BATTLE OF THE BIBLES

Chapter Eighteen

The Schemers

Unlike Erasmus, who had constructed his Greek New Testament from the Traditional Text line, as handed down from the apostles through the churches in the wilderness, Westcott and Hort went for Eusebius' Greek Bible. Jerome had replaced Eusebius' with a Bible in Latin.

Among the fifty copies of this Bible ordered by Constantine it is reasonably assumed two have survived to this day, simply because they were written on durable vellum and also because they fell into disuse when Jerome's Bible was adopted by Roman Catholicism some sixty year later (See "Our Authorised Bible Vindicated", p 248).

Of these manuscripts, one has survived for centuries locked up in the recesses of the Vatican. There it remained in seclusion until "rediscovered" in 1844. Another survived the ravages of time, protected by the dry air of the Sinai desert. It was rediscovered in 1859 amongst the rubbish of the St Catherine Monastery at the foot of Mt Sinai. It had been tossed out by some monk who obviously regarded it as worthless junk.

These two Origen-impregnated manuscripts have been named Vaticanus (or B) and Sinaiticus (or "Aleph"). Westcott and Hort seized on these Greek New Testaments as a basis for their work for very good reasons. One is that the Origenism with which these manuscripts are impregnated, suited their modernist philosophy and ritualistic desires.

Another circumstance which Westcott and Hort could turn to their advantage was the fact that, although these manuscripts are believed to be two of the fifty commissioned by Constantine, they were so corrupted that they differed significantly in over three thousand places in the Gospels alone¹² So, by using an eclectic method, these two schemers could choose from either manuscript the reading that best suited their philosophy. Furthermore, whereas the Rheims-Douay Bible was not radically different from the King James Version, they could now produce a Greek New Testament as an "authoritative" basis for a "revised" Bible that would bring forth a totally new translation, which would not only please Rome, but would also appeal to the ritual-loving modernistic apostates of Protestantism.¹³ The finished Bible would be further from the Received Text than the Rheims-Douay Bible.

(12 Hoskier cited in "Which Bible" p 136.)

(13 To this day, we see well meaning Protestants appealing to this corrupt text of Westcott and Hort as though it were a faithful translation of the original Greek!)

Again, by using the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, they could claim that because these manuscripts date back to around 331 AD, the revision would be given credibility by virtue of the supposition that the older the manuscript, the more likely it would follow the autographs.

But, as we have seen, this theory is a fallacy on two counts. Firstly, older is not necessarily purer; and secondly, the Waldensian Bibles were of the Antiochan-Itala family, the original of which is reliably dated by the historian Allix and by Scrivener, one of the foremost English critics, at 157 AD.

While Westcott and Hort were busy with their new Greek Testament, agitation for the Revision was increasing. Most of this agitation emanated from the Oxford Movement which, as we have been, was the brain-child of Dr Newman.

The Church of England at this time, consisted of two Convocations - North and South. Neither showed any interest in the proposed revision. A trio of bishops, led by an eminent Revisionist, Bishop Ellicott, sought to overcome this problem by persuading Queen Victoria to appoint a Royal Commission for Revision, but they were flatly refused.

In the Southern Convocation was a very influential bishop of Oxford named Samuel Wilberforce. Ellicott was able to persuade him that a revision of passages where there were plain errors and obsolete words was desirable. Accordingly, in 1870 the Southern Convocation passed a resolution expressing the extent to which they would allow revision, and an amendment was added to included the Old Testament. It read:

A committee of sixteen then sought the support of the Northern Convocation. But this Convocation was obviously awake to the true motives of the revisionists, so they declined saying.

So, the Southern Convocation decided to proceed alone, but with certain precautionary rules and provisos:

Here is indisputable evidence that the Received Text, which included the Greek text of Erasmus, had the complete confidence of the Church of England. One has only to read the preface to the King James Bible to realise that this text was regarded as truly reflecting the original (or apostolic tongues).

Accordingly, in 1870 a Revision Body consisting of eighteen members was formed, seven of whom were to take care of the New Testament; the remainder, the Old Testament. Prominent among the New Testament Seven was Dr Moulton who had been a leading advocate of revision and was an open admirer of the Jesuit-Rheims New Testament. He revealed his critical bent when he claimed:

The Seven then sent out invitations which were accepted by eighteen others, thus bringing the New Testament Revision Committee to twenty-five. Not surprisingly, Dr Newman and his successor in the Oxford Movement, Dr Pusey, were among the invitees. Surprisingly, at first sight, they both declined, but in hindsight, it proved to be a very wise decision, for these men had openly declared their apostate positions and, being very sagacious, they were not about to cause unnecessary alarm. They knew that the Anglican clerics, Drs Westcott and Hort, now had an opportunity to inject their Romanised Greek New Testament into the "Revised" Bible and it was vital that they be elected. Furthermore, it would be preferable to have the "Protestants" do the job themselves. In the end, both were elected, along with Moulton's colleagues, Drs Lightfoot and Ellicott - all committed ritualists and critical revisers.

One fly in the ointment was Bishop Wilberforce who, as we have seen, had been persuaded to support revision on the understanding that as little alteration as possible be made to the Authorised Bible. It was his assent that had led to the consent of the Southern Convocation, so it was virtually mandatory that he be elected as Chairman.

The Old Testament Committee, which also elected others, built up their numbers to twenty-seven. But, for the purpose of this book, our attention will settle on the affairs of the New Testament revisers and the politics employed by Westcott and Hort to ensure the success of their scheme to destroy the Protestant Bible.

Prior to getting down to business, Westcott indicated his traitorous intentions to disregard the Terms of Reference as laid down by the Convocation. He wrote:

Westcott would have no doubt about Hort's willingness to participate in such dishonest conniving. As far back as 1851, even before they had commenced their Greek New Testament, Hort had expressed his hatred of the Received Text:

It is quite evident that Ellicott, the Bishop of Gloucester, was a kindred character, for Westcott was able to reassure Hort:

And, as to the purpose of the "scheme", Westcott had left no doubt, when he wrote to his friend, Benson, on November 7, 1870:

It did not take long for the conspirators to put their "scheme" into action. At the very first meeting, Chairman Wilberforce was made to see just what the majority of committee members were about. He gave vent to his despair in a letter to a colleague:

No wonder! There on the revision team was a non-Christian, the well known Unitarian, Dr G. Vance Smith. Westcott had recently enraged English Christians by encouraging this unbeliever in the divinity of Christ to participate in a communion service at Westminster Abbey!

Wilberforce found the situation so upsetting that he effectively resigned by refraining from attending any future meetings. (He died a very disillusioned man some three years later). The schemers were delighted. They promptly installed Ellicott as Chairman.¹⁵ The "scheme" was now assured of success!

(15 The practice of resigning as a form of objection is fatally flawed. All too often error has been allowed to prosper simply because good men vacate the floor to make way for the bad.)

A relatively small minority, represented principally by Dr Scrivener, were now left to uphold the integrity of the Revision. Scrivener, one of the foremost Greek New Testament scholars, in the mould of another of his contemporaries, Dean Burgon, inevitable clashed with Dr Hort. Relentlessly, Westcott and Hort substituted their Greek text for the Received Text. Ellicott later referred to Scrivener's objections as "A kind of critical duel between Dr Hort and Dr Scrivener" ("Ellicott Addresses", p 61).

Needless to say, Scrivener and his minority supporters were systematically and consistently out-voted. The learned Bishop Gore is adamant that the Greek text used by the revisers followed the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts ("New Commentary", Part III p 721).

Therefore it was inevitable that, far from "A few necessary changes in the interests of clarity", the Revised New Testament was altered in thousands of places - 5,337 of these related to the Greek Text. (Dr Everts, "The Westcott and Hort Text Under Fire", Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1921).

Perhaps no stronger evidence of the fact that the so-called revision was a Roman-inspired plot to replace the Protestant Bible with a Catholic one, comes from the traitorous Cardinal Wiseman, who, along with Newman, devised the whole dastardly scheme. When it became evident that the "Revision" was about to become an accomplished fact he could no longer contain his exuberance, saying,

Although the revisers worked in great secrecy, it is obvious from the above quote that Wiseman was in close touch with his Protestant dupes. He and Newman were now about to see the successful conclusion of the commission given them some thirty-three years earlier by Father Benigno - the Superior of the Franciscans.

As the day for publication of the Revised Version approached, there was great expectation in the English-speaking world. Although the revisers had remained secretive and had consistently refused to release details of their work, yet those responsible for its marketing had been very active. In Britain and America, Christians were anticipating an improved version of their beloved King James Bible.

Drs Westcott and Hort had preserved similar secrecy with their Greek New Testament and only allowed it to be released by the publisher a few days prior to the publication of the New Testament portion of the Revised Version, which materialised on May 17, 1881. The Old Testament did not appear until a little later. The reason for such secrecy soon became apparent. Scholars soon came to realise that the "Revision" was a misnomer and that Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament was a resurrected Eusebius text.

One of the first and outstanding objections to this blatant betrayal of the commission given by the Southern Convocation, came from one of the Church of England's ablest Greek scholars, Dr John W Burgon.

Although a clergyman of the High Church, he was against Ritualism and Higher Criticism. Educated at Oxford, he was one of the few whose belief in Christ's dictum that "My words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35), enabled him to remain unscathed by the raging controversies brought on by the Oxford Movement and Tractarianism. His Brilliant scholastic ability was rewarded with a Fellowship of Oriel College and later, as

Vicar of the University Church of St Marys. After becoming Gresham Professor of Divinity, he spent his remaining twelve years as Dean of Chichester.

His conviction of the inerrancy of Scripture and his outstanding knowledge of New Testament Greek, gave him great confidence in the traditional New Testament Text which he believed to have been handed down from apostolic times. Predicably, he did not find himself on the revision team.

It is easy to imagine the interest with which he awaited the Revised Version's release, for he would be aware of the great danger to which the revision had been exposed when placed in the hands of so many ritualistic Higher Critics. What he eventually found galvanised him to prompt action. He wrote three articles for the "Quarterly Review".

In the first article, "The New Greek Text" he claimed that: "The very citadel of revealed truth [was] undergoing systematic assault and battery, [and that the revision was] founded on an entirely new revision of the Greek Text" ("Article, 1 pp 1, 2).

In other words, far from being a revision, it was a new translation!

Article II dealt with "The New English Version" [of the New Testament]. Referring to the reckless way in which the revisers had deliberately disregarded the Convocation's instructions to make as few alterations as necessary to remove 'plain and clear errors", Burgon lamented the fact that it had not been foreseen that:

"The Revisionists, [besides systematically removing out of sight so many genuine utterances of the Spirit] would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before "¹⁶

(16 Burgon makes a point in connection with the appearance of modern versions. Generally speaking, the "blemishes" have increased in number, until today, the so-called Protestant Bibles and recent Catholic Bibles have moved much further from the Received text than the Catholic Douay Version.)

Article III, "Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory" was quite a lengthy tome, showing that their theory was based on a false presumption that the older the manuscripts, the purer they must be.

It should not be thought by the reader that Dr Burgon was alone in his objection to the "fraud of revision". Indeed, we have noted the continual battle which the heroic Dr Scrivener waged for ten years during the period of revision. When Burgon later had his three "Quarterly Review" articles republished under the title: "The Revision Revised", there also appeared a scholarly work: "Introduction to the New Testament" by Dr Scrivener, debunking Westcott and Hort's textual criticism. Concerning the system devised by Westcott and Hort which was used as the basis for the Revision, he said:

One would suppose that had the Revisers carried out their instructions to make a good Bible better, it would have become immensely popular, and superseded the King James Version. But under the circumstances this was not the case. Although, initially sales were very good, this was entirely due to the curiosity and expectations aroused in people's minds by the terrific barrage of advertising propaganda. No doubt Bishop Wordsworth summed up the general feeling when he compared the Revised Version with the King James Bible while addressing the Lincoln Diocesan Conference:

Although the Revised Version did not succeed in replacing the King James Version, it set in motion a series of so-called revisions, translations and paraphrases which has resulted in a plethora of Bibles, each one claiming to address the inadequacy of its predecessors. Almost invariably, these modern translations have relied on the New Testament of Westcott and Hort, or Greek New Testaments based on those few minority manuscripts used by them - in particular the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. As an example we could cite the Greek New Testament of Nestle.

In order to verify the truth of this assertion it is only necessary to note some changes from the King James Version appearing in the Revised Version and see how many of these are repeated in other versions. One quick check can be made by comparing 2 Peter 2:9. Notice how most of the modern versions follow the Revised Version in placing punishment prior to the judgment. If this were the case, there is no purpose in having a judgment. Furthermore, this text can be used to uphold the dogma of purgatory!

Or, compare Mark 15:28 where we are reminded that Christ had fulfilled the Messianic prophecy by being: "numbered with the transgressors". In all versions following Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, the whole verse is missing.

In the same vein, Acts 8:37 is missing. This is where the eunuch made his confession: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God". And, we could go on.

Jasper James Ray, in his book "God Wrote Only One Bible", tests forty-four Bible versions with 162 selected Scriptural departures from the King James New Testament and the Textus Receptus. Only two New Testament translations pass the test - Martin Luther's and Erasmus's! (He does not list Tyndale's NT, probably because of it's close affinity with the KJV). Westcott and Hort's New Testament fails 151 times, The New International Version heads the list of failures 160 times, the Revised Standard Version 158 times, while Nestle's Greek Text is listed 155 times! These 162 citations are only some of the hundreds of departures from the Received Text.

Meanwhile, in America, initial sales of the Revised Version were tremendous. But, once again, the Revised Version failed to gain popularity. It was thought by some that an Americanised edition of the Revised Version would overcome many of the perceived problems. There was no lack of enthusiasm for an American Version among the growing throng of Bible merchants who were anxious to hear once more the sweet tinkle of their cash registers.

In the following chapter we shall see how the Romanisers of German Protestantism were only too willing to jump on the American bandwagon as had been done in England, through the Oxford Movement.

The contagion of the Oxford Movement soon found victims in North America. Its contaminating theories found ready acceptance among German "Reformationists" in Pennsylvania who were responsible for what came to be known as Mercersburg Theology. What Newman and the Oxford Movement were to Britain, so Dr Philip Schaff and the Mercersburg Movement came to be in America.

Like Newman, Schaff was really an ardent Romanist. Both were traitors to Protestantism. In 1844 Dr Schaff arrived in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, from the University of Berlin, where as a professing Protestant he had shown remarkable aptitude in accepting the Mystical Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Dr Appel described him as

In describing Schaff's penchant for Romanising, one Protestant Reviewer wrote:

The same magazine expressed the anxious concern that Protestantism in America was experiencing a repeat of what happened in England:

From the foregoing brief glimpse of Dr Schaff's philosophy, it is not hard to believe that, had his conscience been guided by the Christian ethic of honesty, he would have renounced all pretence of being a Protestant. On the contrary, he was seen by the enemies of Bible-believing Protestants as the ideal counterpart of such people as Westcott, Hort and Ellicott who had foisted the fraud of Revision on the English-speaking world.

Bishop Ellicott revealed the English involvement in the American Revision by requesting Dr Schaff to take the initiative in leading out in the formation of the American Revision Committee and then its work. This he was quite happy to do. His predilection for a version that would please Roman Catholics is illustrated in his "Church History" where he translated Matthew 16:18 in a way which would favour the apostle Peter as being the first pope. The New Brunswick Review commented on his audacity in this way:

17 Dr Schaff's attitude to Matthew 16:18 is still alive and well among so-called Protestants. A senior theology lecturer at Avondale College writes for the Seventh-day Adventist out-reach journal in Australasia, "Signs of the Times".

"Jesus however, didn't intend to build his community on Peter as such - but on Peter as the first of those who would recognise Him as Messiah.

"It was Peter's confession, 'you are the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matthew 16:16), that made him the suitable person from which to begin to build the Messianic community" ("Signs", Vol 107, No 8, 1992).

Such statements clash with true Protestantism as expressed in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: "The name peter is derived from the Greek petros, a stone, generally from a small slab of stone. The word 'rock' is the Greek petra, the large mass of rock itself ....

"It [Peter's affirmation] is incidental, not fundamental, that Peter was the first to recognise and declare his faith .... But Jesus is ever and only the 'Rock' on which the entire [Church] structure rests" ("SDA Bible Commentary", vol 5, pp 430, 431).

An example of Schaff's domineering efforts to reflect Romanism in the text of the American Revision is seen in his insistence that the Committee alter the rendering of Acts 20:28 to read "bishops" instead of "overseers".

As with the English revisers, there was a Unitarian on the American Committee. His name was Dr Ezra Abbott. Hence it was not unexpected that he should argue strongly to portray Romans 5:9 as a doxology to God, rather than to Christ. He succeeded in expressing his view in the margin (See Riddle, "Story of the American Revised Version", p 32).

Briefly, we have seen how the pagan and papal leprosy of Origen and Jerome seeped into England and America through the Higher Critical theology of Germany via two traitors to Protestantism, Newman and Schaff. Thus Rome had sought to stem the tide of Protestantism's Reform which was flowing from the English-speaking world like a veritable flood of lifegiving truth.

At the forefront of the tremendous efforts exerted by English-speaking Protestants in disseminating the King James Bible and translations into foreign languages was the British and Foreign Bible Society. Formed in 1804 by Protestants for the spread of Bibles based only on the Received Text, it was shortly to be followed by other Bible Societies such as The New York Bible Society in 1809 (Now New York Bible Society, International), and the American Bible Society founded in 1816.

When the Revised Version of 1881 came out in England, the Society immediately recognised it for what it was - a Roman inspired Bible and refused to distribute it. It was only logical then, that the Protestant Bible Societies should receive the attention of Rome, for only a devitalised society could be expected to distribute a devitalised Bible.

In the following chapters we shall briefly trace the history of the Bible Societies and document their relationship to the Received Text.

On March 7, 1804 thirty-six Protestants assembled in London and formed the British and Foreign Bible Society. Fifteen of its members were Anglicans, fifteen were of other Christian communions and six were Christian foreigners who were resident close to London.

At the first annual meeting it was realised that an amendment to Article one of their constitution was necessary. This was because the founding members had taken it for granted that there was only one genuine English-language Bible. The amendment now removed any doubt about the founders' intention for the Society by adding:

Canton comments on Protestant philosophy behind this amendment:

As the Society's work moved into Europe, especially into countries where the Reformation had been subverted by Romanising "Protestants", there was considerable agitation to have the Society bring out Bibles which contained extracanonical material such as the Apocrypha.

Accordingly, the British and Foreign Bible Society allowed its foreign societies discriminatory powers, providing no notes or comments were used (ibid p 335).

It seems that such permission to print the Apocrypha was aimed at keeping European patronage, but the change was brought about without the knowledge of other British supporters. When it was discovered that their money was being used to further the Roman cause there was trouble.

On December 20, 1824 the Society's Committee sought to clarify the situation by refusing any funding of spurious Scriptures. A resolution was passed which stated:

"That no pecuniary grant be made by the Committee of this Society for the purpose of aiding the printing or publishing any edition of the Bible, in which the Apocrypha shall be mixed and interspersed with Canonical Books of Holy Scriptures" (ibid p 337).

Much controversy and dissatisfaction arose among some of the European Societies, but the parent Society made a fresh resolve to keep its hands clean of Roman contamination and in 1826 the resolution became law (ibid). Again in 1839 the Society found it necessary to pass a resolution, this time refusing to recognise Bibles derived from the Roman Vulgate as the Word of God. But those who favoured Roman Bibles were persistent and again in 1856 and 1857 the Society emphatically refused the distribution of Bibles based on the Vulgate, saying that they were in the business of promoting the King James Version (ibid p 63).

Another controversy had also arisen quite early in the Society's history and this dealt with Unitarianism. Problems had arisen over the apparent reluctance of some to open the Society's meetings with prayer, the reason being, that if prayer to God was offered in the name of Jesus Christ, the few Unitarians belonging to the Society would take offence. After much discussion in which it was unsuccessfully urged that the Society and all its members subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, a break away Society was formed, known as the Trinitarian Bible Society. The year was 1831 and the Society is s active to this day, remaining firm in its resolve.

With the advent of the Revised Version in 1881, the British and Foreign Bible Society Committee's report for that year records its attitude to the New Testament Revision. Because of the First Amendment restricting distribution in the English language to the King James Version, much difficulty ensued. Obviously, some on the Committee had been fooled into believing that England had been given a genuine Revision, while others, like Burgon and Scrivener, had seen through the Romish plot to give England a Catholic Bible.

By the year 1901, the Society caved in to mounting pressure and by a majority vote it was agreed to include the Revised Version in its own published editions (Roe, "A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society", Introduction).

But the Trinitarian Bible Society would have nothing to do with the Revised Version. Its members had noted that Unitarians had been on the Committee of Revisers and consequently concluded that the Revised Version must be tainted. Some members of the British and Foreign Bible Society were already transferring their support to the Trinitarian Bible Society. In July 1902 the Trinitarian Bible Society officially rejected the Revised Version (Brown, "The Word of God Among All Nations", p 84).

In spite of the acceptance of the Revised Version by the British and Foreign Bible Society, it failed to replace the Authorised Version which Protestants had grown to love and revere, which just illustrates how pressures for change towards apostasy usually come from the top.

Meanwhile, as mentioned in the previous chapter, Societies had been formed in America. In 1817 the British and Foreign Bible Society entered Australia by forming an Auxiliary in Sydney, which soon became known as the British and Foreign Bible Society (in Australia).

The British and Foreign Bible Society quickly showed that it was living up to its name by disseminating Bibles on a global scale. As the Scriptures were brought within easy reach of the literate, so the economics of large production made them easily affordable by the masses.

In many places around the world, people were seriously studying the Bible but unlike the Roman Catholic Bibles, there were no explanatory notes, and people were the more likely to interpret Scripture as the Holy Spirit directed them. This had always been Rome's great fear and the very reason why she had bitterly opposed the free use of Scripture among her laity.

Hence there arose a great number of non-conformist sects, many of which were to blossom into well-known and highly respected Protestant denominations. Especially was this so in North America where the American Bible Society flourished as a Protestant institution.

As to the apostolic pedigree of the Authorised King James Bible, we can be certain that the American Bible Society had no doubts. As recently as 1939 their periodic publication, "The Book of a Thousand Tongues", made this highly significant statement:

Can an honest reader doubt that the American Bible Society is here referring to the King James Bible? "Our Gospels" Positively identified their Bible as the only Bible that had been translated into anything like a "Thousand Tongues". Their tracing of the lineage of their New Testament from the Syriac (Antioch/Peshitta) Bible and the "Latin form" (Itala), through to the Bible of Luther, can only apply to the Received Text used by Luther and Tyndale, enabling the King James translators to produce the Authorised Bible.

The American Bible Society made doubly sure that "Our Gospels" could not be confused with the Roman Vulgate, by identifying the King James Version as the progeny of the "Bible of the Separated" - not the Alexandrian, not the American Revised Version, not any of the plethora of modern versions that were pouring off the revisionists' presses. No! It was the Bible of King James to which they referred!

Neither was the American Bible Society alone in placing its trust and confidence in the King James Version as the true Word of God. In 1924, the Presbyterian Church paper, "The Herald and Presbyter Times", had issued this very discerning and timely insight into the confusion arising among Protestants:

How much more pertinent would such comment be to the situation today! It is precisely because the Revised Version and its imitators were rejected by discerning Christians that Protestants grew up using a standard Bible and thus were able to memorise and uniformly repeat the jewels contained therein.

But things were to change and, strange to say, pressure to change was to come from Protestant churches and institutions. It came slowly at first, almost imperceptibly, as the colleges of the Protestants increasingly introduced modern versions to their theological students. This should not be the least surprising as we have already seen how the Jesuits quickly put into practice the plan formulated at the Council of Trent to infiltrate Protestant colleges and institutions.

As Protestant graduates went out to occupy the pulpits, their use of the new versions began to give credence to the thought expressed in the "Herald and Presbyter Times" that those with "educated" discernment had discovered Bibles which they thought were more reliable than the King James Version.

Strangely, the exposure of the fraud of the "Revision" by Scrivener and especially Dean Burgon, was little headed, if not ignored. In North America it is doubtful whether the warnings from England had been given any significant exposure. But, in every age, God has His messengers who give warnings and reproof commensurate with the need of the times. One such man was Dr Benjamin G. Wilkinson of the USA.

It will be profitable to divert our attention from the Bible Societies in order to devote a chapter to this modern-day Burgon.

Bible Battle TOC