488 



The Review of Reviews. 



WHY NOT REVISE THE BIBLE EVERY THIRTY 

 YEARS? 



In the October Quarterly Mr. G. C. Macaulay con- 

 cludes an interesting article on the English Bible by 

 declaring that it may safely be predicted that nothing 

 can now supplant the Authorised Version in the 

 hearts of the English-speaking people : — 



We must make up our minds, then, that the two shall con- 

 tinue to exist side by side, the A.V. for popular use, and the 

 R.V. for the use of students, as an indispensable commentary. 

 On tile one hand, it is clear that there can be no serious objec- 

 tion to new editions of the R.V., at intervals of twenty or 

 thirty year.s, as biblical scholarship dvances ; on the other 

 hand, it becomes desirable that the more serious mistakes 

 which occur in the A.V. should be cautiously corrected. This 

 would not amount to a new revision ; it would; in fact, be 

 merely the continuation of a process already begun. The 

 Cambridge Press, in the editions of 1629 and 1638, made 

 about two hundred mateiial corrections which have been 

 generally accepted ; again an appreciable number of mistakes 

 were corrected in the Cambridge edition of 1762, and a few in 

 later editions. 



What objection is there to .1 revival ot this practice under 

 proper precautions ? 



"THE MOST EXPERT LAY PREACHER." 



In the October Aincrican Miii^azine there is a por- 

 trait and .sketch of Mr. Fred B. Smith, who is 

 described with American criopness by Mr. P. C. 

 Macfarlane : — 



Kred B. .Smith is the most expert lay preacher to men in ihe 

 English-speaking world. He has belted the globe. He has 

 talked to men in fourteen difi'erent countries. His name on the 

 windows and his presence on the platform will bring more men 

 together in more dift'erent cities of the United States on Sunday 

 afternoon regularly, year in and year out, than any other name 

 and presence in the United States, For twenly-one years 

 Smith has been doing this sort of thing. He is known from 

 Coast' to Coast. Young Men's Christian Association workers 

 put up the sign " Smith is Coming ;" they name the place and 

 date, and then prepare to take care of the results. The largest 

 meeting place will be filled to overflowing. 



Smith doesn't coddle his auditors. He talks to thein straight 

 of right living. As a preacher he doesn't rant. His methods 

 are quiet ones. He waits upon God. And while he waits, 

 men, and mostly young men, by the hundreds will rise and ask 

 to be prayed for, or stand and confess a new born faith in Jesus 

 Christ. Somehow, when he takes hold of your hand you feel 

 that he is just the squares!, keenest, sanest man you've ever come 

 in contact with. 



As for organising genius, it is Smith who has conceived and 

 pushed the Men and Religion Forward Movement, the most 

 complete and varied program of religious activities with 

 reformative connotations ever assembled! And he has been 

 genius enough not only to conceive the plan, but to get it 

 going. 



HIS MOVEMIlNT. 



The ninety chief cities of the United States are to 

 be fired with plans of the movement. Each of these 

 cities has pledged itself to repeat the cam[)aign in 

 from twenty to thirty tributary cities. Each of these 

 cities will repeat it in surrounding towns, and those 

 towns again to the last village, hamlet, and farmhouse 

 in the United States: — 



HIS MBSS/^C1■. 

 The purposes of the movement are the preaching of righteous- 

 ness, the inculcation of a more niodcrn ami more (Christian 

 ethical standard, Ihe presentation of Je>us Christ as a ,iilvatorv 



force in the personal lives of men, the reviving of tlie churches 

 and readjustment of their working methods to the needs of the 

 day, a special appeal to boys, and instruction to all churches J 

 and church workers in Ihe best ways of organising for the J 

 permanent carrying on of work among boys, training methods 

 for special woik for Bible .School and for social service, even to 

 the point of the making of a survey under the direction of 

 experts with the inevitable political and civic reconstructions 

 which would follow. 



The movement is approved by Jane Addanis, 

 Graham Taylor, Charles Stelzle, and others. 



• ARE ALL CHURCHES "ESTABLISHED"? 



Some time ago I brought out a pamphlet, " Are 

 there any Free Churches ? " Dr. A. C. Headlam, in 

 the October Church Quarterly, seems prepared to 

 answer in the negative. As the nation is plunging 

 into the Disestablishment controversy afresh, his 

 statement may be of interest : — 



Some degree of Eslabiishiuent is indeed necessary for every 

 religious body which holds property. So soon as it possesses 

 properly its internal affairs may come under the regulation of 

 the Slate. Laws are necessary to recognise the conditions 

 under which it can hold that pro])erty, and if it makes internal 

 changes in its own constitution these changes may have to be 

 approved by the State. Instances of this have occurred in the 

 case of Nonconformist bodies from time to time. A well known 

 case was the Act which relieved the whole Independent com- 

 munities from their original trust deeds when they had passed 

 from Trinitarianism to Unitarianism. Another instance occurred 

 lately when three of the Melho'.iist bodies wished to unite, and 

 had to obtain an Act of Parliament to enable them to do so. 

 Still more conspicuous was the case of the Free Church of 

 Scotland, which, having drawn up its trust deeds so carefully as 

 10 prohibit any change in its doctrine, desired to unite with the 

 United Presbyterians, and attempted to do so without obtaining 

 legal sanction. In that case the Church was found by the 

 House of Lords to have violated its trust deeds, and a Royal 

 Commission became necessary in order to deal with the new- 

 condition of things. 



These instances are sufticient to show that all religious bodies 

 must within certain limits be Established. Further, all 

 religious bodies receive certain privileges and endowments from 

 the State. For many years, until they gave it up, the Non- 

 conformist bodies received the Regiuni Donuin. Nonconformist 

 places of worship are at the present time rate free, which is i^ 

 ihe nature of State endowment. When the Irish Church was 

 disestablished, a large grant was given to Maynooth and also 

 to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. The real fact is that 

 although, when religious bodies are small and insignificant, 

 it may be possible for the .State to ignore their existence, 

 so soon as they become corporations of any strength, direcL 

 relations with the State become inevitable. They demand 

 conditions under which they can work, which have to be 

 guaranteed by the State, and, on the other hand, the State 

 cannot allow with impunity powerful corporations to grow up 

 in its midst over which it exercises no control. 



Why, then, the innocent Nonconformist may ask, 

 should one Established Church assume such airs of 

 superiority towards all the other Established Churches 

 in the same realm ? Must we conclude that because 

 one established Church has more property than other 

 Established Churches it has a prescriptive right to 

 look down upon the oilier Churches ? If so, the 

 relation is rather mammonite than Christian. 



In the .same number the question of the dis- 

 establishmenl and distndowment of the Welsh 

 Church is gone into at length. 



