,' /7^ ^r-^a. (^\Uut' \.t^ eci-i>-<^y ^^ CaZT^fh^ A PAPER THE REVISED VERSION THE NEW TESTAMENT THE REV. CANON BRIGSTOCKE, M. A RECTOR OF TRINITY CHURCH, ST. JOHN, AS READ BEFORE THE SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, | THE DEANERY OF SAINT JOHN, ON OCTOBER 4th, 1881. \ "' VKVESABEH TJr 1883.- PULPIT SKETCHES. THE REV. WILLIAM F. if ORG AN, D. D., REC TOR OF ST. THOMAS'S CHURCH. St. Thomas's Pariah was organized some flftj yean ago. The oburoh oaouplod the northweal comer of Broadway and Hoaston-st., a locality well In adr vanee of tho uptown movement of that day. Gradually th« world of thrift and fashion gathered about It until the neighboring thoroughfarea, Houston, Bleecker, Boud and Great Jones sts., were ttUed with the solid respect*- biUty of old New- York. The building was, for Its ilav, » creditable and rather imposing structure In the Tudor- esque or Colleglate-Oothlo style, and among the vestry and pewholdera were representatives of the finest cultur* and intelligence of the period. A succosssion of dlstltt- guished rectors figure In the annals of the parish, than as now one of the strongest in tho Episcopal Church :— Doc- tors Duffle, Upfold, Hawks, Whltohouso, NeTille, and th* I present Inoumbent, Dr. Morgan. Two of the number b«- 1 came Bishops:— Upfold of Indiana, and Whitehouso of Illinois. Another, Dr. Hawks, was at the same time on« of the most fascinating and commanding preachers of hi* genei-atlon; and the classic, polished school of pulpit eloiiuence with its faultless elocu- tion, elegant rhetoric and 8ui)erb enthusiasm , which he so splendidly exemplified seems to have died j with him. It was the school of Burke, of Webster and Everett in the forer slo and parliamentary wovld. THE MAN FOn THE HOUB. The np-town current, however was strong and swlH, snd the once-popular and ovor-thronged church was left almost stranded between tho reccdmg and approaching tides of fashion and commerce. What with the encroach- ment of hotels, theatres and traders the parish had Indeed a blank outlook, when In 1857 Dr. Morgan was called to the rectorship. At this crisis a timid, Irresolute, cr short sighted administration would have preclpatat«u a speedy dissolution with nothing Out an empty, deserted edifiea to commemorate the history of a dead corporation. It was not a case for mere oratory or scholarship, for th« patients had drifted out of their reach, and the con- stituency was scattered widely hero and there. In search ot convenient ministrations. To fold these scattering sheep, to maintain and perpetuate the integrity and efficiency of the parish, to restore and indeed invigorate its early tra dltions, and ministrations presented a problem sufficiently perplexed to ctrain the endurance and resources of any administrator. But the conlunction was timely. Dr. Morgan was master of tho situation, and St. Thomas'* parish tcHlay under his contiimcd rectorship, in wealth, social influence, numbers, and religious activities and benovoldnces, stands well among the leading parishes of the Episcopal Church. Without landed endowments or revenues, depanding upon the fostering appropriations of Trinity Parish, during the earlier period of Its history, present re- sults are altogether the outgrowth of its own foresight and devotion. It is hardly conceivable that future deveX- ' opments lu the extension of the city may impair the dig- nity and inflaeuce of its oammauding position. Tha metropolis must crystallize about a common centre '^orne- ; %/horc, anil St. Thrnnas's Church can never drop out of vital relations with it. The vaf.t Cathcdi-al, the FlftJ*- Avenue Presbyterian Chureh.Temple Emauu-El.the great Reformed Church, all guarantso the Intagiity and permv nenceof an ecclesiastical centralization, while the grou» of the Vandwbilt palaces and hundreds of building* , Uardlyof secondary importance are not to bo lightly brushed away by the importunities of trade. 'IiiE CIIuRCtl AXD TUB UECTO"\. Tho church a?;aln fills a northwestern corner, at th» iiractlonof Fif th-avc. and Fifty-tnird-st, not far froaa tliroo miles above its first site. It was opaned for dtvina A PAPER ON THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEVlf TESTAMENT, BY THE REV. CANON BRIGSTOCKE, Rector of Trinity Church, Saint John. I. So much has been writtea on the subject of the Revised Versiou of the New Testaiiit-nt, that I cannot Lh expected to say what has not been said already. Very naturally, and very worthily the subject has actiacted wide and intense interest, and been treated of in evt-ry clans of literature. Hardly a publication of any resp'^ctabiliry has not had its articles on the Reviser! Version. Newspapers and maga- z.ues have all had their say, and so we have criticisms of every kind, from the off-hand writer, who has to turn out his effusions to ful fil his engagement to the editor of the daily newspaper, to the carefully prepared and well digested thoughts of the able and skilful re- viewer. Of these criticisms, I would here re- mark, that it savours both of ignorance and presumption to attempt, as many did, to criti- C'«? so great a work as the I vised Version, on tbe moment of its issue from the press. Ic is unreasonable to suppose that a work which has occupied nearly eleven years to accomplish by twenty four learned men could be at all ade- quately grasped by newspaper and other writ- era in a few hours. Their praise can no more bts received, than their censure need be feared. And though four months Lave now elapsed since the version apoeared, I can only say, that I feel sufficient time has not nearly been given to estimate its value. The more I study Che mattei, and I havo given much attention of late to it, the more am I convinced that it is one on w^ich very few are competent to pass a souid and correct jui'gment. Very few have the learning, or the materials upon which such a judgment can possibly be formed, so that the final verdict will have to come, as it has al- ways come, from the few who are qnalitied to give it. If then, as I have stated, I have not the advantage of introducing your attention to a new subject, yet I feel myself happy in being able at this distance of time to avail myself of much that has been said, and so to see more clearly into tho nature of the work, and it may be its probable results. Of all the great un- dertakings which have characteriEed the reign of oar present Gracious Sovereign, the Rt; vised Version of the New Testament will take a fore- most place. However attention may at times be diverted to some enterprise which sfems of greater moment, yet the most intense interest cannot fail to be centred on all that ccnc»-rns tliat Book which is moulding the lives of thous- ands in every part of the world. The adoptivn of a New Version would be to a great extent a revolution in its history; for there can be little doubt that so great a chanse in the English Version would have its effect whf-rever the Bible is known. When the subj-^ct of a Re- visior of the Bible was first spoken of as an undertaking likely to be set on foot, now if my memory serves me — some 15 or 20 years ago — it filled many with much alarm. The noble and justly valued version which we had, and which had been in use for 250 years, had so endeared itself to the hearts and consciences of the English people that it seemed little short of sacrilege to thir k of touching it witn a view of replacing it by another. Some seem- ed to think, for certainly they so spoke — as if the Euglish Version of Holy Scripture had come down, like the manna, from heaven. They had so often heard of the Bible as a gift from God that they seemed to have gained the impression that the version we had was the very autograph of the Holy penmen. Many of course could not but feel that whU had been tak«>n as the Guide of their Fathers was quite sufficient for them; indeed, there was a very strong feeling that the idea of a New Versicm was endangeiing the Truth itself. Sceptics fanned this flame of false alarm by alleging that there must be some mistake about Holy Scripture, as it needed revision, and perhaps after all, it might turn out to be a fraud. It was also held by many that there was no one competent to undertake the task. It was sup- posed that two centuries and a half had added nothing to our knowledge of the Sacred Writ- ings, and the phrase, "there were gitnts in those days" seemed to have its application to the scholars of the [last, to the depreciation of the scholarship of the present. With this state of feeling there has been much sympathy, up to the present time, so that when the Revised Version became an accomplish->d fact, and was is aed on Tuesday May 17, 1881, A PAPER ON TOE REVISED VERSIOJT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, many Mt nn uucomJortable misj^ivinj? lest Bonietbiux had happcLeii prejudicial to ihe iu- terestM of the Truth 1 need harcHy now say how thir> alarm wa>i ground leNH, that while the chai-i', that assurance is abundantly given that we have lost nothing of real value in the BH'horized versioii of the New Testa- ment. Nay more, we believe ihat the work is gaining, aud rightly gaining, wide spread Hp< probation, so that I would hazard the prophecy that we may live to see, or certainly our children will see our anthoriz^fd version rever- ently laid aside, aud replaced by another which shall di ciare more exactly, and more distinctly the will of God to man. H. In coming now to the more immediate con- sideration of my subject, the first point of which I purpose treating is the work of Revi- sion itself. What is meant by revising the New Testament? What i-> the nature of the work? It must be remembered here, first of all, that the Knglish version of the New Testa- ment in but a translation from the Greek, ex- cept perhap.s, the Gospel of St. Matthew, which is asserted by some to have been written originally in Hebrew. The version we have, and which is known by the name of the Au- thorized Version, is the work of many hands and several revisions. Its foundation was laid by William Tyndale. He was born in a village of GloucesterMbire, in 1484, and was educsted at Oxford and Cambridge. His tranilation first appeared in £ngland, in the early part of 1526. His work was entirely independent of Wycliffe's translation, and the descent of the Authorized Version may be clearly traced to it. The versions that followed were either repro- ductions under different names of Tyndale's translation, or of versions based upon it. It was a work to which he devoted his life, and was well and conscientiously executed. In the revisions that have followed Tyndale's Ver- sion, three stags should be marked. First, the publication of the Great Bible. The first edition was issued in 1 539 — a copy of which is in St. John'sCoUege Library, Cam bridge,Eugland. Secondly: the Bishop's Bible, issued in the reign of Elizabeth; and lastly, the publication of the King's Version in the reigu of James I., 1611. Besides these there was the Geneva Bible which, though put forth without any authority, was, nevertheless, widely circulated, and largely used by the translators of King James' Version, The Authorized Version, ac present in use, is then the remit of various revibions dating from 1526 to 1611; and the present revision is an attempt to give a more perfect translation, after the example of many previously made. III. The occasion vthich gives rise to a revisioa of the New Testament is the iin})erfect eharac ler of ttie version theu in »sn. Aud here an interesting euquiry arises. It will naturally be asked, why is this the ease? Is it on ac- count of the incompeteuey of the trttusl.itors? Why, for example, was it neces-ary to revise Tyndale's translation whieb is so much ccri(jt preserved in the Vatican Library iu Koaie, hence called the Vatican manuHcript, and known to textual c itica aM Codex li. N«thiu(; in reHliy known of its origin Ii In sup(K«.«ed to have be'-n wri'teii in Alexaiidiia, and is fouad in the earlie.it extant cataloKUe of the Vatican libraiy compiled in 1475. It is a single quarto vol. cuntaioing 759 thin and delicate vellum leaves, and is gUiirded by the Papal nuthoritii^H with the tuotit j>'alous care^ ordinary visitors seeing no more ot it than its red morocco covers. For the care thus bestowed on this really precious treasure no complaint would be made if competent ftudents might have access to its contents. But what shall we say when a scholar like Tregelles goes to lioine armed with a letter from Cardinal Wise- tuan ''or the expreits purpose o: consulting it, and then not permitted to open the volume until bis pockets had been searched, and he deprived of pen, ink and paper? Two clergymen were appointed to watch him, who tried to divert his attention by their ta'''ing and laughter, and if he continued at a passage too long, they would snatch the book from his handii. The late Dean Alford — so well known as a great Biblical scholar — had permission from Cardinal Autonelli to verify passages, but this permission nas interpreted to mtran that he might sse the book, and not use it. Be- sides these hindrances the library hours iu the Vatican are only three daily, and its attend- ants devoutly kec-p all churcti holidays, ihe manuscript contains the Old Testament in Greek as well as the New — t. « most of it, fur it wants a portion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and the Book of the Revelation. All these portions are b )und up in the volume, but clearly written in a modern hand of the 15th century. Its date is placed at the first half of the 4th century. It has been conjee tured that it was written at the date of the first General Council, A D., 325. In 1838 an edition of this manuscript was prepared by Cardinal Mai, and published three years after his death. This eiition was full of errors which the learned Tischendorf had the boldness to represent to the Pope, and aiiked permis- sion to undertake a fresh edition of the New Testament This was refused, but he was al- lowed to consult the MS him^ielt. For eight days he enjoyed this privilege, when the MS. was taken from him. He was, however, al- lowed 1,3 resume his labors for six days moie, and the rei>alt of his 14 days' work, of three hours each, was an edition far superior to any that preceded it. Five superb volumes of the Roman edition have since appeared, and it is hoped that ere long, unrestrained access will be permitted to this important document. 2. The Sinaitic MS. It is so called because it wad found in the coavent of St. Catharine, on M'>unt Sinai, by TiKchemlorf, only twenty-two years ago. He was travelling iu 1844 under tb« patronage of his own sovereign, Frederick Augustus, of Saxony, and states that he pick-d out of a battket full of papers, destined to li«ht the convent fire, 43 l.-»ve.>* of tile Grt-ek Se^itnagint of til" Old Te— tatiient. He at once recognixed their antiquity, au-d obtained them by anking, and finding that further portions of the MS. surviveu, he p'o- bably saved them from destruction by giving the monks a notion of their value. In 1853 ho revihited Sinai with a view of purchasing the whole volume, but he could then get no ioformation abont it. He did not, however, give up his pursuit, hut returned in 1859 as the accredited agent of the Emperor of Uutsia, and it was spontaneously laid before him. Though much mutilated, it still consisted of more than 800 large ^aves containing besides iiortions of the Septuagint, the whole of the New Testa- ment, with the Epistle of Barnabas, and much of the Shepherd ol Hermaa — two works of the apostolic age. Tisch-'udorf describes his sur- prise and delight at really getting pos-ession of this priceless volume, and how it seemed wrong to -"leep on the memorable 4th of Feb., 1859. He took it to Cairo, where he copied it, and afterwards to the Emperor of Russia. It now rests in a library in St. Petersburg. Competent judges, who have examined it, put down its date to the middle of the 4th cen- tury. 3. There is the Alexandrian MS., which lies deposited in the MS. room of the British Museum in London, and may be seen by the public a-j It lie-i open under a glass case Little is known of its history. It came into the musfUni at the foimation of its library in 1753, it hiving previously been the private pr-perty of the Sovereian Charles I. It cams to King Charles from the Patriarch of Constantinople, through his Turkish ambassador. There ia good evidence that originally it came from Alexandria. It is bound in four volumes, three ot which contain the Septuagint with the loss of only 10 leaves, and the 4th the New Testa- ment with stjveral great defects. It begins with Matthew xxv, 6. Portions of St. John's gospel are lost, as also of the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians. The characters are uncials of elegant shape. Its date is put down to the 4th century, and certainly not later than the beginning of thd fifth. Such is a brief account of three of the most ancient and important MSS., and from which some idea maybe form- ed as to the nature of the work of revision. It is a woi k requiring the most patient labor, and the most accurate scholarship. V. I come now to treat of the history of the re- cent revision. We shall all understand now that the Eog lish version of the New Testament 'being only a translation, there ii3 nothing unwarrantable in the suggestion that it may .need revising. A PAPER ON THE REVISED VERgrOV OF TIIE NEW TESTAMENT. Nav.more, when we know of the j^rt-at number cf MS8. and the varinuN rf^diogM, it will be quite certaiu that revixion is uec^'imnrT. Y«n, wn might as well face the fact, that if Biblirr I criticinm continues to eDi{«t(e the at- teDtinn of the beat acboUrH, an we hope if may, the KtigUHh VerHion will yet undergo mauy more revuiona. But I wonid here ^ive a word of reassurance. it may be tho«ight if reTiHion iag'tiiig to be carried ou continually, aurely it will eDilaoger the tiuth itaelf. We are able to give a most unequivocal insw»^r that "ill nuch tears are gioundles't. It is well said that tehat- ever at the various readings be adopted the light of Cori-tianity will never be obscured, nor its doctrines obliterated. The need of a revision arises from three or more causes. First, sini e our anthoriz-d version was made there have come to hand several documents of great antbority, on acconnt of their high autiiiuity. There are therefore now materials at band ankoown in former days for producing a more correct version. Secondly — It is nni- versally acknowlei'ged that the Greek text from which onr translation is made is imper- fect; and thirdly, the translation we have is full of mistakes. I will give a few examples of this last point, selected at random, by which any one can easily jndge for themselves. In Luke i, &9, we read "(hey called him Zachariaa," but this is not true, for it was the very name they w<;re prevented from giving the child. What the Greek states is the intention to call him Zacharias. It should be translated, ••they would have called him." In Acts iii, 19, 20, we read, "Repent ye thereJere, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when Die times for Tefre$hing shall come from th^ presence of the Lord." How difficult is it here to know what the phrase means, "When the times, etc. ; but when rendered as it shnuld be the meaning is clear. It should be, "Re- pent . . . that so seasons of refreshment may come, etc " In 1 Tim. vi, 5, we reaii, "supposing that gain is godlinefs" This is not only erroneous but absurd. How it could ev<^r have bsen accepted is difficult to conceive. 'Godliness' is the subject and not ♦'gain." It should be rendered, supposing that "godliness is a way of gain." Our present version makes St. Paul declare that "the love of money is the root of all evil," which is a statement which could not be seriously maintained. It should be rend-red, "The love of money is a root of all evil" — a truth which all experience readily admits. With SU' h plain mis- takes, are we to shrink from correct- ing them, and go on printing as the inspired Word that which is known it is not. It is neither honest nor reverential. To Dishop Ellicott belongs the credit ot baring spoken out boldly and wisely on this matter. Putting the question whether it is right to join those who oppose revision, he says: "Gad forbid — It is vain to cheat our goals with the thought that these errors art either insion has been more or less seri- ously discussed. It assumed a definite shape in 1870, when Bishop Wilbertorce, on Pet>. }Otb, moved the followiui; resolution in thn U(>per House of the C^nvdcation of Canter* bury: "That a committee of hotn Houses b» appointed, with |iower to confer with any com- mittee that may be appointed by the Convoca- tion of the Northern Proviocis to report upon the desirableness of a revision of the Author- ized Version of the New Testameo% whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopt- ed by the trausbtors, or in the translation made from the same shall, ou due investiga- tion, be found to exist. This resolution was afterwards extended to the Old Testament, the necessary words being inserted, and practical- ly the unanimous assent uf the House was given to it, and the committee was appointed. This resolution was communicated at once to the Lower House and readily gained its assent and a committee of that House appointed. Shortly afterwards the subject was discussed in the Northern Convocation ot the Province of York, fiut owing to entirely exaggerated fears, it declined lo nave anything to do with it. The j'>iut committee ot both bouses of the Coovoeatton of Canterbury proceeded with the work. They met March 24, 1870, and drew up, in a series of resolntions, a scheme of re- vision. The rules adopted for the guidance of the Revision Company will be found in the preface to the Revised Version. A committee was then duly appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury to take the work in hand, with power to invite the co operation of any emin- ent scholars, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong. Availing themselves of this li erty, invitations were issued to those who were known to be Biblical scholars of all religions denominations. After some changes through death and refusals, the Old Testament Company nnmbered 25 and the New Testa- ment 24. Shortly afterwards American schol- ars were invited to join in the work. This they did, and two companies, one for the Old Testament and one for the New, were organiz- ed in America to co-operate with the English companies in the work of Revision. The New Testament Company commenced its labors on June 22nd, 1870, and concluded them on No- vember 11, 1880. It was throughout under the presidency of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. As a rule a session of four days was A PAPEK ON TOE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. held cTPry mooth (»xoppt in Aof^ant aod S«-p trniber) for ihn teu yrmt» and a half, and the Mverago attrndauct) ash il&y wai sixcfnu. la prettfuting a report of thrir Ubora to the Con- vocation of Cauterbnry, on May 17th of this year, the Bmhop of O ouceittir and Brintol nave lUKuy lutemtiDij particularrt re-ix-ctinx tbt-ir work, some ot which I will htrn give. To Hhow the great care that hiid been talcn iigainttt haHty change.'* being adopted, he atate'l that the work had really undergone seven revibinns. First, the whole of the revioion committed to ibe company was revioed by it, and then transmitted to the American Company. It WBH ri-viewf d by the American Cotiipany and returned. It then underwent a second rt vis- ion in England, and aguin returned to Amer- ica. After these /owr revisions it was revi.icd again in England. Then a sixth revision took place in the form of carefully examining the rendering of words. And in a certain sense it passed through a seventh, as the chairman re- viewed the whole, line by line. Thus, the greatest care was taken that the work should be as perfect as 24 able scholars could make it. In the words of the chairman — "These three characteristics will ct^rtainly be found on every page of the Revised Version — thoroughness, loyalty to the Authorized Version, and due recognition of the best judgments of antiquity." Of the number of changes made, the Bishop reported that eleven years ago he had stated the amount of changes which would have to be mad'% and was told that he would frighten people Irom one end of the land to the other. W hat, however, has actu- ally taken place is that the changes are many more than he ihen estimated. In the Gospels there are 8 or 9 changes in every five verses, and in the Epistles there are 15 changes in every five verses. Yet so ma ly are of such a character tb it they will hardly be perceptible to the general reader. Tae utmost care has been taken throughout that while faithfully carrying out revision where it was needed, to make the new and old blend together, so that the venerable asp-'ct of the Authoriz-td version might never be lost, nor iis fair proportions sacrificed to mere pedantic accuracy. Such is the manner in which the work of revision was sei on foot, and the way in which the revisors endeavored to carry out their ra- sponsible task. VI. We come now to examine the result of their labors. The Revised Version of the New Tes- tament is an accomplished fact. What has the eleven years' work done f When we take up the volume we are first of all struck with the form in which it is print- ed. The sacred text is arranged m paragraphs and not in chapters and verses. The Divisioo of chapters and verses is still marked by numbers, bat these are subordinate to the paragraphs. This was a change which no revisers could tail to make. No manuscnpts have ever been found with the arrangement of cbaptets and verses, and heuce it has no kind of authority. It is only known in the English Version, and in (ha' not earlier than the Geneva Bible. It is an arrangement wt.ich we know has some reconiineudatiuni), but as reganis the sense, it is often misleading and obscuring; the division of chapters having in many instances been made in the most arbitrary manner. Few, I presume, have failed to no- tice that one of the chief features of ourpre ent lectionary, which we can no longer call "new," is I be di!-..^ter are the same as before. Thirdly — the 37th verse of Acts viii. — That verse is — "And Philip said, If thou be- lievest with all thy heart, thou mayest. Aud be auHwered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I must confess to fe^ ling deep regret at parting with this verse, it is one which ttaches much — but if it form no part of the original document of the sacred writer we mu^t do without it. Besides these omissions we have St. John vii. 53 to viii. 12, printed in brackets and as a seimrate paragraph to denote its very doubt- ful authority. The marginal reading tellN u^t that It is omitted in luo'it of the aucieut au* thorities. So though not now, yet wi- may be called to part with what ortaiuly bait been tliouuht to represei t our dear Siiviour peculiar- ly gr-utlK and diHcriminatiug iu dealing with open ^iu. We have also the latter ]Kjriion of St. Maik's Q'iNpel, that is, the la.^t 12 verNea of the last chapter* piced nlffrom the rest, and are informed in the margin that the ohiest Greek MSS. and some ether authorities oKiit it. The liuthority for inxertiug it is the frtct that It iH i{uoted by IreuaeU'« iu the 2iid century aa canonical Scripture. Wha' is likely enough is, that it is not the work uf St. Mark, but nue of the Apostles, who for rfasons with which we are not acijuaiuted thought well to write it. It is iiisertt^d without misgiving a.>< canonical Scrifiturf, fur the K>;viser!i have not printeU it iu brackets, but it is doubtful whether St. Mark was its author. All then that we lose of any important char- acter in the Revised Version after the most searching criticism are those portions just men- tioned. And however we may on some grounds regret these omissioun, yet we cannot regard them as uf a serious character. 2 1 would notice amended translations. It may seem strange, but it is a fact, that our authorized version has maay mistakes in trans- lation. Mistakes I might almost say of every kind — which do much to obscure, aud s( me* times even to iiervert the sense of the original. The fact sufficiently shows that the work of translation h..s never yet been done by compe- tent scholars. £xam[>les of these amended translations are very numerous. I can, of course, only cite some of them. In Matt. i. 21, our authorized version has "Ttiou shalt call his name Jesu.s, for he shall save his pe pie from their sins." The Reviners translate it, "Thou xhalt call his name Jesus for it is lie that shall &c." By this correction the work of salvation is more pointedly at* tributed to the person of Jesu.^ Christ. Again, iu Matt. v. 21, the authorized ver- sion has, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt lot kill." This would imply that some others than God pro- pounded the law. Which is a grievous error. The Revised Version has, "It was said to them of old time," which is a correct translation, and gives a totally different meaning. In Matt, vi., 34, we are told to "Take no thought for the morrow" — as though a Chris- tian was to live totally regardless of his tem- poral wants. This was not what our Saviour said. The correction here is, "Be not there- fore anxious for the morrow," which we all know sets forlh a much needed lesson. In Matt, xxviii., 19, our Lord's parting charge is stated to be, "Go ye therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The Revised Version has it, "Go ye A PAPER ON TriK REVISED VERSION OE THE NEW TESTAMENT. t' prcfore, and iii:ik«4 <1i'4ci[il<>ii of all nmiotiR, h»ptizifi>{ them itnit th« riHiiiH ol the F.«thfr, ami of the Sou ami of the Holy OhoHi " IJy thi« correcMoii it in made clear that it in the Churrh'n work not (iiiii[ily to teach the natioun, hnt to maka them iiiemberH of the t'hiin-h of rhrint — nnd that, ihat is to he itone hy the Hicrament of Hii)'iHm A rrrij im}xeareed Vc-r.-'iou this i.n clear hy the more accurate rendering, "They would have called him Zicharia-*." In the 5th chapter and 6th verse of the same Evangelist we have "their net br^ke," wnereas it should bo as corrected, "their net was breaking " So again, in viii, 23, we have "they Wfre filled with water," where it should be "they were filling with water," the ship becoming gradually overloaded with the fishes. In Matt, xxiv, 40, 41, we have a future tense where there should be a present: "The one shall be taken, and the othar left," for "one is taken and one is left." So in chapter v., 48, an imperative is put for a future, we read "Be ye there'ore pf-rfect, etc., for ye shall be perfect." Such are some out of many more instances which might easily be cited to show the corrections made in the mere translation of the original. But there are changes made of an altogether diflFerent kind. To some consider- able extent the Greek version from which the translators of 1611 produced th«* Authorized Version has been revised. This branch of the work was neceasarily of much greater anxiety, and required on the part of the revisera the highest critical acumen. A PAPER ON THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. CbaDKea under this head will be far more felt and sevi-rely ciiticised. It is with much regret we shall part with the words "as mow" in St. Mark's account of the traD)<9guration — to say that the garments of our Lord were "ichite," only— seems to leave their beauty undescribed. Auain in Maik ix., 4, we miss the wordx — "with tears" — as expressive of the agitation and grief with which the father of the devil- tormented child besought the help of our Lord. In St. Matthew, xxv., 6, there is a c1)'ar gain by the omission of "cometh" in the Re- vised Version. We read: "But at mi'lnight a cry is made, Behold the Bridegroom," the word "cometh" bein«; declared to be an inter- polation. We find a remarkable variation made in 2nd Cor., i., 20. It now reads: "For all the promises of God in him are yna, and in him. Amen, unto the glory of God by us." In the Revised Version it it rendered: "For how many soever be tne promises of God in him is th'' yea; wherefore, also through him is the Amen unto the glory of God, through us " Here it is clear, that the "yea" denotes the fulfilment of the promises on the part of God, and "Amen" is the recognition and thanks- giving of the church —a distinction wholly lost in the Authorized Version. In Lui'e, xxiv., 17, quite a different turn is given to the narrative by the insertion of another word. It read^: "And he said unto them, what manner of communications are these that ye have one to another as ye walk and are sad." In the Revised Version it is: "And he said unto them, what communications are these that ye have one with another as ye walk? And they ■stood still, looking sad." lu 1 Cor. xi, there are many changes of much interest. In the 24th verse we find the words, "Take.eat" omitted, as being an inter- polation; also the word "broken." In verse 26, "this cup" becomes "the cup." In verse 29 "unworthily" is omitted, as well as the word "Lord's," so that it reads in the R vised Version, "For he that eateth and drinketh, eatetb and drinketh judgment into himself, if he discern not the body." I pass on now to notice another class of cor- rections made by the revisers. The diction of our Authorized Version has, we all know, been often worthily made the subject of praise. "Our noble version" is not a meaningless phrase. It may be said to be a standard book of the English language, but in some respects the age has outgrown its langu- age, and there are scattered about it antiquated expressions — "archaisms" they are termed, which cease to convey to many the right mean- ing. Accordingly these, or I should say rather, most of these, are removed, for the Rnvisers evidently felt it a hazardous thing to remove an expres»ion or word simply because it was obsolete as now used, if it did not mislead the reader. "It is good/' as Archbishop Trench remarks, "that the phraseology of Scripture should not be exactly that of our common life: shouM be removed from the vulgarities and even the familiarities of this." Acting on this principle we find still the words 'hath,' 'whiles,' 'holpen,' throughly,' and the relative 'whidh' retained, but othe's are removed. We find 'wealth' no longer in the passage "Let no man sek his own, but every aian an- other's wealtn"— (1 Cor. x, 24 ) "Prevent" now means to "hind.ir," but in Matt, xvii, 25, and in 1 Tbess. iv, 15, it is usfd to "anticipate" or "precede " Accord- in Jy, thin word is changed. In the former passage the Revisers have rendered it, "Je»U8 spake first;" in the latter they use the word "precede." The word "conversation" is a fruitful cause of mistakes. Everywhere, ex- ceiit in Phil, iii, 20, it means conduct, and there it is translated "citizenship." The words "ofi'end" and "offence" are very mis- leading The Revisers could evidently not decide on another word which could convey the meaning of the original, so they have adopted the phrase "cause to stumblii" tor "offend," and "stumbl na" for "ofTence." Moses is styled a "proper ch.ld" in the Au- thorized Version; the expression is changed into "goodly." The singular expression, "Oc- cupy till I come"- meaning "trade ye" — is so expressed by the Revisers. In Acts xxi. 15 we read : "And after those days we took up our carriages." It is difScult to say exactly what meaning this exiression conveys to the ordinary reader. It is plain enough in the revised version, where we l^d — " We took up our baggage," etc. "We fetched a compass," is another strange and, we fear, misleading expre-ision; but its sense ts clear by the change into — "We made a cir- cuit." These instances will suffice to denote another class of revision. There is yet one more I will mention. It is really a great blemish in our Eaglish version to find proper rrames translated as they are. The same name, now with one termination, now with another, and also very differently spelt. For example we have, "'Noah' and 'Noe,' 'Korah' and 'Core,' 'Hosea' and 'Osea,' 'Sinai' and 'Sina, 'Midian' and 'Madian,' 'Miletus' and 'Mile- turn.* " Then we have 'Mark' and 'Marcus,' 'Luke' and 'Lucas,' 'Simon, son of Jona' and 'Simon, son of Jonas,' 'Jeremias' and 'Jeremy,' 'Timo- theus' and 'Timothy.' It is impo88it)le to say upon what principle, if any, the translators of 1611 proceeded in the translation of proper names. What confusion of idea arises in peo- ple's minds. I say people's minds, for the New Text is emphatically a people's book. When they hear all this variation, it is hard- ly possible but that they would wholly mis- take the meaning. These variations have been corrected by the Revisers, so that the render- ing of proper names may be consistent through* oat. A PAPER ON THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Sach is an oatline of the chief classes of changes in the Revised Version. Omissions, amended translations, new readings, removal of archaisms, and u ore consistent rendering of proper names. In all these particulars the Revised Version will certainly be generally considered to be a great improvement on the Authorized Version. It will be felt, as it is read, that the sense of the Divine revelation does stand out more clearly, and that we are able to enter more deeply than before into the mind and will of the Spirit who indited it. The more the work of revision is studied, and the more that is known what that work is, I am confident that the verdict will be that a noble work has been achieved, and that it is n marvel of scholarship as well as of honest, devoted, and pains- taking labo^. But we can- not pronounce it perfect. It is still we ven- ture to think below what will be demanuad, hefore anything like a universal consent will be given to allow it to displace the Authorized Version. We believe that it does not exhaust all the resources of Biblical knowledge availa- ble at the present time. While too we have no objection to changes when r quired — yet we baelieve that there is a vast amount of change which will never be allowed. Why should we have "two robbers" — instead of "two thieves" — a thief is a robber — and we are satisfied that the Penitent Thief will not be converteo into the Penitent Robber. What ad> vantage is there in the changes — "the last far- thing," for "the uttermost farthing." "Having shut thy door" for "when thou hast shut worship In 1870, thy door," or be ye followers of God as dear children," for " Be ye imitators of God as be- loved children." But whatever changes of the kind are allowed or disallowed we hope very earnestly that no version of the New Testa- ment will ever beaccepted that changes charity into love in the xiii. chapter of 1 Corinthians. Not only is the rythm of that beautiful chap- ter removed, whici is not a sniiill thing, but it would give a serious wrencn to all those feel- ings, sentiments and works which have grown out of its use in that passage. If asked what may be con» ortUnarr Gothic miS »« til* ar« m m jir.n .w*:tn *9tw*^ kuo vrosa, nsitig in apaldal form In a couverglnK arek whioh reaches the base of the central dome. firoaJ, ro- cessed chambers on either side, roofs arching outward* face the congregation and contain the equal sections of the great organ ; so that the liturgy, pn^aching aud luusia are heard everywhere without reverberations, and with perfect distinctness. Standing under the dome, the grand Florentine Duomo comes lrreslstll)ly In mind, and th« peerless beauty of that cotisnmmate blosscm of ha'.f- Byzantlne art seems to have Inspired this Ootliic interior. The decorations of the ohanoel and organ recesses, by Mr. La Farge, Intensify this Florentine suggestion. Th» lower sections of the chancel wall-surfaces are given u^ to great panel cartoons, lliostrating the Resurrection, tw» on either side the altar, above and behind wliich rises » great has relief in gilded bronze, by St. Gaud ens— aiigoU In adoration grouped about a strongly outline* cross, surmounted by a crown. If Mr. La Farge's cartoons have the bold, assured sweey and devout inspiration of the Florentine painters. St. Gaudens has felt deeply the sevei e, spiritual beauty of the della Robbia sculptures in the Duomo, as any ou9 may see who will bear this alto relievo In mind while studying the wonderful Lucca della Robbia altar-iomb at the Metropolitan Art Museum. The chaneol window !m above is filled with the half smothered glow of sacrxl figures, In harmonious stained glass. Aud a line, mellowed ripeness of congruous beauty, deeply studied aud pro- foundly religious, fills the sacred place. A STRONG, WEALTHY AND ACTIVE BODY. ^ There are sittings for 1,800 la this great church, an4 it has held on occasions 2,500. It is well fliled twice every Sunday by a devout congregation among whom are many distinguished peonle and leading families. President Barnard, Dr. Short and several professors of Columiil.! Col- lege are attendants. George M. Miller, George Pell, RosweU P. Flower, D. O. Mills, the Rhinelanders, Sehermerboius and many others of the same circle are pewholders. It is a busily working church. Mftny societies for charitabia and social purposes engase the raemborsliip. A large and beautiful chapel In East 8ixtietii-.st. Wiw 1)nilt l).v tUa vestry at a cost of nearly $40,000, and is irenprou«iy sus tained by the parent Cluiroh, Ucently Mr Roswell P. Flower, at a cost of uoa rly $:;o- 000, foundefl through his rector, St. Thom.is', House, a Memorial building lu Kast Fifty-iiintli-st^ for religious and social uies. The chaiitles and benevolences of the parish are generous and miiny. There are between four and tire hundred famiUes and' more than 1,000 communicants. THE CARKKR AND THR CHARACTKKISTICS OK TUB KKCTUK. Dr. Morgan Is an alumnus of Union College and also ot the General Theological Seminary in Twentieth-»t, I\»c three years he assisted the venerable and meraoriMe Dr. Crosweil, In Trinity Church, New-Haven. Then followed a brilliant rectorship, reaching from 1844 to ltio7, in Norwich, Oonn., during which time he devalopcd out ot his Uttle charge one of the strongest parishes lu the dio- cese, and biillt a beautiful and costly stone church. OH: his departure to undertake the rectorship of St. Thomas'a the hearts of all of the people went out after him as ona of their most-honored and beat-loved townsmen. Foe twenty-six years he has administered the shifting iutsr- esta and varied fortunes of his parish with the sure, firm hand of a master; filling positions of great trust and honor In his own church, actively identltled wiia ihe bPslj interests of ai^t, education and social culture; and he U'W gtands In the fuU ripeness of his ministerial life, th» measure of his strength and InHuenco unimpaired. . As a preacher he is uniformly clear, vlsrorous, animated and persuasive. He reads his sermons witii a full-toned, resonant, impressive elocution, In which is felt a felicitous conjunction of strength and refinement. His laa guage is slneularlv forcible and at the same time nlcturesque la sug^ e itlon. He li simple, direct and lumin- ous m Ills treatmeui of a text ; but much of his strengtJi comes "lom his deep knowledge of men and profound sympathy with human life and nature. With rare court- lineas and eieganoa of presence his geniality and ttnenesc of breeding give eaav approach for all sorts and oondliiona of men. and the common people hear him gladly and love and understand him. The history of »t. Thomas's parish, «lncel857. Is Uterally a history and memorial of Ita rector. For the thrift and development of the parish. not tc say Its duration and existence, are, each and all, of and from the IMe of the rector. Ha Is a cousin ot the late Governor Morgan, a kioaman of Junius Morgan, tua London banker, and a brotlier of George D, Morgan ol Irylagtoa-on-HudaoB.