication in showing to be obscure.
On the 18tb verse. Dr. B. complains that we have rendered " kis
inheritance iw the saints," by " tbe inheritance of tbe saints." We
have already given, in our Strictures, the reason for this rendering,
and quoted Bloomfleld and Whitby as authorities. Bloorafield says,
further thai the clause is exegetical ofthe preceding. That is, " the
¦ hope of his calling," is explained by "the inheritance of the saints."
The " inheritance " is said to be ours, in the 14lh verse : and its being
said to be his here, must be in the sense of his procuring, and bestow
ing it on us. Viner says, page 1 16, " in the saints," means " in their
possession." Dr. B. says, " as St. Paul wrote the word kis in Greek,
it is nothing more than is due to bim to express it in Chinese ; and if
it is necessary, explain it lo them, tbat his inheritance means the
inheritance of the saiwis, and not that of Chrisi." We should dis
sent from such an arrangement ; our business is to translate according
to the sense. -In the charge of the pronoun, we have the authority of
the English version on our side. In Matt. 23 : 37, the Evangelist
wrote tbe word her in Greek ; our translators, however, did not think
ildueto St. Matthew to express that pronoun in English, but wrote <Aee,
simply because they thought that was the meaning. In 2 Cor. 10 : 10,
our translators have put " they say," for " one says ;" ofi'ending both a-
gainst gramraar and context. So in Luke 2 : 22, they have changed
"their purification" into " ^er purification :" notwithstanding the
common reading has it " their," and the change to " her,'' is justly
suspected to be an improper correction, proceeding from the superstition
of those who were scandalized at the idea of impurity being imputed
to Jesus.

03
Remarking bn the 19th and 20lh verses, .Dr. B* coraplains that we
have omitted us hefore believers, as if the greater nuraber did not
include-the lesser, and as if the Apostle designed tolay any particular
stress on us who believe, in contradistinction from you or others ,•
when be had, in the preceding verse, spoken of those who obtain the
inheritance, as the saints generally : and in the beginning of the next
chapter, which carries out the sarae idea, he. speaks of " you." Tbe
change of the pronoun is evidently not to be pressed, the sarae persons
being intended, whether us or you be employed. Bloomfield says, by
us who believe, "is raeant, us and all Christians. V Dr. B. nextcom-
plains that we have rendered, " that ye raay knojv mhat is tbe ex
ceeding greatness .of his power," by "that ye raay know ihat the
Lord-possesses a power insurpassably great." Bloomfield says, " here
ti (what):, bas not the sense oi posonChoro great, horv muck), since
the words following are exp^'essive of greatness and povver." Dr. B.
further objects that " according to the working of his power, which
he wrought- in Christ, when he raised him frora the dead," has been
rendered, " raoreover /jowi by his great power he raised Christ frora
the dead;'' making this a continuance of his prayer, that the Ephesians
might know this, &c. Il should be borne in mind, however, that there
is nothing for how in our Chinese version, and tbat it might be read
as the commenceraent of another paragraph, " moreover be, by his great
power, raised," &o. As however the word " moreover " is likely to
lead -to the supposition, that the Apostle prayed that they rnight know
this additional fact, we think it would be better to say " formerly,
he by his great power raised Christ," &c.
On the 20tb & 2 1st verses, (rendered by Dr. B. thus: "Of all tbose
having might, power, dominion, and name, whether of tbe present time
or hereafter, none can excel hira. He halh subdued all things under
the feet of Christ,-and caused hira to be the head of all things to profit
his Church ;") he remarked in his Notes, that his teachers had under
stood the word kim, in the clause " none, can excel him," of Shang-le,
not of Christ. We said in our Strictures, " they must have been a
strange class of teachers so to understand it." Dr. B. in his Vindica
tion enters into an explanation of the way in which they carae to this
idea. First, he says, " there is a full stop al the end of the 20lb verse,"
wbich we admit is a typographical error : it should have been a mere
comma. Secondly, he says " there is nothiijg to indicate tbat the 2 1st
verse has any connection with the.20tb," and that " habe subdued, in
the 22d verse, has no nominative expressed." This very circumstance
should have led his teachers to see, tbat there was a connection be
tween the 20fh and 21st verses, even down to the 22nd verse. The
nominative to "hath subdued" in the 22nd verse is admitted by Dr.
B. to be Shang-te, so. is alsp the nominative to " raised Christ" in the
20th verse'i. The nominatives to both verbs being the sarae, shows
that these two verses are intimately connected together, and that the
clause in the 2lst. verse is in regimen, connected with Cbrist in the
20th verse. Dr. B. quotes a rule laid down by ourselves in discus-

64
sing ver. 5, that " in no language under the sun could the subject he
considered as changed in an intermediate clause, unless some inti
mation thereof were given." This rule, however, instead of sustain
ing Dr. B.'s observations raakes directly against him. The subject of
theverb throughout the three verses is not changed, and in the interme^
diate verse, the subject of the verbis not introduced, because the whole
clause is in regimen; our version reads as follows : 20, " Moreover he
by his great power raised Christ from the dead, to sit at his own right
hand in heaven ; 2 1 , aU those having power, and raight, and domi
nion, and narae^ whether in this world or in that which is to come, all
being incapable of excelling him ; 22, and hath subdued all things
under the feet of Christ, making him to be the head over all things
for the benefit of his ChurehJ" Dr. B. asks, hovv is a reader, except
by guessing, to disco-ver that the clause in the 21st verse is not a des
cription of Shang-te's power ? We reply, on the plainest principles
of graramar, common to all languages, according to which a pronoun
agrees with the nearest noun : that noun is Christ Who is raised from
the dead ; Christ is therefore, the object not the subject of the verb,
and the clause which follows, is evidently a description of Christ's
greatness : after which the subject is resuraed, and God is said to
have subdued all things under tbe feet of Christ. This is undoubted
ly the way to construe the whole, and we repeat, that " they raust be
a strange class of teachers" to construe it otherwise. As Dr. B.^s tea
chers have misconstrued the sentence, as rendered by us, it is a pity he
did not make tbe sense plain to them, and get them to translate it in a
way that would be unmistakeable : had he done -this, and succeeded
better than we have done, sticking to his rule, however, " nothing al
ter, nothing add," he would have rendered some service to fhe cause.
Dr. B. argues the obscurity of our version from the circumstance of
his teachers not understanding who the pbrson was that was referred
to. If he will turn to the Greek, however, he will flnd an omission
there. Some verb seeras wanting in the 21st verse, which Koppe
would supply by " that he migkt reign," while Bloomfleld thinks that
" to be " would suffice.
Dr. B 's prime objection seeras to be to the last verse of this chap
ter, in which he objects to the word compared being supplied. 'We
have already referred to Robinson, who says that the substantive verb
may be rendered lo be accounted, io be like, or in place of, to sig
nify, &c. on the soundness of which canon of interpretation depend
ed, we said, the great controversy between Protestants and Roman
ists. Dr. B. on reading this turned to our rendering of Matt. 26: 26.
and found tbat we had there inserted the substantive verb ; he there
fore asks, if we would not ventuie to apply the rule in this place,
where it was most needed, of what worth can it be to a translator ?
To this we reply, that the rule is not needed in Matt. 26 : 26. by a
translator. The translator flnds, in rendering the verse in question
into Chinese, that there is little danger of mistake to any who have not
been previously misled. Every unprejudiced Chinese would see that

65
the words, Tkis is my body, are to be understood flguratively Those
to whora we bave shown it say, it cannot raean that the bread which
was in the Saviour's hand was his body, because then he would have
had two bodies, the one held and eaten by tbe uther We aUow that the
rule referred to is needed by controversialists ; and that wben applied
to this verse, it tends to settle the controversy. But had we so ren
dered it, we are sure that Dr. B would have been the flrst to find
fault with us. This is tbe great coraplaint that Campbell has against
Beza, who, being a violent party raan, constantly endeavoured so to
render tbe assertions of the sacred writers, as to shut the mouths of
Romanists, or to favour the views of Calvinists Campbell has also
noticed instances in which Arminians have used the same weapon
against the Calvinists, a conduct alike unjustifiable in both. In the
first clause of Eph. 1 : 23, the case is different. There is no contro
versy about if araongst tbe different sects of Christians, and there is a
danger of misconception if the substantive verb is used. But Dr. B.
says, in this case in Ephesians, " there is something raore meant than
these cold and wordy paraphrases bring out." The supplying ofthe
word "as," which is the real meaning ofthe Chinese word, can hardly
be called a mordy paraphrase, and we cannot see how it makes the
phrase colder. "There are many good Christians," he adds, "who
believe that this is no erapty figure : but that the Church is the rea^, not
natural, but mystical body of Christ." Whal a jumble we have here !
He admits that the Churcb is "not the natural" body of Christ, produced
by the laws of growth, forraation, or motion. But, he says, it is the
"real body" of Christ. The Romanists speak ofthe real presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, or the conversion of
the substance of the bread and wine into the real body ai.-d blood of
Christ " Does Dr. B. mean, that the Church is the real body of our
Lord in this sense? No, he says, "it is the jwysiica/ body of Christ."*
But mystical is directly opposed to real. If ithe only the body mys
tically, it cannot be so really, because mystical, in such a connection,
means allegorical, emblematical ; and if it be allegorical, we are right
in supplying the word as. In translating 1 Peter 2 : 4. our English
translators have supplied, "as mw<o a living stone." What right had
they to do that? There may be " many good Christians who believe
that this is no empty flgure :" but that Christ is really a living stone.
He is certainly as much a living stone, according to the Apostle, as he
is " chosen of God and precious;" and yet our translators have given
us, instead ofthe simple words of Saint Peter, " tbis cold and wordy
paraphrase." The same may be said of Rom. 8:18, where tbe words
" are lo be compared'' are supplied. We may quote also Rom. 6:
13, " as instruments." Likewise Jerem. 46: 20. " Egypt is like a
very fair heifer." Our translators, in Isaiah 66 : 3. have supplied as if
* If the words real and mystical raean the same thing, the contro
versy between the Romanists and Protestants, with regard to the body
of Christ in the sacrament, is at an end.

66
four times in one verse; and in Lamentations 3:10. twice in one verse.
See also Jeieraiah 9: 3. " Bend their tongue like their bows. 8. Their
tongue is as an arrow shot out." Jereralah 26 : 18. " Zion shall be
ploughed tike a field." Isaiah 47 : 3. " I will not raeet thee as a man."
And in Isaiah 10: 15. our translators have supplied a nuraber of words:
"as if the staff should lift up itself, as ifit were no wood." So in John
8 : 6. they have supplied a whole sentence, " as though he heard them
not." Surely when our authorized translators have taken such liber
ties as these, we ought not to be found fault with for doing the sarae,
when translating the Scriptures into so difficult and dissimilar a lan
guage as the Chinese.
Regarding the latter clause of Ephes. 1:23. Dr. B. complains that
we have changed the subject, saying, thai the subject ofthe sentence,
according to the Apostle, is the Church, according to us, Christ,
I'n doing this, however, we bave done no raore than other translators.
See Acts 27 : 27. and 21:3. Here the Church is said to be h'ls ful
ness ; whose fulness ? " The fulness of hira that filleth all in all."
In (/hinese, the last part of a proppsifion generally comes first. We
thought it necessaiy, in order to convey a clear idea to the, native rea
der, to tell them flrst, who it is that 'fllleth all in all ;" and then lo tell
them that the Church is the fulness of that person : the form in which
this latter part ofthe sentence is expressed, (" takes the Church to be
tbe completion of himself,") is that into which an idiomatic translator
in Chinese would throw it. The idea is the sarae, whether we say,
"jthe Church is Christ's fulness," or " Cbrist has the Church for his
fulness ;" while the latter forra of expression would be the more idio
matic of the two. Dr. B. asks, " can such a rendering be called a
translation ?" We say it is the translation in idiomatic Chinese. If
Dr. Boone thinks otherwise, let him try and put the sentence into
what he conceives to be idiomatic Chinese ; taking care to make the
subjects and predicates the same as those of the Apostle : minding his
own canon also, " nothing alter, nothing add, nothing take away,'' and
seeing to it thaf he does not make it so obscure, that " teachers who
are men of much more education than nine tenths of the men into
whose hands the 'yersion may fall" will fail to understand it.
Dr. B.'s next complaint is that "/fllleth " is rendered by " giveth."
The word in the original means to " furnish abundantly with anything,
to impart richly, to imbue with :" the Chinese word employed means
"to add to, to superadd, to increase." We think that the one ade
quately represents the other. He then flnds fault with " all things "
being rendered "grace." We have already quoted Bloomfleld, who
says, that '¦ all things " means " peculiar spiritual gifts and graces."
So Macknight. In his Digest, Bloomfleld says, " all blessings."
Doddridge, " all kinds of good things." The Chinese word implies,
" benefits, kindnesses, favours," and is sufficiently expressive of the
idea. We have translated " fllleth all in all," by ^' richly supplying
all men with beneflts ;" and have referred to Bloomfleld as our au
thority, who says, " filleth all his members each with their peculiar

67
spiritual gifts and graces." But Dr. B. says, " men of equal learning
and consideration with Bloomfield regard these words differently." A-
mong these men of equal consideration, he quotes Barnes, who takes
enpasi to mean "in all," and says, that "the passage teaches us
Christ's universal agency and omnipresence." We have every respect
for Barjies, but do not consider him equal to Bloomfield on the New
Testament. Further we think that Barnes in this case is wrong, and
Bloomfield is right There are others who think witb Bloorafield.
Macknight says, " filleth all with all." Boothroyd, " filleth all wilh
all Ihey possess." Hewlett, " fllleth all with all." Edwards says, "Christ
supplies all creatures in heaven and earth with all good." Vorstius
says, " Sensus est Christus orania ecclesiae raembra suis donis implere."
Dr. Pye Smith has it, " Hira who filleth all things withall blessings,"
or " in all pereons." Thus signifying that it is Christ who supplies
all the necessities of those who trust in him. Dr. B. asks, " how we
can shovv that Bloomfield has a better right to have his opinions
published and circulated in Chinese Bibles under St. Paul's name,
than other learned Commentators have ? Would he advise any
translator to put his opinion into the text ?" To this we reply, we
have been chosen as Delegates and final judges for the translation of
the Scriptures into Chinese : we are to translate, according to the
sense : and of course, we roust endeavour to ascertain the sense. In
ordicr to this, we are to avail ourselves ofthe best helps we can obtain,
and when we have consulted all within out reach, we must make up
our minds as to what we consider the real meaning of the original,
and the most appropriate rendering. If two Commentators, such as
Bloomfield and Barnes, happen to be opposed to each other, we must
take that which we deem right. Dr. B. would, if possible, have no
thing subjected to the judgment ofthe translator, but have every thing
determined by mechanical rules. We differ from him, and we fall
back upon our commission. Those who gave us that commission,
conferred upon us those powers.
Dr. B. says, that his teachers understood the phrase, " aU men "
of " aU mankind." There are two views taken of it by Commentators :
one class think it means, " who filleth all with aU blessings," and re
fer it to the universal disfribufiun of favours to all mankind. Another
class would confine the meaning to the Church just mentionedj and
say it means " filleth all his merabers with all their spiritual gifts and
graces." The Chinese version is capable of being read either way,
and therefore has the same latitude of raeaning.
Dr. B. adraits that the phrase " Christ completes himself with the
church," may as a gloss be a correct view of the Apostle's meaning ;
but as this can never be certainly shewn, it is a case calling for an ad
verbum translation, according to the rule (§ 195) in Ernesti. Dr.
Boone does nqt venture to say, that it is nol a correct view of the
.Apostle's meaning; the authorities we have given, viz. Macknight,
Theophylact, Scott, Henry, Guyse, Boothroyd, and Parkhurst are too
numerous and too weighty for bim to'' attempt to controvert. To

68
these we mav add, Chrysostom, Anselm. Calvin, A. Clarke, Titinus,
Menochius, Zanchius, and Beza; the latter of whom says, " Christus
se velut mancum et mutilura putat nisi ecclesiam sibi habet adjunc-
tam." Jonathan Edwards says. " Chrisi was pleased not to look on
hiraself as complete, but as wanting something, as the first Adam Was
not complete befure tbe creation of Eve." To whom we add the opi
nion of one whom Dr. Boone calls a " man of equal learning and con
sideration with Bloomfield," who says, " It seems probable that the
sense is, that tbe Churcb is the completion or filling up of his power
and glory. It is that without which his dominion would not be com
plete. This, says Calvin ^iw loco), is the highest honour of the
Church, that the Son of God regards himself as in a certain sense
imperfect unless he is joined to us. The Churoh constitutes the
complete body ofthe Redeemer ; a body is coraplete wben it has all
its members and lirabs in proper proportions ; and those members
might be said to be the completion or filling up, or the fulness
of the body or person. Tbis language would not, indeed, be such
as would usually be adopted to express the idea now ; but this
is evidently tke sense in whicb Paul uses it here. Chandler gives
an interpretation in accordance with that which I have suggested,
as meaning that the Cburch is the full 'complement' of the body of
Christ, and refers to .(Elian and Dionysius Halicarnassus, who used
the word 'fulness' as referring to the rowers ofa ship. Thus also we
say, that the ship's ciew is its 'complement,' or that a ship or an army
has its complement of men. In like manner the churcb is the com
plement of the great kingdom ofthe Redeemer ; that which will give
completion or perfectness to his universal dominion." Barnes.
Dr. B. says, that this is a case calling for tbe application of Ernes-
ti's rule. 'This we deny. Ernesti says, " a fourth case of such neces
sity occurs in obscure passages, where we can scarcely affix a sense."
Ammon explains this of " passages that are utterly obscure and inex
plicable." The passage under consideration is not of this character.
Barnes says, the sense we have given is evidently the sewsehere. The
other interpretations offered do not possess an equal appearance of
probability. We are not necessitated, therefore, to give an ad verbum
translation. Of all the ahove criticisms, araounting to 70, in which Dr. B. says,
that unwarrantable liberties have been taken, we have only met with
six that are worthy of any attention, which we scruple not to take,
though offered in such an ungracious raanner. We have some ap
preciation, from long experience in the work of translation, of what is
necessary to present an idea clearly to the minds ofthe Chinese. It is
evident that Dr. B. has not that just appreciation. Had he met with
us in Comraittee, or even inspected our work at horae, we have no
doubt tbat he would have furnished us with some valuable suggestions.
But in silting down to criticise and conderan, after the work is done,
witbout knowing anything of the difficulties of the translators, he has
begun at the wrong end, and shewn that as a critic he has mistaken his
vocation.

69
Dr. B. cannot close his Vindication of his own Comments "on Ephes.
witbout adverting to Mr. Culbertaoji's critique on the version of Gen
esis prepared by the Committee of Delegates on the Old Testament.
He has quoted part of a sentence which we wrote with reference lo a
reraark of Mr. C but not the whole. T-o give the sense of an author,
we said was "the raain object of every translator ;" to which we added]
" to give the words, independent of idiom, would frequently be at the
expense ofthe sense." Tbis observation is in full accordance with the
views of Dr. Campbell, who is acknowledged to be the best authority
on the principles of translation, and its justness is so apparent tbat,
but for the evidence we ha.ve in the case before us, we could never for
a moment have iraagined that any one in the present day could ques
tion it.
¦To return to Mr. Culbertson, be bad objected that the clause, "and
the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto hira," is com
pressed into three words, ',' the Hittites said." On which we reraark
ed, " we cannot help regarding this as mere trifling." This reraark.
Dr. B. says, " it raakes one sad to read.'' We of course raeant cora
paratively speaking. There are sorae things of prime iraportance in
translation, viz. tbose which affect the sense of an author, and those
which touch on vital doctrines. There are also degrees of importance
in regard to fhe language^nto which the translation is made : some
sentences involving glaring outrages of idiom, and others being equal
ly clear and appropriate when expressed in a variety of ways. We
do not deem the observation of Mr. Culbertson important on tbe
grounds first mentioned ; and as it regards Chinese idiora, we conceive
it to be one wbich only a tyro would make. Mr. C. in his Notes
brought forward his charges in the most serious style ; saying, '"the
cause of truth, and the best interests of the work of Bible translation
in China, deraanded that these statements should be raade : and it
would be for the Bible Societies to say whether they would print, and
for the Missionaries to say whether they would distribute, a version
made on such principles." He .denominated the section, we are com
menting on, " instances in which some word or words of the original
are unjustiflably omitted." O f course we expected to discover, after
such a preamble and conclusion, that some translations affecting vital
doctrines, and not to be justifled by the requirements of any language,
had been made ; but when, on inspection, we found thai one ofthe
counts of the indictment was thaf the word "children" had been transr
lated " men," and " answered" had been omitted, wilhout the slightest
injury having been done to the sense, we called ibis trifling : and we
repeat that, comparatively speaking, it appears to us still to border on
trifling. But the real qu«stion is, are these oraissions unjustifiable ?
We deem not. First, " the children of Heth" has been rendered " the
men of Heth," or ttje Hittites. Gesenius says, " Ben, with a genitive
of place, denotes a native of that place, one born and brought.up there ;
i.e. Sonsof Zion, Zionites; Sons of Babylon, Babylonians ; Sons ofthe
East, Arabians." Our translators have frequently adopted this raode

71 »

of rendering. See fbe 23d of Ezekiel, where tbis forra occurs seven
times ; and Isai-ah 11 : 14. Will Dr. B. or Mr, C. undertake to trans
late .vora literally in Job. 5: 7, and 16: 21. Psalms 12 : 8. 49 : 2,102:
20 Prov. 31 : 5, 8. and Eccl. 2:7? To this plea, tbat the rule can
not be invariably followed, we add another, tbat it makes -unidiomalic
Chinese. The Semitic nations, and those viho derive their saered
writings from Palestine, are farailiar witli the phrase, " the chUdren of
Israel." but in Chinese, the son of a place, or a country is inad
missible. The son of a man, (naming hira) is the. son of that identical
raan. and not his descendant. In lovv familiar language the phrase
¦f^-J-' Han tsze. a son of (the dynasty) Han, is employed, but it is
never found in sober writing. Secondly, as to the word answered, both
in Hebrew and Greek, itis well known that it frequently means td be
gin to speak, and sometimes it is employed where a question is a&ked :
when used in the formula " answered and said," it raerely raeans
" said." In Chinese dialogue, the word answer is supposed lo be
included in the word said, and we have raet with instances in their
books of the word said, being the only term employed through a
wbqle colloquy, whether questions or answers be intended. They
have the formula, 5gJ 0 fuy yne, ke replied saying, but that is
only eraployed when an inferior addresses a superior in point of rank.-
They have tbe phrase -^ [di la yne,, but it is only used ir. novels,
and is not adraitted into works making any pretensions to classical
purify or propriety.
Dr. B. again undertakes the cause of Mr. Culbertson, witb respect
to the translation of Gen. 7 : 15. 16. Mr. C. objected that the first
half of ver. 16. " and they that went in, went in of all flesh," was drop
ped as useless. To this we replied, that " tbe two verses had been put
together, and the meaning of the two fully expressed, witbout the omis-
sion of a single idea; this was done lo avoid the repetition of meiely sy
nonymous words, which, in Chinese, only burthen the sentence, and
obscure the sense." Without taking any notice of this. Dr. B. says,
" They insert in ver. 15, words which MoSes has not used, and make
these inserted words of their oww, the plea for leaving out, in verse
16, Moses' OVVN -WORDS AS USELESS." This goes on fhe primiple,
that the division of verses is to be ascribed to Moses. We believe no
Such thing. The larger sections, ov paras ckioik, raa^ny ofthe Jews
suppose to have been appointed by Moses. These were divided into
pesukim, or verses, which have been ascribed to Ezra ; or if not con
trived by him they were introduced shortly after his death. The chap
ters and verses, as we now have them, are comparatively a modern
invention, as they were utterly unknown to the ancient Christians.
The real author was Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, who flourished
about the middle ofthe I3lb century. Tbe facility of reference thus
afforded having become known to Rabbi Mordecai Nathan, he under
took a similar arrangement for the Hebrew Scriptures, and referred to
the Masoretic verses hy Hebrew numerals. His Concordance was-

71
finished in 1450. (See Horne.-) In putting two verses together,, and
numbering them vvith a double number, we are not offending against
any arrangement of the Je\<tsli lawgiver. 'We have done so with the
two verses under consideration, and have numbered the corabination
verses 15-16 ; so thai what belongs to the one is made also tu belnng
to the other. Dr. B. in saying that we have inserted in ver. 1 5, the
words male and female, '¦ which words Moses has not used," has
departed from the trulh. Moses has used them, and used thera in tbis
connection, with reference to this subject; and we have nol inser
ted fhem in verse 15, but in the double verse, marked 15-16. His
further assertion, thai we have " loft out, in ver l6. Muses' own words
as useless,'' is also nol according to truth ; for we have inserted them
in the double verse, marked 15-16. The real reason for corabining
the two verses in one, and for avoiding therepelitiun of merely syno
nymous words, is thai in Chinese they pnly burthen the sentence and
obscure the sense. Had Dr. B. shownbovv the repetition could have
been introduced without involving obscurity, (instead of carping about
the division ofthe verses, which is not considered a matter of inspira
tion,) he would have rendered some service; but this be, as usual,
cautiously avoids.
Dr. B. closes his defence of Mr. C by referring to bis coraplaint,
that the words of Joseph, Gen. 5 b 19. " Ara 1 in tbe place of God ?"
are changed into, " To recompense helonsis to God, does it helong
to rae ?" coupled with our quoting Bush in defence of our rendering,
that " the words seem lo signify thai God is to be regarded as the
great avenger of sin, and that Joseph was not so presumptuous as lo
put himself in tbe i^ace of God." Dr. B. has found out that this wor
thy commentator has since turned Swedenborgian. Bui was Bush a
Swedenborgian when he wrote his Commentary on Genesis, in 1838 ?
or if he was, does bis commentary exhibit any trace ofthose principles?
He says he consulted 127 important biblical'works, in the preparation
of bis Notes, a list of which he bas given. If he has paid proper at
tention to these, he must nol be accounted a contemptible critic. But
Dr. B. should have shewn that his criticisra on the verse before us is
coiiteraptible: or if he quarrels wilh our renderingof it in Chinese, he
should have suggested a better.
This verse, as it stands in the original, has been varixMisly viewed
by critics. Some think it should be read, Am I in the place of God
(that I -ihould do ihis 7) Others would read it. Am I not under
God, i. e. ought I not lo he in subjection to God ? Onkelos has it,
tfear God ; whicb Boothroyd has foUowed. The mbst comraon in
terpretation, however, is, am 1 in the place of God ? But the ques
tion is. How are these words' to be understood? Bosenraiiller says,
that some refer them to the reverence wbich in ver. 18, the brethren
are said to have paid to Joseph, as if he had said, why bow down to
me ? am I in the place of God ? This, however, is inconsistent with
the previous practice of Joseph, who allowed ofthe performance of
that act. Gen. 42 : 6, and 43 : 26, 28. Indeed we flnd that bowing

72
down was a common raode of salutation among the patriarchs, who
never thought that the ceremony should be paid to God alone.
Rosenmiiller therefore adduces the opinion of others, who "refer Ihe
phrase to the taking of vengeance : intiraating that it belonged to God,
and not to hira. to take vengeance for the fault which they had com
mitted against himself; but tbat Joseph altogether forgave the sin of
his brethren, and left it to be revenged by God, appears from what he
says to them, in Gen. 45 : 5, and frora what follows in this chapter."
Rosenraiiller adds, " It appears that the phrase is proverbial, and is to
be understood in the same way with Gen. 30 : 2, where Jacob is said
to have addressed Rachel, on her asking for children, " Am I in Ike
place of God, that 1 should give tkee off'spring ?" On referring
to the passage quoted by Rosenmiiller, we find that it tends much to
explain tbe one under consideration ; as if Jacob had said, " Il is God
tbat has withheld from thee the fruit of the worab, ara I in the place
of God to deterraine such matters ?" We considered this passage as
of simUar import, as if Joseph had said, " You ask that your fault raay
be forgiven, or be left unrevenged : but it is God tbat revenges wick
edness ; not I?" Paulus Fagius says, "Num Deus ego sum, ut
possim vobis vel detrimentum vel emolumenlum adferre ? Penes
Ulum, non penes me, est supplicia de hominibus sumere." According
to Vatablus, Rivetus, and Menochius, " Signiflcat se Deo minime pa
rem esse, ut, quod ille in salutem disposuit, in perniciem vertat."
Having thus endeavoured to ascertain the sense, it became us to en-
, quire how best to convey that sense in Chinese ? We felt tbat a
literal rendering of tbe words, however they might lead European
readers to guess at the meaning, would not bave tbat tendency in
Chinese. "We tberefore endeavoured so to express it as to secure that
end. If we have erred in this, we can plead the necessity ofthe case,
and the exaraple of good translators in other instances. In Isa. 5: 1 1,
the prophet says, that his " beloved had a vineyard in a horn, the son of
oil," and our authorized translators, in writing it dovvn, in god's
HOLT BOOK, in Isaiah's name, have called it, "a very fruitful hill."
It is true they have put the literal signiflcation of the Hebrew in the
margin ; and we have no objection fo do the sarae, in this and the
like instances, in larger editions ofthe Bible, intended for students, if
the Bible Society require it.
In conclusion Dr. B. hopes thut other Missionaries will carefully
exaraine the whole New Testaraent, and raake known the result
to the Directors of the Bible Society, and to their Missionary brethren
in China. Here Dr. B. does again what we have so frequently com
plained of before. Instead of asking his Missionary brelhren to do
what they have been invited to do, and what in due order they
ought to do, send in their criticisras and suggestions to tbe Delegates,
to receive tbe due attention which has been proraised, he would
incite thera to set out in full chase against these translators, and pub
licly denounce thera, with a view to their overthrow. Even Drs.
Williams and Legge, the former of whom had given it as his opinion.

73
that the translation was botb clear and close, and a fair rendering of
the New Testaraent, Dr. B. would incite to exaraine afresh the
translation of the Epistles, in order that they raight be led like him
self to reverse the favourable opinion already given, and to change
their course of conduct towards our version. If those brethren think
it necessary, they wUl doubtless make known their views, iu a proper
time and way, without being incited to it by Dr. B.
Dr. B. insinuates, more than once, that our Strictures were written
und^r the influence of extreme irritation, but we can truly say, that
all that we have written on this subject has been penned with the
utraost calmness, the dictate of judgment and not of passion, and we
are prepared to stand up for the principles we bave advocated, whe
ther in our own or in any other version, as long as we live. We would
not, at the same time, be excessively tenacious of our own opinions,
but be ever ready to listen, and when convinced, to submit to rea
son, whether presented by a friend or by a foe, whether in terms of
amity or reproach. .
We conclude by committing the whole of our work to the care and
blessing ofGod, whose glory wehavesought,and to wbom,ifanygood
accrue, be all the praise. Amen. '
W. H. MEDHURST.
JOHN STRONACH.
W;iLLIAM C. MILNE.
Slianghae, Oct- 5, 1852. , , '

74

LETTER
FEOM DB. LEOSE, HONGKONG, TO DR. TIDHAN, SECRETABT OF THE
' LONDON MISSIONARY SOCIETY.
(Receiveol in Shanghae on the IGth of October.)
Hon^Vong, 28th September, 1852.
Ret. Dr. Tidman.
Dear J^rother, The last mail would carry home to
you,^ I suppose, a copy of a pamphlet by Bishop Boone, en^itleid' '¦'' 0i
Vindication of .Comments on the Translation of Ephesians i. ir.'tbe
Delegates' Version of the New Testament.'? Thercare some mat'ters
in it, on .which J take the libertyof addressing to you a few observa
tions. I do not intend to examine tbe production at length. The
translators whose work is attacked will, I have no doubt, do that. Nor
will I pass any reraark on the points which connect with personal
feeling on tbeir side and on his. That such points — roots of bitter
ness — should h^ve been introduced nito, and grown up in, the discus
sions concerning the-renderift'g of the great name God, and the trans
lation of his Holy Word, is roost deeply to be lamented. Theofferice
has come, may the woe that must attach to it be averted, by its
speedy removal I It is on the general merits of the dispute, as to the
character of tbe new version, that I am anxious to call your aiteiition.
As Dr. B. has referred to rae two or three times, and as you requested
my opinion some months ago on Mr. Culbertson's Strictures on the
new version of Genesis and Exodus, you will not think me intrusive
in submitting to you this coraraunication.
Now, it should be borne in mind, that the question as to the merits
of the new version is entirely distinct from that about the rendering
of fhe words God and Spirit. I have supplied several of the Gerraan
Missionaries in China wilh copies of the new version of the New
Testciment ; yet as a body they have not discontinued to use Dr. Gutz
laff's version, or to speak correctly, bis last edition of Dr. Medhurst's
former version ; yet these Missionaries without exception use Hhang-
te for God, and Skin for Spirit. The questions, therefore, are quite
distinct. Perhaps Dr. B. could not avoid referring to the part which
he has taken in advocating the n»eo{ Shin for God, yet be might have
avoided the insinuations which he has throwi) out against the weak
ness of tbe opposite view, and the references which he has made on
pp 14 and 15, to my recent work on the " Notious of the Chinese
concerning God and Spirits." He and his friends, he says, have not
felt it necessary to write much on the subject, strongly confident in

75
the goodness of their cause ; while the other party has been " uhder a
great pressure to write." Is our much writing theo, allowing the
relative case to be as Dr. Buone represents it, — is our much Writihg
any indication of the weakness of our cause, or that we have laboured
under a painful sense of its weakness? The imputation is unjust. I
can say, " I believed and therefore have I spoken." Convinced that
great, — the greatest and most solemn — interests were at stake, I have
endeavoured, as I could, to maintain the truth. Dr. BoOne has wo<,
as he incorrectly says, the majority of Missionaries thinking witb him
on this subject; but majorities and minorities are poor things to bandy
about in such a matter
I raay be pardoned for going at some lenglib into a consideration of
the reference which Dr. Boone makes lo my recent work. At one
lime, I was told that he was preparing a reply to it ; but after what he
has said in this pamphlet about not feeling any pressure to write, he
will probably say nothingmoreaboutit than what he has here said. It is
astrange and unexpected use to which I find ray researches turned by
him. ¦ He allows me the credit of proving that the Chinese do possess
tbe knowledge of God, that they ascribe the making of the heavens
and the earth to a personal, independent, and intelligent being, — that
they speak ofGod kal' exocken. But then he says, " this being is
called iihin." The fact is. that this being is called rt Skin May Ibeg
that you wUl tOrn to the 28tli and three following pages of ray Work.
Eleven songs of prayer and praise are there adduced. They' are era
ployed in the worship of whom? Of Shin? No,hato( Shang-te. The
first song or hymn, you will perceive, is introduced "to greet the ap
proach ofthe Spirit of .iSAaw^./e," and the tenth " to escort his Spirit."
Ih both qf these cases, we have in the original " Te skin " ( ql Jfnp).
EIr. B. says, that Skin stands fpr God. Then the first song is " to
greet the approach.of the God of Te," i. e. not Skang-te, but some
other being who is ^kangrle's God. But all these songs are ad
dressed to Shang-te. It is He who is worshipped, and not another
being. As weU might it be contended that ruach Elohim, in the 2nd
verse of Genesis, means tbe God pf Elohim, as that Te-skin here
meaiis the God of Shimg-ie, There is an end of arguing, if we
cannot corae to a qommon isSue qn such a passage as this. Shang-te
worshipped in these songs, is called the " Spiritual Sovereign," and
" the Sovereign Spirit. " In one case, he is singled out in his spiritual '
nature, and directly addressed ; "Thou didst produce, O Spirit, the
sun and the moon and the five planets." In another place, spirits and
men are said, "to rejoice together, praising His name."* What is
* It has appeared to us, ever since the publication of Dr. Legge's
book, that he has not availed hiraself of the advantage to which he
wasentUled, in translating the word Shin with reference to Shang-te,
occurring in these hymns! The first song is intended " lo greet the
approach of the Spirit of Shang-te." Of course when the word Shin
occurs with this refe.rence in the following songs, it is to be translated

76
there in the one case to require us to translate the term in a different
manner, from that whicb the expressions in another place necessitate
us lo do ? i
Dr. B. refers not only to tbose songs. butalso loan account of fhe two
great temples in Peking, dedicated to Shang-te, as quoted by me from
Grpsier's Description de la Chine. The one of tbem. we are told
by Grosier, is dedicated fo " tbe Eternal Spirit. "and the .other is dedi
cated to Him, as " the Spirit, tbe Creator and Preserver of tbe world."
Now we do not have the Chinese ofthese inscriptions. That- it is
Sh'in, which by Grosier is rendered I'Esprit. and by me Spirii. I
have no doubt. But Dr. B. writes as if he had the original Chinese
before hira. He says, "Ibe last inscription is particularlv striking,
as tbe word Shin stands absolutely, without adjunct or qualifier, as
the name ofthe creator and preserver of the world ; e. g. this teninle
is dedicated to 'Shin, tbe Creator and Preserver of the world.' " Dr.
Boone iw his own mind makes a version of ray English into Chinese,
and believes 'tis the characters which are on his mental tablet, tbat
appear on tbe portals of tbe temple at Peking. I bave not so learned
Chinese idiom. I am persuaded tbat Skin is the last cbaracter in tbe
inscription, and that il bas for its adjunct and qualifier, all the rest of
it. Just as I have listened to prayers in Christian temples, addressed
to " the Eternal Spirit," and " tbe Creator Spirit," so do I read fhe idea
and the words, essentially the same, on these great temples of Peking.
Before I leave this subject, I bave two additional remarks to make.
First, Dr. B. bas charged those who address God as Shang-te with
worshipping an idol, and violating*tbe first coraraandment. Now he
has learned tbat Shang-te is really God. He allows tbat I have been
successful in proving this. How pleasant it would have been, if he
had taken this opportunity to withdraw bis former charge ! That
would have been pouring oil on the troubled waters. Tbat would
have been taking a step, may -I not say in the right direction ?-^in the
direction of candour, honesty and peace. Alas ! he bas not taken it.
Second, Dr. B. has gladly referred to my work, where he thought
in the same way. Tbus the second song shoukLread, " O Te. when
"Thou hadst separated the light and darkness, Thv creating work pro
ceeded ; and wben Thy Spirit produced tbe celestial orbs, pure and
beautiful was their radiance." Also " The Sovereign Spirit," in tbe
4tb song, should have been rendered, "Thine August S^jjrit;" and
the 10th song, "Thou,' O Sovereign Spirit, bast deigned to accept
our service," should bave been rendered, " Thine August Spirit," &e. ,
Tbe word Shin, in all these cases, does not " stand for God,'' neither
is it used independently and' absolutely for God kat' exochen, as Dr.
Booiie fondly imagines, but for tbe Spiritof Shang-te (God,) as Dr.
Legge has himself translated it. Tbe above was at first suggested by
one of our most learned teachers, and agreed to bv tbe others. We
have not yet communicated the remark to Dr. Legge. Note by the
authors of the Reply.

77
it was shown that " Shin was used for God kat' exochen," whv does
he pass over the passages where the subordination of the shiii as a
class to Shang-te is clearly taught, and where even their creation is
asserted? This is nol right. Dr. B. takes so much of n book, and
even of a sentence, as suits bis purpose, and Ignores the existence of
ihe rest. I feel intense pain in calling your attention to this. I dare
not proceed to the conclusion, that '' he restrains the trulh in unritihte-
ousness." because il is written in the Scripture, " who can under
stand his errors ?" But it is a mnst unhappy failing, this which
besets hira, and which renders controversy with him worse than use
less. Jews, Mohammedans, the Chinese themselves, tell us that as
a class, ihe shin are created heings ; what follows, but that to call the
Chinese to worship Shin is to " change the glory of God into a lie.
and to worship and serve the creature mure than the Creator." Alas !
Our brethren know not what tbey do.
As a second general remark upon Dr. B 's pamphlet, I mav observe,
that there is in it a most' ungrateful disposition, lo associate the trans
lators of the nevv version with heresy. They make, he says in one
place, " St. Paul teach undisguised Socinian doctrine." t^ave
myself come und'sr Dr. B.'s lash, as a heretic in disguise, unsound in
regard to the great doctrine ofthe Trinity, holding views of il irre
concileable with those of " fbe noble Athanasius." 1 know from the
very best authority that, in Dr. B.'s circle at the north, my holding
with tbat malleus Soc.inianorurn Bishop Horsley, that God was
a relative terra, carried Socinianisra and other direful heresies in its
train. Now, V nothing so rauch blinds the judgment as the Odium
Tkeologicum. What good thing can there be in any translation
made bv parlies, who ra ike St. Paul teach undisguised Socinianisra ?
Dr. B.'s betraval T)f this feeling makes bim an incompetent witness as
to the merits ofthe entire version.
But look at tbe ground on which he raakes so serious a charge.
Was ever conflagration kjndled from so small a spark ? The phrase
" lo be in Cbrist" is rendered he says, " to reverence or imitate
Christ ;" and the sentiment, " Those who imitate or reverence Christ
are nevv creatures" is undisguised Socinianism. What conclusion
is there which prejudice, though as large as a camel, will nol pass
Ihrough a needle's eye to arrive al I Do any imitate Christ but those
who are new creatures, -begotten again to God by the word of truth,
through the power and influence of I-lis gracious Spirii ? If this be
Socinianism, would that all the world were Socinians !
Whether the translators have done right in rendering the phrase,
" to be in Christ," by tsung Ke-1uh (:^ S ^) is a point wbich
I will not affirm ; but my view of the Chinese phrase differs somewhat
from that of Dr. B " tsung Ke-ltih chay." is in my opinion the best
expression which the language affords for" Chrislian" or " Christians "
— tbose who recognize Christ as " the author and finisher of their
faitb." Two examples of its use occur on the 44tb page of m.y work,
where its application in the serise intended by tbe translators is fuUy

78"
supported. " To be in Cbrist" may perhaps be much more than "to
be a Christian," or it may be something quite different ; but to denounce
the translators as teachers of heresy, and their versjon as unfaithful;'
because they think that the expressions are equivalent,-is the height of
unreason and uncharitableness.
But flnally, I beg to assare you, that after the perusal of Dr. B's
Vindication of bis Comments, the opinion whichi have formeriy ex
pressed to you of the new version reraains unaltered ; namely, that
it is incomparably better and more faithful than any version of the
New Testaraent, which has yet been raade into Chinese. Referring
to an opinion of raine given in favour of tbe version in 1851, Dr. B.
observes, that probably I had not then read and examined the Epistles. I
had tben read considerable portions of them, but it is many months
si'nce 1 could say, " Ihave read every verse in that version ofthe New
Te-tament twice over." I had occasion to do tbis, seeing that two
editions of it passed ihrough the press here, under ray supervision.
If anyione will compare those editions with tbat published at Shang
hae, he will see that the pointing is considerably difi> rent. I raention
this to show that the proofs were read with care, with an intelligent
study of tbe raeaning, as well as with regard to the correctness of tbe '
printing It was seldom that I did not catch at once, the meaning of
the Epistles, and I do not recollect my teacher ever failing lo gi'\'e
tbe right view of any passage which I referred to' him. Novv and then, '
not only the English version, but the original Greekhad to be' consul-'
ted, and ih such cases,' for tbe most part, I found reason to be satis
fied with the'version. For many months it has been in daily use in
our school. I have taken it with me to (Chapel, andwhile the preach
er has been reading in the English New Testament, have followed
him from the Chinese. If I know anything of Chinese',- the labbiirers '
at Shanghae have furnished this people with as good a version of tbe
NewTestament in their language.
As to the particular criticisms which Dr. Boone' has made. Dr.
Medhurst and his friends will have no difficulty in disposing at orice
of much tbe larger portion of tbem. Sortie may he worthy of their se
rious consideration. They can never have indulged the fond fancy','
that their work would be perfect. They have done what they could,'
and they have done well. Yet a passage may sometimes be rendt^red
more felicitously than they have rendered' it, — and it is a great' pity'
tbat Dr. Boone; while he censured partsof their version, did 'not state
the renderings Which he himself Would propose. In my view, the o-
mission to do this vitiates the whole of his proceeding. It is so very
easy to find fault. The works of the greatest masters are every day
pecked at and picked to pieces by men unworthy to be their book-
bearers. Dr. Boone has shown us wbat talents I.e has for pulling down,
it is a pity he did not try to show us how he could build up as well.
What is to be done ? WhUe we are quarreUing about perfection,
arid will discountenance every version in which we can discover ren-.
derings which we disapprove of, are the Chinese to be kept entirely

79
without the word of God ? With regard to the Gospel of Matthew,
Dr. Boone pronounces the renderings to be " in general close, and
some of them stiikingly apt.and beautiful." In John, he says, " there
are the same things to admire, abundant evidence of great labour and
pains-, and of fine Chinese scholarship'' — though he dislikes the terse
ness of its style. This is high praise from bim.' Can any reasonable
man believe, that there is nothing admii;able in the Epistles rendered
by the same men, who have thus succeeded with the Gospels ? The
truth is, that the same excellencies belong to both parts of the volume.
Iniriany places the renderings are " strikingly aptand beautiful," and
in all piiaces there is " abundant evidence of great labour and pains"
to be faithful: . Now, if a .work which can be so characterized is to be
rejected, what other version of the New Testament are we to print?
As the first chapter of ithe Epistle to the Ephesians has been very much
oriticized, Iibegan to render Dr. Morrison's version of it into English,
to submit to you — but I was obliged to stop at the 8th verse. It
would have been too painful far you to peruse it. There is really not
anyiexisting version that would bear a comparison for any oue quality
with the new one, nor do I think it at all likely that any one half so
good will soon be produced. Sure I am, that if Dr. Boone, or any
other'-jjartv or parties produce a version, and Dr. Medhurst and his
friends make reprisals on il, after the manner in which their own has
been a-ssailed, they will be able to renderdouble — yea a hundred-fold —
forall.tbey have received. The present course of proceeding seems
to me to remove the word of God to an indefinite distance from the
people of China, '
Dr. B objects to the terseness of tbe style in whieh the new ver
sion is made, but seldom if ever has such a q-uality been made a
groundof objection in any other case. He bears testimony to one
great advantage which it possesses. The boys of his school gieatly
piefer it, he says, because of its smoothness andrhythm. They find it,
in faet, much easier to commit to me'mory, — surely it is a fine thing
to have the Scriptures so written that they can easily be committed to
memory. Dr. B.'s boys have I trust many passages laid up there,
which will be found " as goads, and as nails' fastened by the masters
ot asBemblteSj'which are given from one shepherd ?" I do not think
theiterseness of good- Chinese makes it obscure; at least I do not'
find it so wilh myself, nor with the boys and students under my care.
A degree of vagueness dqps indeed attach to Chinese composition ; an
effort is needed tp ascertaip its meaning, but that once got, the terser
the style, the more yiyi(} apd permanent is the impression made upon
the mind. Dr. B. would have tbe Scriptures translated ina free and
loose style, where every sentence sball he intelligible at once. This
he will not be able to attain lo. The Epistles were never written to
be understood by the careless and unthinking reader. Take that to
the Kphesians. How few comparatively of English readers peruse
the first chapter with a proper inteUigence of its contents ! And is a
heathen man likely to understand it, wilhout prayers and pains, in any

80
translation, terse or loose, that can be submitted to hira ? If he really
do set himself to study it, and his mind bave not been injuriously
preoccupied, be will learn it much more readily from the terse ver
sion than from th< free. . It is a peculiarity ofthe Chinese language,
tbat as spoken its idiom and style-differ much from the written model.
An eloquently written book in English is as readily understood by an
intelligent reader as one coraposed in a conversational style. But au
elegant Chinese essay read to a crowd of hearers would, full unintelli
gibly upon tbeir ears. In the different provinces, moreover, the
spoken idiom differs. Carry out Dr. B.'s idea of a version, and we
must have one for every, province, and indeed raore than one for every
province. And after all the raan who could read the characters of the
free composition would be able to understand the meaning of the;
good and terse one. This observation is of surae importance. I have
heard Missionaries say, that Chinese Christians about themi could not
understand many characters in the new version. But the same men
would not be able lo read raany characters in the most colloquial version
that could be furnished thera. They are illiterate men. . This must
be confessed and understood. Are we to descend to their level, or to
try and raise them higher ?
Sorae two years ago, I wrote myself to the translators, advising them
to avoid the pedantry of unusual characters. Tbe longer study of
their work has satisfied. me that they are not chargeablei iWith such
pedantry. Thereis lying on ray table a small, volume of Chinese'
letters, familiar to all in this province who are able to write. The
style of these model letters is much more terse than that of the new
version, and the characters which a foreign student would pronounce -
pedantic and unusual are vastly more nuraerous than in it. Any
style essentially different from tbat which Dr;, Med hurst and. his col-.
leagues have adopted, must expose the word ofGod lo the conterapt of
that portion ofthe Chinese people, who a,re best able to understand it.
But I must draw my observations to an end. It is my earnest
prayer tbat theBible Society may be directed in its course, so that ib
may nol listen fo any partial or prejudiced representations. : The
truth is great, and it will ultiraately prevail. Our friends who have
sjient several of their best years in this work of rendering the Scrip
tures into Chinese, will yet assuredly find that their labour has not
been in vain in the Lord. . . . ^
I remain. Dear Brothel,
' Yours very sincerely,
JAMES LEGGE.

3 9002 02382 4536