estant versions is fully applicable to that which was ushered into the world under the sanction of King James. "Some allowance is no doubt to be made for the influence of polemic theology, the epidemic disease of those times wherein most of the versions which I have been examining were composed. The imaginations of men were heated, and their spirits embittered with continual wranglings, not easily avoidable in their circumstances; and those who were daily accustomed to strain every expression of the sacred writers, in their debates one with another, were surely not the fittest for examining them with that temper and coolness which are necessary in persons who would approve themselves unbiased translators." * The bias of the translators of "the authorized version" is apparent throughout the whole work; but as we desire to confine ourselves to the Gospels, we shall refer to an instance which might not strike every reader. In John i. 42, our Lord is represented as thus addressing Simon, when presented to him by Andrew, his brother:-"Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone." Dr. Campbell properly remarks that the Evangelist, writing in a Grecian city of Asia Minor, translated the Hebrew names of persons into the Greek language, that they might be known by the names which they then bore. Thus, in the preceding verse Andrew is related to have said to Simon, We have found the Messiah"; and immediately the Evangelist subjoins, "which is, being interpreted, the Christ"; because his readers knew our Lord by this title. Consistency required that they should have rendered the following verse," Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, being interpreted, Peter"; but they chose to keep the Apostle out of view, and to substitute a diminutive term which does not faithfully express the force of Cephas, A ROCK. "If the sacred penman," Dr. Campbell remarks, "had more in view to acquaint us with the signification of the name, than to prevent our mistaking the person, he would probably have translated Cephas into Greek, πέτρα, not Πέτρος. The former is always used in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint, for a rock, and never the latter. I acknowledge that roos, in Greek authors, and nitoa are synonymous; but in the use of the sacred writers, Toos is invariably, and л8190 never, a proper name. He then refers to the famous pas * Dissertations. X. 15. sage of Matthew xvi. 18, and shows that the change of terms was made for the sake of the gender, the feminine noun not being suitable for the name of a man. "Accordingly in the Syriac version there is no change of the word; Cephas, or rather Kepha, serving equally for both." This pitiful attempt to make every thing subservient to sectarian views shows how easily the mere English reader may mistake the perversions of the sacred text for the word of God. The whole system of making one's faith by reading the Bible is professedly based on a text whose ambiguity the Protestant translators took upon them to remove. "Search the Scriptures." John v. 39. This is proclaimed to be a divine command of indispensable obligation; and yet it turns out to be no other than an artful turn given to what should have been rendered affirmatively, "Ye search the Scriptures." "To me it is evident," says Dr. Campbell, "that nothing suits this [the connexion] so well as the indicative." We refer our readers to the note of the learned critic, in which he fully sustains this view. No terms of censure were found too severe to express the horror which most Protestant controvertists felt for the books styled by them Apocryphal. It is refreshing to find Dr. Campbell rising superior to this prejudice and tracing occasionally to those books the phraseology used by the Evangelists. The parable of the unjust judge importuned by an injured widow, by which our Lord recommended perseverance in prayer, is in striking contrast with the picture drawn of God, the righteous judge, by the pencil of Ecclesiasticus. "The Lord is judge, and there is not with him respect of persons. He will not despise the prayers of the fatherless, nor the widow, when she poureth out her complaint. Do not the widow's tears run down the cheek, and her cry against him that causeth them to fall? . . . . . The Lord will not be slack, but will judge for the just, and will do judgment; and the Almighty will not have patience with them, that he may crush their back And he will repay vengeance to the Gentiles, till he have taken away the multitude of the proud, and broken the sceptres of the unjust, till he have rendered to men according to their deeds." The learned Grotius preceded Campbell in recurring to this ancient writer to determine the force of the terms used by our Lord in the parable; both of them recognizing the very remarkable contrast in the chief fea * Eccl. xxxv. 15-24. tures of the description, as well as the similitude of the phrases and the identity of the terms. In both passages the verb vue occurs, which is commonly rendered to have patience, but which, from the connection in which it stands, might be more clearly expressed by the term to linger, as Campbell suggests, or to be slow, as "The Catholic" renders it. To me it appears very probable, considering the affinity of the subject, that the Evangelist had, in the expression he employed, an allusion to the words of the Jewish sage." This is the remark of Campbell, the force of which is infinitely increased, when it is considered that the words recorded by the Evangelist are of our Lord himself, and that the whole parable seems framed with special reference to the description of the divine judge given by the son of Sirach, and to illustrate the same principle. Let the conclusion drawn by our Lord be compared with the passages above quoted : Will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night; and will he have patience in their regard? I say to you that he will quickly revenge them." * With equal candor the learned critic draws attention to the fact, that our Lord shared in the celebration of a festival whose institution is traced to the chieftain specially celebrated in the books of the Maccabees. "This festival," he remarks, "was instituted by Judas Maccabæus, 1 Mac. iv. 59, in memory of their pulling down the altar of burnt-offerings, which had been profaned by the pagans, and building a new one dedicated to the true God." It will not be an easy matter to persuade unbiased readers that our Lord would have sanctioned, by his presence and participation, a festival originating from a source purely human. It is fairer to infer that Judas Maccabæus acted under a divine impulse in its institution, and that the book which records it is a sacred history, like those in which the Mosaic festivals were registered. From all we have said, it is manifest that critical researches have contributed much to confirm the high anthority of the Vulgate. It is truly a precious relic of Christian antiquity, — a painting drawn from life by a master, representing with great accuracy all the features of the original. If it has suffered in the course of ages, it must be retouched by no unskilful hand. Vernacular versions may need correction; but even this should be undertaken cautiously, lest the change detract from the rev * Luke xviii. 7. † In John x. 22. erence due to the divine writings. It is easier to find fault with the received version than to improve it; yet we feel that the revision of it is greatly to be desired, to free it from all unnecessary solecisms, and present it to the common reader in as agreeable a style as may be found consistent with fidelity and simplicity. ART. IV. An Oration delivered before the Authorities of the City of Boston in the Tremont Temple, July 4, 1846. By FLETCHER WEBSTER. Boston Eastburn. 1846. pp. 33. Svo. OUR orators have invested the Fourth of July with so many disturbing associations, that our citizens are gradually becoming less and less disposed to greet its annual return with those festivities which it was the hope of our fathers would continue to mark it through all generations to come. Still, it is a day sacred in the affections of every American citizen, and it cannot come round without exciting lively emotions of gratitude and joy in every American heart. The birth of a nation is an event to be remembered, and the day on which it takes its rank in the family of independent nations is well deserving to be set apart by some service, at once joyous and solemn, recounting the glory which has been won, the blessings which have been received, and pointing to the high destiny and grave responsibilities to which the new people are called. The orations ordinarily given on our national anniversary are of that peculiar sort which it is said neither gods nor men can tolerate. They are tawdry and turgid, full of stale declamation about liberty, fulsome and disgusting glorification of ourselves as a people, or uncalled-for denunciations of those states and empires that have not seen proper to adopt political institutions similar to our own. Yet we may, perhaps, be too fastidious in our taste, and too sweeping in our censures. Boys will be boys, and dulness will be dulness, and when either is installed orator of the day," the performance must needs be boyish or dull. But when the number of orations annually called forth by our national jubilee, from all sorts of persons, throughout the length and breadth of the land, is considered, we may rather wonder that so many are produced which do credit to their authors, and fall not far below the occasion, than that there are so few. All are not mere schoolboy productions; all are not patriotism on tiptoe, nor eloquence on stilts. Every year sends out not a few, which, for their sound sense, deep thought, subdued passion, earnest spirit, manly tone, and chaste expression, deserve an honorable place in our national literature. There are- and perhaps as large a proportion as we ought to expect-Fourth of July orators, who, while they indulge in not unseemly exultations, forget to disgust us with untimely rant about self-government, the marvellous virtue and intelligence of the masses, and the industrial miracles they are daily performing; who show by their reserve, rather than by their noisy declamation, that they have American hearts, and confidence in American patriotism and American institutions. A people not factitiously great has no occasion to speak of its greatness; and true patriotism expresses itself in deeds, not words. The real American patri ots are not those shallow brains and gizzard hearts which are always prating of the American spirit, American genius, American interests, American greatness, and calling for an American party; but those calm, quiet, self-possessed spirits who rarely think of asking themselves whether they are Americans or not, and who are too sincere and ardent in their patriotism to imagine it can be necessary to parade its titles. Their patriotism has no suspicions, no jealousies, no fears, no selfconsciousness. It is too deep for words. It is silent, majestic. It is where the country is, does what she bids, and, though sacrificing all upon her altars, never dreams that it is doing any thing extraordinary. There is, perhaps, more of this genuine patriotism in the American people than strangers, or even we ourselves, commonly suppose. The foam floats on the surface, and is whirled hither and thither by each shifting breeze; but below are the sweet, silent, and deep waters. Among the orations delivered on our great national festival, which we would not willingly forget, the one before us by Mr. Fletcher Webster, eldest son of the Hon. Daniel Webster, deserves a high rank. It is free from the principal faults to which we have alluded, simple and chaste in its style and language, bold and manly in its tone and spirit, and, in the main, sound and just in doctrine and sentiment. It frequently reminds us of the qualities which mark the productions of the author's distinguished father, and which have placed him at the |