THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 530, 12 August 1881, Page 2

THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT.

To the Editor

Sin. —Your Melbourne correspondent, in his letter published in this clay's Mail, professes to give a resume of Dr Perry's lecture on the revised edition of the English version of the New Testament. As far i*B the lecture proper is concerned it is impossible to make out the real teaching of l)r Perry from that letter. Judging by reports given in other papers, your correspondent is utterly in a fog on the subject. His starting point makes this abundantly manifest. He says:—" Whether light or wrong, the Bishop appears to me (o have made out almost a new Gospel, us different from the Oalvmi.stio ido.'i as can he imagined•"' Your correspondent plainly knows litt'o or nothing o.t: Oaivinimn. Evidently tlint I lie doctrines known by that name, unci ascribed to

ymam miwimiimiaimirtuiiwiji .1 IJiU " - Calvin, were formulated upon the basis of our received English Bible. Now, it so * happens that those doctrines did not ority'miUo with Calvin, but with Paul i and otill more, long before Calvin was born, Augustine wrote on the sumo subject. Calvin perhaps put together in a more lo'Wwtl form that which Augustine had promulgated ; but that Calvin based his teaching on our English Bible, as implied by your correspondent, was simply an impossibility, as tho " Institutio Christiana) Beligionis "Of Calvin wero published either in 1535 or 1536, while our English Bible was not issued till IGII. So much for the knowledge of your Melbourne correspondent. If Dr Peny has really given utterance to the views contained in the letter under notice, then so much the worse for Dr Perry, and no doubt ho will be takento task by men in Melbourne who are quite his equals in scholarship and his superiors intheology.-lam,etc., EXAMJNBR ["Examiner" is in error as to a matter of fact. The Anglican Bishop of Melbourne is Dr Moorhouse, and not Jr Perry ovAie soeins tv suppose. We are not con"Aed to attack or defend any form of religious belief, and if " Examiner " had contented himself with attacking the Bishop'n views we should have nothing to say. ' Instead of that, however, he impugns tho correctness of the statements made by i our Melbourne correspondent, and with **this we are concerned. Onr correspondent simply reports the Bishop's utterances ■andikitis, as any intelligent man must, that " riglit or wrong, 1, to use his own words, •they are inconsistent with the Culvinistic idea. That Dr Moorhouse (not Perry) '"really gave utterances to the views" reported there is no doubt, and we must leave him to take upon his own shoulders the consequences referred to by " Examiner."—Ed. A. M.]