In the first 60 pages of the document, to which I am now replying, many arguments of a varied nature can be found in Sections I and II. I have endeavored to answer those which constitute a main line. However, there were a number of varied arguments, which I shall be obliged to group in a section on general arguments. Of these I have selected those which I think would deserve consideration. There were few other arguments which I did not think my hearers would consider it worthwhile for me to consume their time in answering. Nevertheless, if they should be called up, or anyone feels they must be noticed, I have an answer for them. Otherwise, I feel that my reply will constitute practically a complete answer to all the counter-arguments of my Reviewers worthy of consideration.

My Reviewers claim, (Section I, page 9) that the "two parallel streams of Bible" (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43) is arbitrarily created and does not rest upon historical authority. In my book, however, I proved conclusively that both the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus MSS were already in existence in the days of Constantine; rivals to one another and constituting opposing Bibles. I also proved, historically, in the same chapter, that the Waldensian Bible was from the Textus Receptus. Now the Spirit of Prophecy says that the Waldensian Bible was of apostolic origin, uncorrupted, entire, and teaching apostolic Christianity. The Reformation adopted the Textus Receptus; the Jesuit counter-Reformation adopted the Vaticanus. Both these facts I proved soundly and completely in my book. If, therefore, the Textus Receptus and Vaticanus were rivals in the days of Constantine, the Textus Receptus being of apostolic origin, and the Vaticanus being a corruption of the Textus Receptus, then the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses from the Textus Receptus was and we proved it so, historically, the rival of the Vulgate taken from manuscripts of the Vaticanus type.

The Spirit of Prophecy endorses this line of reasoning. I gave in my book, (page 42) that quotation from Sister White which shows that the Waldenses possessed a Bible which came from apostolic days, was entire, was unadulterated and was ever sought by the fury of the papists to be corrupted. The Spirit of Prophecy, however, tells us that angels restrained their malignant hatred and their efforts to bury the Waldensian Bible under a mass of error and superstition.

The Spirit of Prophecy further tells us that the Bible of Wycliffe was from the Latin (Vulgate) and contained many errors, but the Vulgate was a Catholic Bible. On the other hand, the Spirit of Prophecy tells us that the Greek Text of Erasmus corrected these errors, but the Greek text of Erasmus was the Textus Receptus. Therefore, the Waldenses had a pure Bible from the beginning, based on the Textus Receptus or in harmony with it. The reasoning then goes thus: (a) The Waldenses endorsed what was the apostolic Bible; (b) The Reformers endorsed what was the Waldensian Bible; (c) Sister White endorsed the Bible of the Reformation and the Waldensian Bible; (d) the Waldenses could not have guarded the Vulgate because it contained many errors.

Note the following testimonies from authorities showing how these two parallel streams rivaled one another at different epochs in history:

1. (a) In the first place Dr. Hort states definitely ('introduction" pp. 137,138) Jerome's antagonism to Antioch's theology as he (Hort) declares Antioch to be the home of the Textus Receptus in 350 A.D.; and then ("Introduction") p. 276) Dr. Hort places in opposition to this (Antioch's) Textus Receptus the text formed from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus types of MSS as being true apostolic text. Here is rivalry and opposition of the two Bibles in Constantine's time.

(b) Dr. Schaff ('Companion' etc. p. 113) says the Codex A or Alexandrinus occupies "an intermediate position between the oldest uncial (Vaticanus type) and the later cursive (Textus Receptus) text." Here again are the two streams at the earliest dates of their rivalry, Constantine's time.

(c) Dr. Kenyon proves- as I previously showed- that the Latin reproduction of the Vaticanus type was simply the Itala or the Latin Textus Receptus type with the variant Textus Receptus readings removed.

(d) Dr. Nolan ("Integrity" pp. 432, 434) declared that Origen's fabricated Greek Bible (Vaticanus type) tended to weaken the authority of the Authorized Greek Bible (Textus Receptus) in the Old as well as in the New Testament.

(e) And finally Dr. Swete shows that in the days of Constantine the Textus Receptus and the Eusebio-Origin Bible were rivals and opposing versions. He also mentions a third version, the Hosychian, or African Bible. This ceased to be a line of its own, came to an end, and is not represented in modern versions.

2. We proved from Dr. Jacobus that the Old Latin opposed the Vulgate for 1,000 years.

3. We proved from the preface of the Jesuit Bible that the Waldensian Bible was the opponent of the Vulgate, the Jesuits called it the "false" heretical translation" of the Waldenses, and Sister White says that the Waldenses kept the truth uncorrupted for 1,000 years.

4. We proved that the final split between the Catholics and Protestants came at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). My Reviewers made no attempt to notice or to answer the first four resolutions of that Council which I gave in my book, decreeing the Vulgate the authoritative Bible of the Papacy. Moreover, to have a Greek Manuscript in which to base authoritatively the Vulgate, the learned fathers of the Counsel of Trent, after searching through all the libraries of Italy, shrewdly understood the Vaticanus to be the manuscript.

5. Dr. Fulke, when writing to the Queen of England in the preface of his book, just about the very time that the Council of Trent Fathers chose the Vaticanus, said:

"In which, that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose in leaving the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is found defective in more than an hundred places, as your majesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues wherewith God has blessed you, is very well able to judge." (Emphasis mine). p. 5.

6. Later in my book I presented the struggle between the Jesuit Bible of 1582 in English, and the Tyndale and Geneva Versions.

7. I presented very clearly the great struggles that were on around the Revision table for ten years between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener, the one standing for the Textus Receptus and the other for the Vaticanus. Of These scenes, Bishop Ellicott, president of the committee says. "It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side was placed before the Company." "Addresses"' p. 61.

8. And finally, Hastings says:

"The ordinary English student of the Bible is able readily to appreciate the points at issue in the controversy between the Alpha (Textus Receptus) and Beta (WH) texts, because they are substantially represented to him by the differences (so far as they are differences in text, and not merely in rendering) between the AV and the RV." "Dictionary of the Bible," p. 927. (Emphasis mine).

On the quotation of the eclipse of the sun at the death of Christ, Dr. Frederick Fields says that the manuscripts began to divide on this point at the time of Origen. (Field's Notes, p. 79).

I would also recall here that Erasmus divided all Greek manuscripts into two classes; one which agreed with the Textus Receptus and the other which agreed with the Vaticanus. My Reviewers revived the old grouping made by Griesbach, into three classes, but exploded by Archbishop Lawrence. I gave these conclusions in my book. Everything which the Reviewers brought in counter argument, confirmed, but did not shake these conclusions.

I think now that I have given evidence abundant enough for this short document, and amply backed by authorities to show the two parallel streams of Bibles.

My Reviewers claim that the theology of the translators has no bearing upon their product. (Section 1, p. 17). Of course it ought not to. Nevertheless in my book, (page 159) I presented the evidence that there was collusion between Westcott, Hart and Lightfoot to carry through a thorough scheme in utter defiance of the rules of the body, which appointed this Revision Committee to the scandal of some of the best members, who left the Committee, and which gave a terrible shock to the Protestant evangelical world at large. I also showed in my book (page 184) that Bishop Ellicott, afterwards Chairman of the Committee, wrote, previous to Revision, that in passages involving doctrinal error that their duty was obvious. Further, I showed that for ten years this Committee worked in secret, refusing to take the public at large and scholars of eminent schools into their confidence so that the shocking changes they were making in the Greek New Testament might be thoroughly thrashed out before adoption.

And so I repeatedly showed that they were thus able to make their views heard in the Revision Committee, and to dominate it.

Why do my Reviewers take up some little point which I refer to in my book as Hort's anti-Americanism, and Westcott's spiritualistic tendencies, while they entirely ignore the indisputable evidence that I produced that they not only changed the underlying Greek text and translated the English accordingly, but that they wrote books defending these changes and seeking to permeate Christendom with their doctrines. Are we to ignore their own testimony written for all to read, and overlook the accumulated evidence that they did work to change doctrine to suit their own ideas? Why shut our eyes and blindly deny such plain and clear evidence?

In further support of their contention that the theology of translators matters little, my Reviewers bring to view hundreds of modern translations which they say were made by "Fundamentalists, Modernists, Conservatives, Liberals, Ritualists, Evangelicals, etc." (Section I, p.18). Pardon me, brethren, but have they produced standard verions, like an English Version to command two hundred million English speaking people; or rather do they not translate for uncivilized primitive peoples like the Barotsi or the Matabeles, or for the people of Borneo? Such translators do not seek to change the original Greek Text; neither are they professional textual critics, who often are dangerous schemers, but are humble devoted Christian missionaries.

My Reviewers State that "It is preposterous to try to make it appear, as the author so strenuously does try, that the resistance to false teaching and the resulting persecution of the Waldenses and millions of other Christians by Rome, was a matter of Greek texts and translations and versions." (Section II, p. 4)

In reply to this allegation I will simply say that I quote GREAT CONTROVERSY, pp. 65,66,69, as follows:

"The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscripts in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and Persecution.... Here for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith ... In a most wonderful manner it (The Word of Truth) was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness." (Emphasis mine).

Notice that this quotation from Sister White is a matter of translations and versions, which she says, "rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution". Is it really necessary for me to defend Sister White among a body of Seventh-Day Adventists? This is all I have to say here on that point.

My Reviewers endeavor to make a point (Section II, p. 41 upon the fact that Luther's "conversion to righteousness by came through reading for himself a Catholic Bible in a Catholic Convent while himself yet a Catholic."

I believe that this was accomplished because of the earnest yearnings of Luther for light and because of the Holy Spirit working upon his heart to lead him out from Romanism. He used what light he had, but that is not an endorsement for the Vulgate. This can be seen in the fact that as Luther progressed farther away from Rome he abandoned the Vulgate.

My Reviewers offer us a quotation (Section I, pp. 19,20) from Matthew Brown Riddle, D.D., LL. D., taken from his "Story of the Revised New Testament" to the effect (1) that the English Revisers accepted readings of Tregelles as frequently as those of Westcott and Hort; (2) that the partiality of those men for the Codex Vaticanus and of Tischendorf for the Codex Sinaiticus was guarded against.

This testimony means just nothing at all; because Tregelles, was a model and leader for Westcott and Hort.

(1) I have proved before that Tregelles took his inspiration from the Council of Trent, because they, 300 years previously, had resorted to the Old Testament portion of the Vatican manuscript.

(2) Regardless of what Dr. Riddle says of their guarding against a partiality for the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in this portion of his book, he acknowledges in another part of the same book that to all intents and purposes the ARV and the ERV are the same. Not only that, but everybody knows that on the great controverted passages between the Textus Receptus on one hand, and the two Catholic MSS on the other, that these two versions are practically the same.

Furthermore, Dr. Riddle had a well-known reputation for prejudiced opinions. I have before me now a letter sent to me personally, February 9, 1931 from a scholar in Pittsburg, PA. in which he says:

"I was well acquainted with Dr. Matthew B. Riddle of the Revision Committee. He was so prejudiced in favor of their work that he could scarcely see anything good in the AV."

In Section I, page 40, my Reviewers say many severe things about me as:

(a) "There is hopeless confusion of fact, conjecture, and assertion."

(b) "The volume abounds in illogical conclusions clothed in oratorical garb."

(c) "The argument is plainly built upon the appeal to religious and denominational prejudice."

On two pages preceding,, under the heading, "A Strangely Related Discovery" the Reviewers also say,

"That the ablest Protestant critics and scholars of the past half-century-have failed to seriously discern the hand of Rome or the bias of Modernism in the Revised Versions is more than passing strange; it is pointedly significant." Section I, pp. 38,39

The Reviewers seem to have reached the climax of their opposition to my book when they say (d) "constructive textual criticism is confused with destructive higher criticism in unwarranted and fantastic ways." (Section I, p. 40) .

Why do these writers forget that I have either quoted from or called attention to such outstanding textual critics as Dr. J.C. Reiche, Dr. F. C. Cook, Dr. H.C. Hoskier, Dr. Miller, also a secondary writer by the name of Dr. Mauro, who see just as I see, the Origenistic atmosphere of these Revised Versions and some speak very plainly about the hand of Rome and the hand of Modernism.

To answer the last point about confusing lower and higher criticism, I will quote from that outstanding textual critic, Dr. H.C. Hoskier, who wrote in the year 1914 as follows:

"Finally, observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the lower criticism' had kept itself quite apart from so-called 'higher criticism.' Since the publication of Hort's text, however; and of that of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the supposed results acquired by the 'lower criticism" to bolster up their views. By a policy of indecision in the matter of the fundamental truths of the Christian religion, truths specifically set forth by its founder, and by a decided policy, on the other hand, of decision in the matter of heresy in the field of lower criticism, the beliefs of many have been shaken not only to their foundations, but they have been offered free scope to play the Marcion and excise whatever appeared extra-ordinary or unintelligible to them. Many, who should have raised their voices against the mischief wrought have sat by in apathy or willfully fostered these heresies. Or, if not willfully, they have assumed a faltering attitude which caused their own students to misinterpret their masters' lessons. Thus we have the spectacle of Thompson and Lake saying to Sanday: 'We learned that from you', and Sanday retorting: 'I never meant to teach you that.'

"A man like the Dean of Durham, not content with preaching Christmas sermons at Westminster attacking the Virgin Birth and vapouring in the United States about the close atmosphere of the theological seminaries which he would like to burn to the ground, has now decided to introduce the 'Revised Version' officially into the ancient cathedral of Durham. I am therefore correct in coupling these matters." Hoskier, "Codex B and Its Allies", pp. 421,422, Vol. I. (Emphasis mine)

Notice how these facts answer all the objections and complaints raised in the treatment of this question. This is all I have to say on this subject.

My Reviewers make this strong statement:

"The comparison of the blemishes in the AV to the five scars on the resurrection body of Christ (pp. 180,181) is a travesty upon our divine Sacrifice for sin. And the comparison of the Received Text to the Star of Bethlehem (pp. 178, 179) borders perilously on sacrilege!" (Section I, pp. 5 ,6)

Christ is called the Word of God in the first chapter of John; and when he comes in His glory (Revelation 19) He is still called the Word of God. Many reverent writers speak in the same tones of awe and sacred solemnity when referring to the written and the Incarnate Word. When Jesus, in John, Chapter six, commands us to eat Him and shows us how; He says, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." As to my Reviewers statement that "the comparison of the Received Text to the Star of Bethlehem borders perilously on sacrilege, " it appears to me that this adjective applied more appropriately to their denunciation than to the comparison itself.

My Reviewers make this statement; (Section I, p. 39) "If we were to accept denominationally, the unproven assertions in the volume under review...we would become the laughing stock of the reverent Christian scholarship of the world." Perhaps we will be better able to tell who is going to be the laughing stock by securing some competent testimonies as to how things actually are going. Are the reverent, devoted, intelligent, English Christian scholars throughout the world moving toward the Revised Versions and getting away from the Authorized Version, or is it just the contrary?

I will not weary you with further testimonies, of which I have already given an abundance, that the English Revised Version is dead in England. Now let us see which way the trend is going with respect to the American Revised Version. I will now submit three letters received from executive officers of three large Bible Publishing Houses:

(1) February 27, 1931 Dear Sir:

Your letter of February 26 is received.

We have no way of calculating on the number of King James Version Bibles sold as compared to the American Revised Version Bibles. We would say however, that with each recent year the demand for the latter Bible seems to have diminished and consequently we assume that its sale has also been less.

Very sincerely yours,

THE JOHN C. WINSTON COMPANY.

(Signed)Charles F. Kint President

(2)

Dear Sir:

We are indeed sorry that we cannot be of assistance in furnishing information regarding the comparative sales of the King James and American Revised Bibles.

Sometime ago the writer recalls having seen a statement attributed to the British and Foreign Bible Society, in which was said, that there were about 100 copies of the Authorized Version sold to every copy of the Revised.

Regretting that we cannot furnish you with more detailed information, Yours very truly,

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York

William Krause

March 2, 1931

(3)

Dear Sir:

In response to your letter of February 26th, we do not know how many actually are sold. We should estimate that King James Version is one hundred to one of the Revised Version or even greater proportion than that.

The Revised Version we would estimate would not exceed 50,000 copies a year and receding in sales from that figure. The Gideon Societies do not use it at all.

Very truly yours,

A.J. Holman Company

From the foregoing information you can see that The Revised Version is constantly decreasing in sales in spite of the tremendous efforts that are being made to promote it. While on the other hand the AV is being sold, generally estimated, at the rate of 100 to 1. We have further testimony to the effect that the report of the British Bible Society for, the year 1911 showed that the proportion between the sales of the two was 25 to 1, while in 1920 it was at the rate of 50 to 1. (See Mauro, "Which Version", pp. 117,118) The above letters show that in 1930 the proportion had reached 100 to 1.

A letter was written, presumably by my Reviewers, to Hugh S. Magill, general secretary of the International Council of Religious Education, which held the copyright of the ARV. (Section I, 39) to inquire on two counts; whether the ARV was born under "modernistic influence" or "Catholic bias". Why did they not write to the Vatican to find out if the papacy was born under paganism; or why did they not write to the National Brewery Association to find out if drinking is harmful? Did my Reviewers expect any different answer than they got? Did they expect that the secretary would reply saying that he deeply deplored that these two elements were discernable in the ARV? What kind of testimony is this to submit in defense?

I also have some correspondence to submit along this line. A prominent clergyman in another denomination had read my book. He is General Sunday-school Secretary of a large Protestant denomination and editor of their Sunday-school literature. This prominent Protestant. leader wrote me, July 28, 1930 without any solicitation on my part, as follows:

"I presume that you are aware of the fact that the American Revised Version has been secured by the International Council of Religious Education, with all rights to publish and make further Revision. As you are doubtless aware, the International council of Religious Education is quite largely in the hands of modernists. What will they finally make of the ARV?"

I received subsequently another letter from this same man in which he gave detailed information to show how this same association was working to permeate the Protestant churches of North America with modernistic programs, with modernistic literature and modernistic influence. He writes me thus:

"I found your book of great interest and highly satisfactory."

Let us now come back to Hugh S. Magill. I also have a copy of a letter in my possession, written by Hugh S. Magill, to a member of the General Conference Committee, March 6, 1931, He writes thus:

"We received today your letter of March 5th in which you state you have been in correspondence with Thomas Nelson and Sons, publishers of the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible, and that you would like to have further information regarding the American Standard Bible Committee appointed by the International Council to have charge of the further revision of this edition of the Bible.

"This committee is now working on this undertaking and using the American Standard Version as the basis. It is agreed that the Revised edition shall not be published before 1934. The reason for the revision is because of the new discoveries that have been made and the results of investigations since the publication of the American Standard Bible Committee."

Appended to this communication is a list of the members of the Committee who are working to revise the Revised. Both the Old and New Testament sections contain the names of university professors well known to us all, and whose reputations for modernism are well known; such as, Dr. James Moffatt, Union Theological Seminary, Dr. J. M. Powis Smith, University of Chicago, and Dr. Edgar J. Godspeed, the University of Chicago.

How does this comport with the Reviewers' statement that if they were to adopt the idea that the ARV is under modernistic influence we would become the laughing stock of the reverent Christian scholarship of the world? Will the Reviewers please tell us to which scholarship do they refer when they speak of the reverent Christian scholarship of the world? Certainly they cannot be unaware of the fact that Princeton University has gone modernistic; do they refer to its Christian scholarship? And surely they must know that the Union Theological Seminary of New York, and Chicago University, and Harvard University have long ago become ultra-modernistic. Is this the Christian scholarship to which they refer? If so; then Seventh-day Adventists have long ago been a laughing stock to these people. But is there a great possibility on the other side; that if we take a firm stand on the AV and against all versions tainted with and connected with modernistic influences, we will gain the confidence and respect of a great reverent scholarship that is found in other connections than with these modernistic theological schools, who endorse the ARV and who are furnishing the scholarship to further revise it in modernistic lines? If we are going to raise the question of becoming a laughing stock, it is necessary to inquire in the eyes of what kind of organizations do we feel we shall become a laughing stock.

On the other hand, with regard to my book being a laughing stock, I have received a great many letters from devout and reverent Christian workers, thanking God for the blessing it has been to them, and many of them testify that it has confirmed their faith in the Bible. Some of these letters are from men who are known to be prominent scholars in the theological field and no one could accuse them of being anything but reverent and devout Christian scholars. Of course I do not intend to make these letters public. Because I have authoritative information that the writers have, in certain instances, become the recipient of embarrassing correspondence. But if any one questions the truth of the letters, I will be glad to show those to Elder Watson so that he can testify that I have told the truth. (At this point Elder Wilkinson read extracts from some letters from outside the denomination.)

Right here it is interesting to note that Dr. Frederick Field, a member of the English O.T. Revision Committee and famous for a life-long work in the Greek O.T. wrote to Phillip Schaff pronouncing the Revised Version a failure. (Dr. Schaff's "Companion", p. IX).

My Reviewers claim (Section I, p. 42) that my book will be justly construed as an attack upon the Bible itself. How can anyone read my book and not see that I am endeavoring to defend the Bible itself? The Bible of the Protestant nations for three hundred years, unquestionably accepted by this denomination, used by our pioneers in constructing the framework of this message. My book was written with one purpose, and one purpose only to establish faith in the true Word of God, preserved for us from apostolic time, intrinsically uncorrupted.

On the other hand, let us consider some of the statements made in this review and see whether this charge of attacking the Bible should not fall on other shoulders than mine. Let us consider some of the things my Reviewers have said about Erasmus:

"Complete, and better attested MSS, and many more in number, that have come to light and been critically studied by a large number of expert scholars since the one man, Erasmus made up his hasty text from a few MSS under pressure of competition with another printer than his employer, but which the author calls 'a pure Greek Text."' (Summary, p. 2)

Yet Sister White has held Erasmus up to us as an instrument in the hands of God to do a great and wonderful work. She says:

"In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God has been printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform...

"A diligent student and an earnest seeker for truth, he (Tyndale) had received the gospel from the Greek Testament of Erasmus." "Great Controversy", p. 245. (Italics mine.)

But what do my Reviewers say? Here are their words:

"5778 improvements were made by the whole (Revision) committee in order to correct the many glaring defects of Erasmus' hastily assembled text, so obsequiously followed by Stephens and the Elzevirs in later editions." III Summary, 7. (Emphsis mine)

Surely Stephens, the Elzevirs and Beza, one working in England, another on the continent and the third in Geneva, years later, must have been strangely deficient in scholarship not to notice Erasmus' glaring defects. Surely 350 years of Protestant scholarship down to 1881 must have been nothing but Continued stupidity to accept all that time Erasmus' glaring defects.

In view of the misrepresentations continually pouring from the modernistic presses against Erasmus, the Received Text and the AV, I think it is a good thing for the public to have a book, which will answer these misrepresentations and give them facts.

When the time would come for the third angel's message to be given in its greatest power- then, Sister White declares: "The stealthy, but rapid growth of the papal power all will be unmasked." "Great Controversy", p. 606.

My Reviewers agree with or defend the Revisers, and higher critics and textual critics against Sister White on more than 30 scripture passages, considered in my book:

(1) Matt. 6:13, The Lord's Prayer. (2) Matt. 5:44, Praying for enemies. (3) Luke 4:8, Get thee behind me Satan. (4) Luke 11:2-4 Secondary account of Lord's Prayer. (5) Rom. 5:1 (margin) Let us have peace. (6) I Cor. 5:7, For us. (7) Col. 1:14, His blood. (8) I Tim. 3:16, God manifest in the flesh (9) II Tim. 4:1, His appearing and Kingdom. (10) Rev. 22:14, Blessed are they that do His commandments. (11) John 2:11, Beginning of miracles. (12) Matt. 18:2, 3 Conversion. (13) Heb. 11:3, The worlds were framed (margin). (14) Col. 1:15,16, In Him or by Him. (15) Acts 24:15, The resurrection. (16)Matt. 24:3, The second coming (margin) of Christ. (17) Titus 2:13, The glorious appearing. (18) Rev. 1:7, Shall wail because of Him. (19)Acts 3:19, Times of Refreshing. (20) Mark. 16:9-20, The last twelve verses of Mark (21)Matt. 17:21, Fasting. (22) John 8:1-11, Woman taken in adultery. (23) Luke 9:55, 56, What manner of spirit. (24) Acts 8, 37, The Eunuch's confession. (25) Rev. 13:10, on captivity. (26) I Cor. 11:29, The Lord's Supper (27) James 5:16, Confess your faults. (28) Heb. 10:21, A high priest. (29) I Cor. 15:3,4, He rose again. (30) Matt. 27:46, A great crises of Christian life. (31) I Cor. 11:24, My body which is broken.

Is it not astonishing how often the Revised Version disagrees with Sister White even in the limited number of texts considered in my book; and still more astonishing that my Reviewers agreed with the Revisers and defended them and disagreed with the Spirit of Prophecy.

I have heard that the Minority Quorum of the General Conference has passed a vote to the effect that "they recognized the equal value of the Authorized and the American Revised Version". In the light of this fact I wish to bring into relief some statements found in this document of the Reviewers which was written, I believe, by some member of the Minority Committee. To my mind they do NOT express an equal appreciation of these two versions. Please listen:

(Against AV) The many glaring defects of Erasmus' hastily assembled text, so obsequiously followed the Stephens and the Elzevirs in later editions. III-Sum. 7.

(For RV) "Those English divines (Westcott and Hort) are considered by many scholars as the highest and latest authority on the Greek text." I-8 (Quotation)

(Against AV) That the Received Text is the pure, uncorrupted, apostolic scripture transmitted without substantial change through the centuries is, clearly overthrown. 1-42.

(For RV) "This Vatican manuscript is considered by a great many scholars to be the best of all the New Testament manuscripts. The Sinaitic and the Vatican are here, from the standpoint of the history of the text as thus far known, by far the two best witnesses for the oldest text... If the given view be correct, they represent not the current, re-wrought, worked over manuscripts of the second century, but such as retained in an eminent degree the text which has come to that century from the hands of the original writers." (Quotation) 11-13.

(Against AV) There is no historical proof that any Greek text was more definitely influenced by Catholic hands, a Catholic version, and Catholic approval than was that of Erasmus, yet the text of Erasmus was the basis of what has since been called the Textus Receptus, which the author lauds so highly as a pure, uncorrupted text. 111-6-6

(For RV) "If B and S agree there is usually strong evidence for the genuineness of a reading; if it is supported by ante-Nicene testimony it is conclusive. Such concurrent testimony gives us the most ancient readings, that may be traced to within a century of the time when the original autographs were penned." (Quotation) 11-12

(Against AV) "The edition of Erasmus consequently has little critical value." (Quotations) 11-9

(For RV) "It will be seen that the Greek text underlying the Revised Version has very strong claims on our acceptance." (Quotation) 1-10

(Against AV) "If however, some of the personal views of the committee of 1611 were disclosed, what a contrast might appear to the extravagant eulogium of the members of this committee by the authority 11-18

(For RV) "B gives us as does S, (Sinaiticus) 'the simplest, shortest and concisest text.' The charge that many important words are omitted is imaginary, say Westcott and Hort, (p. 557)." (Quotation) 11-12

(Against AV) "And the general result of these generations of study is to show that the text used by the translators of 1611 is far from perfect." (Quotation) 1-10.

(For RV) "Vatican MS unquestionably superior in accuracy and authenticity. (A quotation is given to prove that the Vatican MS is superior.) 11-13

(Against AV) "Such was the fourth edition of Erasmus, the mother-edition of the Textus Receptus and of our own Authorized Version. It was based, as we have seen, on scanty evidence and late manuscripts." (Quotation) 11-9.

(For RV) The ARV shows its fidelity to authenticated texts and its freedom from the charge of mutilation. 111-6-6.

(Against AV) "The version of 1611 was made from a Greek text formed by a comparison of very few manuscripts, and those, for the most part, late. The version of 1881, on the other hand, was made from a Greek text based upon an exhaustive examination, extending over some two centuries, of all the best manuscripts in existence." (Quotation) I-10.

(For RV) Complete and better attested MSS and many more in number, that have come to light and been critically studied by a large number of expert scholars since the one man, Erasmus, made up his hasty text from a few MSS under pressure of competition with another printer than his employer, but which the author calls "a pure Greek text." Sum. 2

(Against AV) The faulty character of the Textus Receptus.I-38

(For RV) "Scholars in general believe B (.The Vatican Manuscript) to be the chief evidence for the most ancient form of the New Testament text, and it is clear that the Revisers of our English Bible attached the greatest weight to its authority." (Quotation) 1-21.

(Against AV) 1611 manuscripts of late date and few in number. (Followed by quotation to that effect.) 11-18

(For RV) These noted MSS (The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) 1-27

The Vatican MS equal to the best. II-11. Vatican MS on the whole the best and oldest. 11-12

Vatican MS most valuable of all. 11-12

(Against AV) "The early uncritical editions." (Quotation) II-5.

(For RV) "Vatican MS most ancient and of incalculable value. "Codex Vaticanus. This is regarded as probably the most ancient of all the Greek MSS now known to exist." (Quotation) 11-13. He fails to inform his readers that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus MSS are listed as first and third among the major MSS by all scholars up to date.

(Against AV) Science of textual criticism sprung up since 1611. "He (the reader) will have seen also (to recapitulate here for greater clearness) (1) that in the present day we have access to a treasury of ancient manuscripts, versions and quotations such as the scholars of King James Day had never dreamed of; (2) that the science of textual criticism which teaches the value and the best methods of dealing with these documents, has entirely sprung up since: (3) that our scholars are better acquainted with the sacred languages, and able to distinguish delicate shades of meaning which were quite lost on their predecessors; and (4) lastly, that owing to the natural growth of the English language itself many words in the Authorized Version have become obsolete, and several have completely changed their meaning during the past 300 years." (Quotations) 11-19.

(For RV) The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus respectively, are the two oldest MSS among all that have been collected by scholars over the centuries. 111-6-5

(Against AV) Obvious errors in AV. III-Sum. - 4

(For RV) More literal renderings, and greater fidelity to authenticated Greek MSS. Conclusion-7

In the light of the foregoing statements it is clearly evident that the writers of this document endeavored continually to cast discredit on the AV and its underlying Greek N.T. and to exalt the ARV and its underlying Greek N.T.

In fact it is perfectly clear to all of you, I think, that the Reviewers were not seeking equality for the AV and the ARV, but supremacy for the ARV. In fact so great was their bias for the ARV that all of their argument for the Revised and all of their disparagement of the AV was in their own estimation appreciation for the Revised; whereas my argument for the AV and disparagement of the ARV was in their estimation attack; in fact, "attack upon the Word itself". How can any one explain that what they have done is appreciation; but What I have done is attack?

Who is it that is discrediting all Versions? A very peculiar charge has been made against me that my treatment of the Versions discredits all Versions. This charge has been made form time to time, and from various sources. Let us examine the facts, and be absolutely fair to one another.

First, the Authorized Version is in general usage among all Protestant peoples, as well as among Seventh-day Adventists, to the extent of about 99%.

Now it must be evident that my book shows the source and authorities which stand out pre-eminently in the establishment of the Authorized Version as the authoritative Word of God. Therefore, its influence must be to confirm the faith of 99% out of 100%. I would very much regret to think that it would unsettle the faith of even the remaining one per cent in the true Word of God. But the most peculiar thing about the whole charge is, that when I establish the authoritative foundations of the Authorized Version and showed the origin of the Revised Version, I am held up as unsettling the faith of the people in the Word of God.

But when the devotees of the Revised Version exalt the Revised Version and point out the inferiority of the Authorized Version, derived from faulty and inferior MSS, its Textus Receptus containing glaring defects, 120,000 errors, etc. they seem not to be able to see that this would tend to unsettle the faith of 99% of all the people in the Word of God just as truly and really and actually and fully as mine could unsettle the faith of the one per cent. Is there anyone who cannot see the unreasonableness and unfairness of the charge about my unsettling the faith of the people in the Word of God, in view of the foregoing facts I have stated.

I wish to bring some more expressions from my Reviewers' document into relief at this point, and ask you to consider whether these expressions represent a Christian and brotherly spirit.

"Hidden identity of printer" I-1

"Unauthorized character of this volume" I-1

"Violates primal laws of evidence" I-1

"Unwarranted impressions" 1-4

"Unsound and unscholarly procedure" 1-4

"Unnecessary issue is distressing indeed" 1-5

"Borders perilously on sacrilege" 1-6

"Intolerable odium" 1-6

"Utter unsoundness of this argument" 1-12

"Unfair and untrustworthy criticism" 1-17

"Appeal to religious prejudice" 1-17

"Unworthy of a fair, Christian scholar"I-17

"Strained quotations" 1-17

"An unfair deduction" 1-17

"As silly" 1-19

"A distinct bias" 1-21

"Unreliable character of the work the more deplorable" 1-21

"Specious and unwarranted positions" 1-21

"Prejudged his case before looking for his testimony" 1-21

"Misuse of authorities" 1-24

"It is perverted use of authority" 1-24

"Another glaring exhibition" 1-24

"Has perverted in a threefold manner" 1-26

"His efforts to slur" 1-28

"Misquotation of authorities" 1-28

"A flagrant example" 1-28

"Using in an absolutely unwarranted way" 1-30

"As striking a perversion of an authority as is found in this book" 1-30

"Inaccuracies and misstatements that abound" 1-30

"Utterly contrary to the patent facts" 1-33

"A grandiloquent style to dazzle and impress forgetting that assertion or inference is not proof." 1-40

"The volume abounds in illogical conclusions clothed in oratorical garb." 1-40

"Constructive textual criticism is confused with destructive higher criticism in unwarranted and fantastic ways." 1-40

"Uncompromising position of author" 1-38

"Hopeless confusion of fact, conjecture and assertion" 1-40

"In many places the argument is plainly built upon an appeal to religious and denominational prejudice rather than upon solid facts or a legitimate appeal to reason" I-40

"Operating principles are not sound." 1-40

"Intensified study of this character can easily become an obsession" 1-40

"Perverted to support such claims" 1-40

"Systematic misuse of evidence by the author" 1-41

"Constantly violates primal laws of evidence in his misuse of authorities" 1-41

"Unjustifiable aspersions" 1-41

"Gross misrepresentation" 1-41

"Frequent misuse and misquotation of authorities are exposed" 1-41

"Misstatements of the author- exposed" 1-42

"Unfair allegation ... masked" 1-42

"Basically fallacious argument" 1-42

"Fallacy of the author's unreasonable contention" 11-4

"Preposterous" 11-4

"Rest wholly upon his own unsupported authority" 11-6

"A slurring manner" II-11

"Appeal to religious prejudiced" II-11

"Unsupported assertions" II-11

"A prejudiced view" 11-14

"No basis worthy of confidence" 11-14

"It is nothing short of amazing to find the one who apparently feels competent to enter the field of Biblical criticism" 11-14

"Includes only a part of the sentence or paragraph that suits his one-sided argument" 11-16

"Statements are all entirely unwarranted" 11-18

"Unfairest methods" 111-6-2

"Far-fetched inferences" 111-6-3

"Quotations from questionable sources and of questionable kind" 111-6-3

"Strained interpretation" 111-6-3

"Wanders off into a digression on limbo and purgatory" 111-12-5

"Seem utter folly in the light of the original forms used in the text" 111-12

"But goes off on another tirade on revision changes in general, and theological views concerning them." 111-12-12

"Labored contention of the entire book" III-Sum. -3

"He employs unfair and illogical methods of weighing evidence such as these: He prejudges his case before he tries it. He draws material from a number of authorities without any standing in textual or historical criticism" Conclusion-2

"Draws frequently unwarranted and illogical conclusions." Conclusions-3

"Strained interpretations" Conclusion-3

"When it serves his purpose he disregards an alternative reading or an informative note in the margin" Conclusion-7

"Our laity should be protected from such imposition" 1-6

"Untrustworthy manipulation" 1-21

"Such deliberate perversion of fact is without excuse, and could only be made through gross carelessness, or under the pressure of the need of further authority to extablish the claims of the author concerning the Received Text.' 1-29

In the light of the accusations made against me by my Reviewers that I was "casting odium," and in view of this formidable list of things they said, may I humbly inquire who is casting odium? Do you brethren approve of this list of epithets, as representing the style of literary writing employed by members of the General Conference Minority Committee?

I admit that I started out to write my book with a bias, a Christian bias, a Protestant bias, a Seventh-day Adventist bias. My Reviewers, professedly starting with no bias, arrive at conclusions at variance with the Spirit of Prophecy, and admit the doubtful authority, even spuriousness of texts quoted by Sister White.

How far would a Seventh-day Adventist get in browsing around among all the modern theories of evolution if he did not have a distinct bias to start with? My Reviewers apparently unhampered by any bias of any kind have cast their lot among modern textual critics and there they seem bound to stay. They have already been led astoundingly far a-field. How much farther they are willing to go we can only conjecture.

We will soon have a new revision of the Revised Version by modern textual scholars. We will soon have a new revision of the Vulgate issued from the Vatican made by the greatest intellectual scholars that the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church can get together. My unbiased Reviewers will no doubt be consistent and accept these latest products of the best modern scholars. I believe with all my heart that we have now a translation of the Bible that was given us by men of unequalled scholarship led by the Spirit of God in their work, at the time when the world movement of reform was starting. This Bible as a whole has been attested to by the Spirit of Prophecy. I accept it as my supreme authority. I am not waiting for the latest product of modern textual criticism to come along to give me another version by which I can revise my faith. My faith is founded and grounded on the Textus Receptus, the Authorized Bible. All true Adventists will finally have to take it as their anchor or be buffeted about by doubts and questions unavoidably confronted in these products of modern textual criticism that threaten to destroy faith.

I quote from the document of the Revisers, Section I, pp. 16,17.

"The claim of the author is that the Waldenses had a pure text of the Bible, transmitted direct to them from Palestine, and that this text was the foundation of the Textus Receptus. But the testimony here submitted shows that the Waldensian Bible was in all likelihood a revision of the Old Latin text originating in northern Africa, and that it was doubtless the last revision of the Old Latin text previous to, and leading up to the Vulgate, and that the Bible of the Waldenses was the Vulgate itself. Therefore the effort to establish the claim that the Waldensian Church possessed manuscripts directly descended from the apostolic originals, collapses. Neither Mr. Nolan in 1815, nor the author of the book under review in 1930, is able to convince any textual critic that this claim is a sound one. But when this claim is overthrown, the very foundation of the book under review is removed, and the conclusions which are based upon it are rendered untenable." (Emphasis mine)

I accept this challenge. It is a question of authority, textual critics or the Spirit of Prophecy. My Reviewers seem to accept the assertions of higher critics rather than the positive statements of the Spirit of Prophecy, in the chapter on the Waldenses in GREAT CONTROVERSY. We must all make our choice. I quote from the statements of the Spirit of Prophecy,

"The faith which for many centuries was held and taught by the Waldensian Christians was in marked contrast to the false doctrines put forth from Rome. Their religious belief was founded upon the written word of God, the true system of Christianity ... Theirs was not a faith newly received. Their religious belief was their inheritance from their fathers. The contended for the faith of the apostolic church.... 'the faith that was once delivered unto the saints.'

"The church in the wilderness,' and not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth, which God has committed to his people to be given to the world." Mrs. E.G. White, "Great Controversy," p. 64. (Emphasis mine)

They had the true apostolic faith. They possessed the genuine word of God. Jesus said to his disciples, "The flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." John 6:55,63. I claimed for the Waldenses a pure apostolic Bible, not one received from Rome. So did Sister White. My Reviewers say that the claim collapses. On the other hand they claim that the Waldenses had only the Vulgate, the Bible of Rome. (See quotation heading Section I, p. 16)

To the Waldenses, Sister White says, were committed the treasures of truth They did not preserve the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; nor sustantialy their equivalents; therefore the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the treasures of Truth. Moreover if the Church fled into the wilderness to preserve the Word of Truth surely the power pursuing her, Rome, was not, as her authority, guarding the Word.

I will quote again from "Great Controversy":

"Behind the lofty bulwarks of the mountains... the Waldenses found a hiding place. Here the light of truth was kept burning amid the darkness of the Middle Ages. Here, for 1,000 years witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith." pp. 65, 66.

"Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth UNADULTERATED." "Great Controversy", p. 65 (Emphasis mine)

Isaiah the Prophet promised the perpetual preservation of the word. He said;

"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion... As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever," Isa. 59:20,21.

God promised that his Word would not be taken from His people down to the very end of time. The miracle of preservation of the Word of God is as great as the miracle of its inspiration. "The word of the Lord endureth forever." ( Peter 1:25). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35).

This promise that God would preserve his Word perfect and uncorrputed was fulfilled as we have seen by the Waldenses. Here are the words of the Holy Spirit as given in GREAT CONTROVERSY:

"Satan had urged on the papal priests and prelates to bury the Word of truth beneath the rubbish of error, heresy, and superstition but in a most wonderful manner it was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness. It bore not the stamp of man, but, the impress of God. Men have been unwearied in their efforts to obscure the plain, simple meaning of the Scriptures, and to make them contradict their own testimony; but like the ark on the billowy deep, the word of God outrides the storms that threaten it with destruction." p. 69

"They were employed also in copying the scriptures. SOME MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINED THE WHOLE BIBLE." Idem, p. 68.

From apostolic times, by the Waldenses and their ancestors, the word of God UNADULTERATED, UNCORRUPTED was handed down to the Reformers and on to the church that keeps the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 12:17).

What was the use of Sister White writing all these astounding descriptions, if, the papacy had the true Bible? What point is there in that which she-says, if the anti-Christ had the dame Bible as the Waldenses, and if all Bibles were alike wherever found? These clear statements of the Spirit of God above all the writings of textual critics must settle the question of the true Word of God with those who believe in the third angel's message.

In disagreement with these prophecies of the Bible and the positive statements of the Spirit of Prophecy, recording their fulfillment, the Reviewers say,

"The effort to establish the claim that the Waldensian church possessed manuscripts directly descended from the apostolic originals, collapses. Neither Mr. Nolan in 1815, nor the author of the book under review in 1930, is able to convince any textual critic that this claim is a sound one." (Section I, p. 17)

Thus do my Reviewers build upon the drifting sands of textual criticism, rather than upon the testimony of God's servant. They choose the opinions of critics in disagreement with the Word of God, which shall endure, though heaven and earth pass away, and in disagreement with the words of God's prophet for the remnant church. I cannot believe that the Minority Committee or the Officers of the General Conference will choose to stand with my Reviewers in disagreement with the Spirit of Prophecy. The reviewers further state:

"When this claim (viz. that the Waldenses preserved the word of God uncorrupted) is overthrown, the very foundation of the book under review is removed and the conclusions which are based upon it are rendered untenable." (Section I. p. 17)

Then if the Waldenses, the church in the wilderness, did not preserve manuscripts directly descended form the apostolic originals", either the Church of Rome preserved them, or there were none.

But this claim cannot be overthrown as long as the Spirit of God is authority. I am perfectly willing that my book should stand or fall with the spirit of Prophecy. But I am startled beyond measure that my Reviewers should so openly and directly contradict the inspired statements of the Prophet of God who has never taught out of harmony with the words of the Bible, or the facts of history.

My book is in harmony with the statements of the Spirit of Prophecy and brings forward this textual and historical proof to support this position and strengthen our faith in God's Word and the Spirit of Prophecy.

The position of the Reviewers can never be reconciled with the statements of Sister White who says that the Waldenses had the doctrine of the apostles and the manuscripts of the word of God uncorrupted. Her statement they claim is overthrown. What do my Reviewers intend by this logic? Has the Spirit of Prophecy passed away as authority in this denomination? Is this the ground upon which they oppose my book?

We must either deny the inspiration of the Prophet appointed by the Lord for the church of this day and message; that the Waldenses were the guardian of the true Word of God, or deny the claims of my Reviewers that the best manuscripts came to us through the Roman Catholic Church.

My brethren, contemplate the centuries of awful suffering endured by the Waldenses, that the Word of God might live. For this, they were faithful unto death. Alone in the wilderness, on the island, surrounded by a furious sea of hate and persecution, they suffered that they might pass on to us their testimony in favor of their sacrifice, their sufferings and their privations. Shall we be ungrateful to them for what they did? Shall we allow their memory to pale and wane before glorious tributes paid to the power which made them suffer? My brethren, we must stand by the Waldenses.

1. This document to which I am replying is not a "review" as the title claims, but an attack- on the Authorized Version and a plea for the Revised Version.

2. The reviewers failed in this document' to notice, much less to justify the apostate, Romanizing, and Unitarian character of Westcott and Hort, gas presented in my book.

3. They likewise failed even to notice, much less to answer, the grave charges my book brought against Philip Schaff, President of both American theological colleges.

4. Their document, likewise, ignored and failed to meet the argument drawn from the Oxford movement which Jesuitized England, revised her Protestant prayer book and articles of faith, and created the men and measures which could produce the Revised Version.

5. They failed to notice, much less to answer my argument drawn from the fact that five great churches which never bowed the knee to Rome the Celtic, the Gallic and Italic, the Syrac and Byzantine early possessed a Bible of the Textus Receptus type.

6. They failed to notice or to meet the arguments drawn from the Council of Trent, which voted as its first four articles: (1) Putting the Vulgate on its feet; (2) Establishing the Apocryphal books; (3) Establishing tradition, and (4) Taking the interpretation of the Bible out of the hands of the laity; all of which split the world into Protestantism and Catholicism.

They failed to meet the indisputable testimony which I brought forth from Catholic scholars, that in-the Revised Version were restored the Catholic readings denounced in Reformation and post- Reformation times.

7. They made no attempt to handle the argument drawn from the chapter, "The Reformers Reject the Bible of the Papacy."

8. They failed completely to meet, or even to notice, the tremendous argument drawn from the great struggle over the Jesuit Bible of 1582.

9. They failed to notice, much less to answer the tremendous argument drawn from my chapter, which gave the history of the men, the documents and the methods under which the Authorized Version was born.

10. They paid absolutely no attention to my chapter. "Three Hundred Years of Attack on the King James Version", which showed the monumental work done by Jesuits, higher critics, and pantheistic German scholars in undermining the inspired evidences laid by the prophets of God for His divine word, which evidences lead all men to see that the miracle of inspiration. These higher critics substituted for these evidences their subtle, pantheistic, Romanizing, Unitarianistic figments of imagination under the dignified title of critical intuition.

11. When my book found that the text of the Revised Version was wrong in the margin they fell back on the manuscripts; when they could find no refuge in the manuscripts they plead parallel passages in other places; then there was no help in parallel passages, they sought refuge in tearing up the established usage of words, they resorted to theological argument.

12. They failed in their argument on MSS because they grouped together two thousand noble cursives as one witness and called them the Textus Receptus, even though they ranged over a thousand years, representing many different countries and representing many different churches.

13. In this reply I have completely vindicated myself from the severe charge brought by the review of "untrustworthy manipulation" "deliberate perversion of facts", "splitting sentences", and other like charges. I have shown that these accusations were based largely on my reviewers mistakes.

14. In section 11 I sustained the MSS on which the Textus Receptus was based against the unjust charges of being late, faulty and unreliable. I brought the testimony of even the Revisers that it was as ancient as any other text, and represented by thousands of manuscripts. I vindicated Erasmus from the charge of being a Catholic, subservient to the papacy and of bringing out a Catholic text. These charges were made in the face of the Spirit of Prophecy, crediting him with (1) correcting errors of former versions; (2) of giving a great impetus to the work of reform and (3) of completing through Tyndale the work of giving the Bible in England.

15. On the other hand my reviewers failed to show why the world in general and our people in particular should not have at least one book which tells them the real truth against the misrepresentations appearing everywhere, cast upon Erasmus, upon the Authorized Version and upon the Waldenses.

16. In Section V, I vindicated the AV against the charge that it was out of date because it was not based upon the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. I prove these MSS to be corrupt documents and would render questionable a version based upon them.

17. My reviewers failed to prove why God, as their arguments indicate, left his people fifteen hundred years or more exposed to that faulty Textus Receptus (As they say) until the excellencies of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were revealed; the one through the courtesy of the pope, the other through the courtesy of a Catholic convent.

18. My reviewers did not tell why we should endorse the most marked and deplorable departures of the Revised Greek N.T. from the Textus Receptus, when those were supported by less than one per cent of all available witnesses.

19. In section III, I cleared the Waldenses from the charges that they did not possess manuscripts directly descended from the apostolic originals. My reviewers denied this fact notwithstanding the opposite statements of the Spirit of Prophecy, and other authorities.

20. In section IV, I vindicated my book and my conclusions as being in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy, which according to the Index, makes 15,117 references to the Bible. Of these, more than ninety-five out of every one hundred are from the Authorised Version. On the other hand Sister White endorsed over thirty of the AV texts considered in my book, but which were changed or omitted in the Revised Version. These changes were endorsed by my reviewers, placing themselves here, with the textual critics against Sr. White.

21. They failed to show how my book could have any detrimental influence, since it represents the position of Sister White and fundamentalists in general, and the vast majority of the lay members of this denomination.

22. In Section VI, I vindicated the sacred origin given to words when Tyndale, as Sr. White says, was impelled by the Spirit of God to open a closed Bible to the people of England. I further vindicated the established usage of those words such as "miracle", "be converted"; world" etc., against modernistic, pantheistic and Romanist substitution therefore.

23. My reviewers failed to justify those changes. They attempted to do it on the ground of textual criticism and took their stand with modern textual critics.

24. A very significant fact which my reviewers overlooked is that the General Convention of the American Episcopal Church formally refused, in 1892, to give the clergy liberty to use the English Revised Version and they took similar action in 1904 regarding the American Edition.

25. They also overlooked the fact that the Revised Version was not accepted by the northern half of the Church of England.

26. They failed to inform us that a committee of 34 Hebrew and Greek Scholars appointed to investigate for the Tercentary Celebration of the Authorized in 1911, the Validity of its original texts in the light of 300 years of history, in its report rejected 98% of the changes made by the Revisers.

27. 1 also sustained the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ against the license taken with such texts as I Tim. 3:16 in the ARV.

28. I also vindicated our great truth, special to Seventh-day Adventists, of the cleansing of the sanctuary against the modernistic translation of Acts 3:19 in the ARV.

29. I also sustained the AV rendering of the texts on the law, I John 3:4, Col. 2:16; Rev. 22:14, supported by the Spirit of Prophecy against the damaging change in the ARV.

30. I also sustained good old Protestant and Adventist texts on the Second Coming of the Lord against the vague, and modernistic renderings in the ARV.

31. I also sustained those texts on the state of the dead which were changed by the Revisers to favor the intermediate state, purgatory, and spiritualism.

32. I also sustained the AV in its rendering of the texts on the Sabbath against such damaging changes as opened the way for Sunday keepers to defend the abolition of the Sabbath.

33. My reviewers failed to show that in my book I said anything against any article of faith of the Seventh-day Adventists or that I was: in any way guilty of heresy.

34. They gave no reason why all the different versions which contain dangerous readings should not be checked up and their dangers as well as their advantages be made known to the people.

35. They failed to show why the people shouldn't have a book to tell them the story of how the Bible has come to us, not according to the vagaries and varied whims of textual critics, but in accordance with the spirit of Prophecy.

36. They failed in the way they wrote this "review" to show any just cause for the document. It is highly controversial. By their exaltation of the Revisers and the; Revised Version, and their disparagements of the Waldenses, of Erasmus, the Textus Receptus, and the- AV, they have vindicated more than ever the need of just such a book as I have written.

37. They failed to show why, when the modernistic press is pouring forth books belittling the Waldenses, Erasmus, the Textus Receptus and the AV., it is not only highly desirable, but positively necessary that a book such as mine should give the public the viral facts.

38. When I published my book I did not know of the action of the Minority Quorum of the General Conference voting to consider the AV and the RV on an equality. But when my reviewers published their document, they knew of this action. Nevertheless in their document they plainly violated this action, for any one who reads their document cannot help but see that they uniformly argue for the superiority of the Revised over the Authorized.

39. Plain evidence of the bias and unfairness of the situation is the fact that although the Authorized holds, and always has held, the field about ninety-nine per cent strong, the insistent effort to exalt the Revised bring it into public notice, and even disparage the Authorized, is accepted without protest. But whenever someone raises his voice and pen to defend the Authorized, he is regarded as raising an issue, starting a controversy and being the instigator. According to such logic a man may be living peaceably and quietly in his own home, when an intruder comes into his home, attacks the members of his family, breaks up the furniture; this is not a controversy or an issue; but if the head of the house defends his property and family, he is raising the issue and causing controversy.

I absolutely plead "not guilty" to starting a controversy over the Versions, and raising this issue. All I did was to come to the defense of the Authorized Version when it was attacked; and immediately there was a cry; "Let us have no controversy".

I submit that about ninety-nine per cent of our people read the AV and that one per cent has no right to upset the faith of the piney-nine per cent. I submit further that anything said in behalf of the AV will confirm the faith of these ninety-nine percent, whereas anything said to disparage the AV has in it the danger of unsettling the faith of niney-nine per cent.

40. Inasmuch as in at least three of our leading Colleges, a course in the origin of the Bible is given in which pro-Revised Version text books such as "The ancestry of Our English Bible" by Ira M. Price is used, my reviewers failed to show why there is no need for a book to correct and counteract the misleading influence and teachings of such books.

41. My reviewers failed to show why they should have liberty to use the Versions of their choice, and to tell the people why they are their choice, which liberty no one has denied them, and at the same time to take away from the people their liberty to read the reasons for the superiority of the AV which is used by over ninety-nine per cent of our people.

42. There are five, if not six reasons why I, from the Spirit of Prophecy, believe that the AV is the authoritative Word of God in English:

(1) Because Sister White says that the Waldenses, not the proud hierarchy of Rome, were the guardians of the Word of Truth. Since Rome, and Rome only, was the guardian of the Vaticanus and S.inaiticus, this statement rules out the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus or the Greek Bible guarded by the Papacy.

(2) She says that the Latin Bible (the Vulgate contained many errors. This rules out the Latin Bible of the Papacy.

(3) She further says that the Bible of the Waldenses was entire, was of apostolic origin, and kept uncorrupted through the ages. We know that this must be the Old Latin, which never bowed the knee to Rome, or to the Vulgate. Since the Textus Receptus type of Latin and the Vaticanus type were rivals, the Bible of the Waldenses was the Textus Receptus.

(4) Sister White endorsed the Textus Receptus or Erasmus as...

(a) Correcting errors of Vulgate.

(b) Giving us a Bible that had clearer sense

(c) Giving new impetus to the work of reform (the reformation).

(d) As completing, through Tyndale, the giving of the Bible to England. (Great Controversy) p. 245

(5) She said that the gospel received by the Britons in the first centuries was then uncorrupted by Romish apostasy. This again was the Old Latin or Textus Receptus type.

(6) Sister White in her writings said "no" to over 30 of the texts of the Revised Version; that is, over 30 of the passages compared in my book; of course there were many more that I did not cite in my book.

II Sam. 21:19 changed in ARV Sr. White used in AV Job 19:25,26 changed in ARV.

Job 26:5 changed in text and (margin) in ARV Sr. White used in AV Isa. 7:14 changed (margin) in ARV

Matt. 2:15 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV 5:44 omission of part in ARV

Sr. White " " 6:13 end of Lord's Prayer omitted in ARV.

Sr. White " " " 17:21 entirely omitted in ARV

Sr. White " " " 18:2,3 changed in ARV

Sr. White " " " 24:3 changed (margin) in ARV

Sr. White " " " 27:46 changed (margin) " "

Mark 7:19 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV 16:8-20 branded with suspicion in ARV

Luke 1:72 changed in ARV

2:33 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 4:8 omission of part ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 9:55,56 omissions in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 11:2-4 omissions in ARV

23:44, 45 changed in ARV

John 1:3,4 changed (margin) in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 2:11 changed in ARV

Sr. White " " " 8:1-11 branded with suspicion in ARV

14:2 changed (margin) in ARV

Sr. White used in AV Acts 3:19 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 8:37 entirely omitted in ARV

" 13:42 changed in ARV

15:23 changed in ARV

16:7 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 24:15 omission in ARV

Sr. White used in Av Romans 5:1 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV I Cor. 5:7 omission in ARV

Sr. White used in AV 11:24 omission in ARV

Sr. White used in AV 11:29 omission in ARV

Sr. White used in AV 15:3,4 changed in ARV

15:47 omission in ARV

Eph. 3:9 omission in ARV 5:30 omission in ARV

Phil. 3:20,21 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV Col. 1:14 omission in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 2:15,16 changed in ARV

II Thess.2z2 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV I Tim. 3:16 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV II Tim. 4:1 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV Titus 2:13 changed in ARV

Heb. 1:2 changed (margin) in ARV

7:21 omission in ARV

9:27 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 10:21 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 11:3 changed in (margin) in ARV

Sr. White used in AV James 5:16 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV I Peter 4:6 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV II Peter 2:9 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV Rev. 1:7 changed in ARV

13:8 changed in ARV

Sr. White used in AV " 13:10 changed in ARV

13:18 changed in ARV

22:14 changed in ARV

I think it is proper that I should state to this Committee the facts as I see them relative to the introductory statement read by your Secretary, Monday, April 20 since this places squarely before me the case as your Committee view it.

I should first like to call your attention to the chronological order of events connected with the Version controversy.

The correspondence with the parties involved, as mentioned in the statement read by the Secretary, was not really a correspondence, but simply a letter from Elder Spicer, dated November 18, 1928. After this letter the public utterances, so far as I know, occurred in the following order:

An article in the SIGNS, November 12, 1929, by Professor Wirth.

2. A series of articles in the SIGNS, beginning December 3, 1929, by Elder Prescott.

3. The world's Best Book published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association, early in 1930.

4. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by me, June 1930. I did not publish my book until after the foregoing responsible agents of the Denomination had published the other side of the question.

5. A letter from Elder McElhany to the field July 27, 1930. A copy of this was not sent to me and I learned of it later only incidentally. His statement in this letter was the first knowledge I had of the action passed by the Minority Committee of the General Conference, March 20, 1930. I did not know that I war was going contrary to this action when I published ray book; for I did not know that any action of any kind pertaining to the Versions had been passed by this body.

In regard to item "4" of your statement, that many workers fear that a general reading of this book will tend to imperial confidence in all Versions: so far as I am informed, only one person besides the reviewers who have read my book have adversely criticized it, or have seen anything harmful in it. On the other hand I have letters from many presidents and union presidents from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from brethren in good standing in the work, some of them veterans in the cause, from Australia, from Europe, from Africa, from Asia, from Canada, and from South America, from every part of the globe. These letters speak in the highest terms of appreciation of the book and many believe it was written in the providence of God. I am sure that if all the testimony from the field were considered, it would overwhelmingly favor the book. Those who have not read it, are its chief opponents. Ninety-nine out of every one hundred of our people read the King James. I am told on every hand that my book confirms the faith of this ninety-nine per cent in the Word of God. I know it does this for those who read the AV.

ANSWERS-TOC