The date of

the introduction of

a controversy, I assure you that, were you not the Dean of Canterbury, I would not answer your remarks. Doubtless, before the publication of this rejoinder, many of the readers of your second essay will have noticed the significant circumstance, that, of the various examples you give of sentences constructed on what you are pleased to call "Mr. Moon's rule", but which, as I have shown, is only a part of "Mr. Moon's 'rule", not one example is drawn from Mr. Moon's own letter.

You say, "But surely we have had "enough of Mr. Moon and his rules". I do not doubt that you have; but I must still detain you, as the Ancient Mariner detained the wedding-guest, until the tale is told. That being finished, I will let you go; and I trust that, like him, you will learn wisdom from the past:

"He went like one that hath been stunned,

"And is of sense forlorn :

"A sadder and a wiser man,

"He rose the morrow morn."

With respect to the date of the intro

"its" into duction of the possessive pronoun "its",

the Bible.

which, you said, "never occurs in the English version of the Bible"; and which, as I showed you, occurs in Leviticus, xxv. 5; you shelter yourself under the plea that you meant that the word never occurs in the "authorised edition", known as "King James's Bible". But, as you did not say either "authorised "edition " or " King James's Bible", I am justified in saying that you have only yourself to blame for the consequences of having used language so unmistakably equivocal, as you certainly did when you said, "the English version of the Bible", and did not mean the English version now in every one's hands, but meant a particular edition published 252 years ago. Speaking of my correction of your error, you say, "What is to be regretted "is, that a gentleman who is setting another right with such a high hand, "should not have taken the pains to ex

amine the English version as it really "stands, before printing such a sentence "as that which I have quoted". I will

show you that my examination of the subject has been sufficiently deep to discover that yours must have been very superficial. Speaking of the word “its", you say, "Its apparent occurrence in the "place quoted is simply due to the King's "printers, who have modernised the pas"sage". "Apparent occurrence"! It is a real occurrence. Are we not to believe our eyes? As for the "King's prin"ters", it was not they who introduced the word "its" into the English Bible. The first English Bible in which the word is found, is one that was printed at a time when there was no King on the English throne, consequently when there were no

King's printers": it was printed during the Commonwealth. Nor was that Bible printed by the "printers to the Parlia"ment". Indeed, it is doubtful whether it was printed in this country. The word "its" first occurs in the English version of the Bible, in a spurious edition supposed to have been printed in Amsterdam. It may be distinguished from the genuine

edition of the same date, 1653, by that very word "its", which is not found in the editions printed by the "printers to "the Parliament", or by the "King's prin"ters" until many years afterwards. So when, in your endeavours to escape the charge of inaccuracy contained in my former letter, you say that the introduction of the word "its", into the English version of the Bible, is owing to the "King's "printers”, you, in trying to escape Scylla, are drawn into the whirlpool of Charybdis !

Misquo

Scripture.

You speak of my demolishing your tation of character for accuracy. I do not know what character you have for accuracy;

* The genuine edition contains most gross errors; for instance, in Rom. vi. 13, it is said, "Neither yield "ye your members as instruments of righteousness", instead of "unrighteousness"; and, as if to confirm the above teaching, it is said, in 1 Cor. vi. 9, "the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of "God"; instead of "shall not inherit". Complaint was made to the Parliament; and most of the copies now extant were cleared of the errors by the cancelling of leaves. The spurious edition is comparatively faultless.

G

but this I know, that whenever I see a man sensitively jealous of any one point in particular of his character, I am not often wrong in taking his jealousy to be a sure sign of conscious weakness in that very point. What are the facts of the case with regard to yourself? I have given several instances of your gross inaccuracy. I take no notice of unimportant misquotations of the Scriptures and of my own sentences, though I could mention several of each occurring in your second essay; but what are we to say of the following? It is, if intentional, which I cannot believe, the boldest instance of misquotation of Scripture, to suit a special purpose, that I ever met with. I am sure it must have been unintentional; but it is such an error, that to have fallen into it will, I hope, serve so to convince you that you, like other mortals, are liable to err; that the remembrance of it will be a powerful restraint on your indignation, if others should venture, as I have done, to call in question your accuracy. The singular instance of misquotation to which