, there is little, if any thing, with which any one but a
professed caviller can find fault.

I confess that in one instance I have not been able to carry my point;
though I assure you that I did not yield until I found that it was
absolutely of no avail to offer any further opposition. For although I
was convinced that Mr. L. was wrong, and I think when I state the
particulars that you will be of my opinion, he had on his side the
Chinese scholars of St. Petersburg, Baron Schilling amongst the rest, and
moreover being Censor he could have prohibited the work from proceeding
if I had been too obstinate. I will tell you the ground of dispute; for
why should I conceal it? Mr. L., amongst what he called his improvements
of the translation, thought proper, when the Father Almighty is
addressed, to erase the personal and possessive pronouns _thou_ or
_thine_, as often as they occur, and in their stead to make use of the
noun as the case may require. For example, 'O Father, thou art
merciful,' he would render, 'O Father! the Father is merciful'; 'Our
Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,' by 'Our . . . may the
name of the Father be made holy, may the kingdom of the Father come, may
the will of the Father be done on earth,' etc. I of course objected to
this, and enquired what reason he had for having recourse to so much
tautology. He replied that he had the best of reasons; for that amongst
the Chinese and Tartars none but the dregs of society were ever addressed
in the second person; and that it would be most uncouth and indecent to
speak to the Almighty as if He were a servant or a slave. I told him
that Christians, when they address their Creator, do not address Him as
if He were a great gentleman or illustrious personage, but rather as
children their father, with a mixture of reverence and love; and that
this mixture of reverence and love was one of the most characteristic
traits of Christianity. But he said that in China children never address
their parent in this manner; and that it was contrary to all received
usage; and that in speaking to a parent the children observe the same
respectful formula of phraseology as in addressing an Emperor or Viceroy.
I then observed that our object in sending the Bible into China was not
to encourage the Chinese in any of their customs or observances, but
rather to wean them from them; and that however startling any expression
in the Bible might prove to them at firs