observation, relating to the Jews and not to the hidden counsels of God; and that if the translators of our authorized version had rendered the original literally, as they have done in other parts of the New Testament, it would have run thus: 'The Lord added daily to the Church the saved;' that is, those who were saved from their sins and prejudices; and so the passage is rendered by Drs. Whitby, Doddridge, and other eminent divines."

As 1 Peter ii, 8, now reads, it conveys to the minds of many people the impression that God has appointed certain men to disobedience; a meaning entirely foreign to the context. If it had been rendered, “The unbelieving stumble at the word," or "Even to them who being disobedient (dπεi0оõvтes, unbelieving) stumble at the word, whereunto also they were appointed," the meaning of the sacred penman would have been much more evident. It is the stumbling because of their unbelief to which they were appointed. Dr. Adam Clarke gives in his Commentary the following as a translation, supported by many learned critics: "Also a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. The disobedient stumble against the word, (or doctrine,) to which verily they were appointed."

In 1 Sam. ii, 25, we read: "Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them." This rendering makes God the author of the wickedness done, and Eli's sons the passive medium through which God violates his own law, while they are at the same time the recipients of the divine wrath on account of the breaking of the law. It is true that does frequently mean "because," yet when we consider the wide range of signification which the Hebrew particles have, we can readily see that the passage will bear a much more consistent and God-honoring interpretation. Had it been rendered "by," "though," "so," or "therefore," no violence would have been done to the language, and the verse would have been consistent with the rest of the history, thus: "Notwithstanding they hearkened not to the voice of their father, therefore the Lord would slay them."

In the translation of verbs in the future tense there is similar evidence of Calvinistic perversions. The English language has two forms, "shall" and "will," by which to express the future, the Greek but one; by which one of these auxiliaries therefore we

>

should render a given word must be determined by the context and the general scope of the passage; yet all know how different the meaning as one or the other of these is used. “Will” indicates the subject of the verb as acting, and frequently in the second and third persons is simply predictive of the future; while "shall" in many cases has the force of an imperative, and frequently indicates that the real cause of the action lies, not so much in the subject of the verb, as in some power acting on that subject. How harshly imperative does John vi, 37, read: "All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me," presenting God's people as coming to Christ not so much because of their own desires and voluntary choice, as constrained and compelled by the irresistible decree. How much better would it read, All that the Father giveth to me will come to me. If, in 2 Tim. iii, 12, 13, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse," the auxiliaries were changed, how different would the meaning be: Yea, and all that shall live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers will wax worse. (See also Dan. xii, 10; 1 Kings xxii, 20; Acts xiii, 22; Matt. xxiv, 5-7, 9-12, 24; 1 Tim. iv, 1; 2 Tim. iii, 1, 2, etc.)

Psa.

Words supplied in italics are another source of error. cx, 3, reads, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." This is a favorite text with Calvinists to show God's power over the will, and the auxiliary "shall” is spoken with violent emphasis, as though it were an end of all controversy. "Shall be" is, however, printed in italics, indicating that it is not found in the original; and the word ?, rendered “willing,” is a noun, signifying in its usual acceptation "free-will offerings." (See Lev. xxii, 18, 21, 23; xxiii, 38; Num. xv, 3; Deut. xii, 6, 17; xvi, 10; xxiii, 23; Psa. cxix, 108; Ezra i, 4; iii, 5; vii, 16; viii, 28; 2 Chron. xxxi, 14," etc. Read it ` without the words supplied, "Thy people free-will offerings in the day of thy power." Is not the meaning evidently, Thy people offer, or will offer, free-will offerings, etc.; or, as Gesenius renders it in his Hebrew Lexicon, "Thy people are freewill offerings?" etc. But what is there to justify the Calvinistic rendering given in our Bible?

Again, Heb. x, 38: "Now the just shall live by faith: but •

if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." In this text the words "any man" have been supplied, entirely perverting the sense by giving the verse a meaning which the translators may have wished, but which the original by no sophistry can be made to bear. It would properly read, The just shall live by faith, and if he draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him. On this text Dr. A. Clarke says: "The insertion of the words any man, if done to serve the purpose of a particular creed, is a wicked perversion of the words of God. They were evidently intended to turn away the relative from the antecedent, in order to save the doctrine of final and unconditional perseverance, which doctrine this text destroys."

Col. ii, 6, reads: "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." By supplying the word so the text is made to mean simply that with what faith, self-consecration, etc., we first received Christ, so we ought now to walk; whereas it is an exhortation to perseverance, and should read: "As (or since) ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk ye in him."

The last passage that we have space to mention is Rom. ix, 11, 12: “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." This text is regarded by many Calvinists as a perfect Gibraltar, invincible to all the assaults, and a complete refutation, of Arminianism; and if it were a correct transcript of the original it would certainly not be the weakest argument that is brought in defense of Calvinism. But the words "the children" are not in the original, nor are they the ones which the Scripture history teaches should be inserted. The reference is plainly not to the personal salvation of Jacob in heaven and damnation of Esau in hell, but the election of one to peculiar temporal privileges, and to the superiority of his descendants over those of the other. If the translators had taken the time and pains to refer to the place where these things were "said to her," they must have seen, unless blinded by their Calvinistic prejudices, that the prediction was not of the children personally, but of their ⚫ descendants. The place is Gen. xxv, 23: "And the Lord said

unto her,. Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." Is it not, then, perfectly evident that the word "nations," or "people," should have been supplied here, and not children? Aside from this plain language, the history of Jacob and Esau teaches the same truth. Esau never did serve Jacob, nor was Jacob stronger than his brother; but the Edomites did serve the Israelites. (See 2 Sam. viii, 14; 1 Kings xi, 14-16; xxii, 47; 2 Kings xiv, 7; viii, 20-22; 1 Chron. xviii, 13; 2 Chron. xxi, 8, 10; xxv, 11, 12.) Even Dr. Scott, in his Commentary, though explaining this chapter according to Calvinistic views, yet admits: "It has often been urged that Jacob and Esau were not so much personally intended as their posterity, and that temporal and not eternal things are spoken of, and this is certainly true. Jacob never had dominion over Esau personally, but his posterity ruled over Esau's." Dr. Clarke says: "As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper, for it is of nations the apostle speaks." In view of these facts, to what can we attribute the unauthorized insertion of the word children but to the prepossessions of the age at the time the translation was made?

We here take leave of our subject, believing that the examples already adduced are amply sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that our present authorized version of the Bible is the translation of men who were biased by Calvinistic prejudices. It might, without any great impropriety, be called the Calvinistic Translation. Notwithstanding this discouraging and opposing influence, Arminianism has made marvelous progress during the past hundred years. What might we not then expect if an impartial translation could be put into the hands of the people?

ART. III.-EDWARD LIVINGSTON.

Life of Edward Livingston. By CHARLES HAVENS HUNT. With an Introduction by GEORGE BANCROFT. New York: Appleton & Co.

THE lives of the distinguished brothers, Robert R. and Edward Livingston, intertwined as they were with the history of their country, ought before this to have been written. While Edward, nineteen years the younger, was a boy at school, Robert was playing a prominent part in the opening scenes of the American Revolution. He continued to be one of the leading spirits, as chairman of the committee that drafted the Constitution of the State of New York, as first Chancellor of the State, as the first Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and as Minister to France, where, by his skillful diplomacy, he obtained for the United States the rich province of Louisiana. At the same time he was perfecting his experiments in steam navigation, which his ability, perseverance, and large expenditure, aided by the practical suggestions of Fulton, gave to the world.

The life of the younger brother will be welcomed as an important addition to American biography. With the valuable material placed at his disposal, his biographer could scarcely fail to produce an interesting work; but he has succeeded in marshaling his facts in so clear a manner as to give a very vivid impression of a life singularly varied, and illumined by the broad lights of professional, judicial, and diplomatic eminence.

Edward Livingston was born at Clermont, Columbia County, New York, on the 26th of May, 1764. He was descended from an ancient family. One of the men of note in it was Sir Alexander Livingston, of Calander, who, on the death of James I. of Scotland, in 1737, was one of the regents of the kingdom during the ministry of James II. His son James became the first Lord Livingston. Alexander, the fifth lord, the ancestor of the New York Livingstons, was one of the two guardians of Mary, Queen of Scots; and his daughter, Mary Livingston, one of the four Marys maids of honor to the unfortunate Queen. His son, John Livingston, being slain at the battle of