It will be observed I speak of two classes of doubts—first, as to translation; secondly, as to exposition and effect. Dr. M'Caul conceives that he has triumphantly proved his case, when he has accumulated authorities to prove the translation given in the text of our authorized version to be preferable to that given in the margin. He cites passages from the early Fathers, especially dwelling on Jerome and Augustine, to prove that they interpreted the verse as he does, viz. as prohibiting marriage with a wife's sister during the life of the wife; and thence conceives that such a translation can only be expounded as giving direct permission to marry the wife's sister after the decease of the wife.
Now I shall certainly not follow Dr. M' Caul's example, by attributing that bad faith to him which he so unpleasantly and uncharitably imputes to his opponents, when he imagines he has shown them to be illogical in their reasoning, or inaccurate in their history[1]; but I do say that a most complete mystification of the argument of his opponents, and misrepresentation of its effect, has been the result of Dr. M' Caul's mixing together the questions of translation and exposition. For those ancient writers, and many of the modern
- ↑ See besides the passage before cited as to "zealous partisans circulating a little perversion of Scripture that the good cause may triumph," his statement as to Mr. Baddely insinuating without directly stating what is contrary to fact, page 9 of his letter to myself.
